Episode 2067 Scott Adams: MTG On 60 Minutes, Keith Olbermann Goes Racist, Bud Light, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Budweiser Light commercials
Keith Olbermann turns racist
Marjorie Taylor Greene on 60 Minutes
Twitter slaps down fake news
Fetterman's brain
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 and also a highlight of your life so far.
Now, no matter how exciting your life has been, it could always be better.
And let me tell you how to take it up a notch.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass to tank your chalices down, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go, go.
I'd like to add a new sponsor to the show.
Dylan Mulvaney.
Dylan, come on over here.
Okay, how many thought he was actually in the room?
She.
Sorry.
How many thought that Dylan She was in the room.
You believed it for a moment, didn't you?
Yeah.
For a moment you thought, maybe it's possible.
But no.
No.
And I apologize for the mispronoun.
Pronoun.
But I insist that in return for my trying to use the right pronouns, when possible, that you forgive me when I use the wrong ones accidentally.
That's got to be the deal.
That has to be the deal.
I'll do my best.
But you gotta give me a pass when I miss one.
Alright, speaking of Dylan Mulvaney, do you think it's true that Dylan is the spokesperson for Budweiser Light?
Because, as was just pointed out to me, I haven't seen Budweiser say anything about it.
Was it April Fool's?
Do we know for sure if it was April Fool's or real?
Because there's now like a... there's a boycott effort going on.
So some say it's real, but others are saying April Fool's.
We actually don't know, do we?
Isn't that interesting that we don't... Fox is reporting it real, somebody says.
But would they know?
I mean, could they be wrong?
So Budweiser, has Budweiser even confirmed it?
Has anybody seen Budweiser say, yes, this is our new advertising?
Bud Light Partners.
But I wonder if the story was wrong.
All right, I'm going to say there's a question mark next to this story, but we're going to treat it like it's true.
I mean, it's in the news.
Two signs of the time.
Every now and then, I like to give you a signpost or two to tell you where you're at in the long arc of human civilization.
So here are two signs of the times.
Number one, a company sells a product that tastes like Clydesdale piss, causes auto accidents and domestic abuse, and has as its main ingredient a slow-acting poison.
So that's a sign of the time, number one.
Number two, the public calls for a boycott over their choice of a trans person as a brand ambassador, because that's the real problem here.
The real problem is not that the product tastes like piss and makes you drive your car off a cliff and beat up your spouse.
No, no, it's not.
It's not a problem that it's a slow acting poison that's destroying civilization itself.
The real problem, the real problem is their choice of brand ambassadors.
Just putting that out there.
I have no comments.
That's just two things that are true.
However, When you're going to pick a brand ambassador, there are lots of variables which you must consider.
Variable one, is this person going to help us sell our product?
And number two, is there anybody who would not buy your product just because of the way you advertised it?
And I would say that a very, very bad way to advertise Would be to pick something that you know will cause some people, maybe a lot of them, to not buy your product.
That's like as hard as you can fail in the advertising world.
And, well, I'm sure that they would like to show themselves as a woke company.
I'm not sure they made the best advertising choice.
It looked like a social choice better than a business choice.
Because I would say the first rule of advertising is don't make an advertisement that says, not only will I not buy your product because of that advertisement, but I'm going to organize a boycott against you.
You cannot fail harder than putting on a commercial that causes social media to say, boycott!
That's the worst you can do.
There's nothing lower below that.
Well, maybe put your whole company out of business, but you could get there.
However, there's one other problem that cartoonists are highly qualified to judge, and that is, don't associate a brand ambassador if there are too many Wordplay opportunities.
People don't think of that.
It's like when you name your child.
Don't name your child something that's easy to make fun of.
Am I right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So that's something you have to think about.
How will people make fun of it?
But as UltraMegaLaurie says on Twitter, No thanks to Tranheiser Bush.
Tranheiser Bush.
See, there's your first wordplay.
They should have seen that coming.
They should have, okay.
Should have seen it coming.
Now this is why they need to hire a cartoonist.
They should say, Scott, we're thinking of the following, you know, promotional campaign.
Do you see any problem with it?
And I'd be like, Okay, so what's your slogan?
King of beers.
King of beers.
I'm seeing a problem here.
Seeing a problem here already.
Because somebody's going to take beers and replace the B with a Q because they're assholes and it's going to be the king of... That's no good.
So I'd say no, no.
You don't want to open up this opportunity for bigotry.
And then I'd say, alright, so you want to put the face of the new brand ambassador on the can itself.
Somebody's going to say Tran on a can.
Somebody's going to say Tran on a can.
That's what you have to watch for.
And sure enough, they are.
Now, as a cartoonist, I would have seen all of these coming.
I would have, you know, and I would have even seen some of the, let's say, darker ones that you've suggested in the comments.
Yes, I would have thought of those too.
I wouldn't mention them.
I wouldn't say them.
But there we are.
And I'm not sure that you should call the product Bud, because Bud seems like, sort of, Male-oriented?
I don't know.
So that's the exciting story there.
So John Fetterman's out of the hospital and talking about his depression.
And apparently he says he's been treated successfully.
So his depression is either minimized or gone or something.
But here's a question I have for you.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But if somebody is treated for depression, and they're a senator, wouldn't you want to know if their brain has been modified by an antidepressant?
Is that something that the public should not be aware of?
Because here's my take.
It's just purely scientific.
This is not based on politics.
There's no politics in this comment.
Wouldn't matter who it was.
If I voted for somebody who was not on antidepressants, I would say, well, that's who I voted for.
They presented themselves a certain way.
I judged that, and then I voted for it.
And then they go on antidepressants.
In my opinion, that's a personality-altering action.
And if the personality is a big part of what you're voting for, because it's the personality that tells you how they'll act in the next situation, right?
You don't care what they've done so far.
You care what they'll do next.
That's all you're voting for.
You're not voting for the past.
And the biggest factor on how people will act is how they've acted before.
And if the way they've acted before has been erased because it's now a new brain, right?
The brain plus an important modifying chemical, it's kind of a new brain.
And I would say that the history of the old brain is now erased because you can't be sure that they would act the same way they would have had they been depressed.
Now, I don't think it means that they would act worse.
Let me be clear about that.
It could be that having a depressed candidate is way worse than having somebody who's been treated for it.
Might be way worse.
So I'm not saying one is worse or better.
I'm saying it's such a big, big variable.
Yeah, don't worry.
We took your senator who's voting on whether we go to war or not, and we modified the senator's brain.
But don't worry about it.
What?
Can I have some details about how you modified the brain of the person who will vote on the question of whether I live or die?
Nah.
Personal.
It's personal.
Wait.
How personal is that?
This is the brain that is deciding if I live or die.
You know, collectively.
That's none of your business.
Does anybody else see that this is a problem?
I feel like that should be disclosed.
I feel like if somebody goes on a brain-modifying drug, the public should know.
I mean, only for your top politicians.
I mean, I might care less if it's a mayor of a city or a state legislator or something, but if you're in the federal government, you're a senator or a president, yeah, I think we ought to know.
If a president went on an antidepressant, You don't think that would be news?
I mean, useful news?
News you could act on?
News that would change your vote?
Maybe.
It might make you support them more.
But it would change your vote for some people.
It would change their vote.
Anyway, here's an update on my mascot.
As you know, Keith Olbermann has been my mascot for years.
And it's been very entertaining, and he's done a great job, if I'm being honest.
He's done a great job as my mascot.
But today, he's been called out for being a racist.
They didn't say sexist, but I think that's implied.
And what he did was, he criticized a young woman who was a college basketball player.
And she did something mocking an opponent on the other team, and he called her out for being a effing idiot.
Well, let me tell you.
If you criticize a black woman for doing something unprofessional or unsportsmanlike, in my mascot's opinion, you will be called a racist.
You should be called also a sexist, but I think they forgot that part.
And so I saw a tweet by Ashley Bell.
Ashley is, if you go by the profile picture, would be a black male who said, calling a young educated black woman an idiot for mimicking her opponent is more than unfortunate.
There's a learning moment for you here if you choose to take it.
The media of which you belong can help end these stereotypes or push to perpetuate them.
So there you have it.
Using the standard which I believe is now the standard we all accept, if somebody who is black and female does something that you don't like, and you call out the activity, just the activity, just the mocking part, then you are guilty of being obviously a racist, and I think it goes without saying, a horrible sexist.
A horrible sexist.
And so, it saddens me to say this, I have to cancel Keith Olbermann as my mascot.
Because I don't want to be associated with his blatant racism and sexism for having one time said that somebody's hand motions were inappropriate.
If that's not racist, I don't know what is.
Can we agree?
Would you agree that if somebody makes a hand motion that you disagree with, that mocks an opponent, and you criticize them, but The person you criticize is black.
That's racist.
That's racist!
Alright?
Let's play by the rules.
I don't make the rules.
I don't make the rules, I just play by them.
So this racist, sexist, piece of crap, who used to be my respected mascot, I'm canceling him, and so I need a new mascot now.
And you know, because of social media, people act badly.
And this is terrible, but there's a link to a story about Keith Olbermann being very bad in bed.
And I'm not claiming it's true.
It's just lots of reports.
Lots and lots of reports.
So I have an idea about ending the war in Ukraine.
If anybody'd like it.
Now remember, war is often absurd.
You know, you could trace back the historical reasons why a war started, but once it gets going, there's something that's purely absurd about it after a while, isn't there?
Like, typically.
And the Ukraine-Russia thing is probably more absurd than most things.
Number one, we don't really have a good reason to be fighting.
Oh, there's reasons.
I could list them.
You know, you don't need to remind me what they are.
I could list them.
But they don't feel strong enough, do they?
Does anybody else have that feeling?
It's like, okay, I get it.
I understand what happened.
I understand why that caused what happened, and then that caused what else happened.
I get it.
But it doesn't feel like a good enough reason.
It just feels a little bit absurd.
And so, I'm going to suggest... Yeah, you don't have to tell me the reasons.
You don't need to remind me of the reasons.
I'm aware of them.
I just feel like, collectively, they're not strong enough.
Like they're... Clearly, there was a better way to handle this.
Would you agree?
Would you agree there was a better way to handle it on both sides?
That either side could have made it go away by acting differently.
I think so.
Someone say no, you disagree.
Alright, but whether or not you disagree that it's absurd, I give you my solution.
Are you ready?
So you know there's been fighting over this Ukrainian city of Bakhmut.
And the Russians say they control it legally.
Well, we're legally in control.
The Ukrainians say, well that's nice that you're legally in control, but are you aware that our army is still there?
Are you aware that our army is still there?
And I guess the Ukrainians still control some portion of Makhmud.
And the Prigozhin, the head of Wagner Group, tried to do a photo shoot, a photo opportunity, where he was shown raising a flag to show that they controlled it.
And the Ukrainians mocked him.
He said, you're raising a flag over rubble.
What, you got some rubble?
And we're still here, by the way.
Not only do you only control some rubble, but you didn't even get rid of the Ukrainian army yet.
That's hardly a win.
But here's my suggestion.
It looks like Bakhmut is where they're bleeding each other, so the Russians are getting, you know, bled of men and supplies and ammunition.
The Ukrainians are probably suffering in a similar way.
I don't know who has more of what, it's hard to tell.
But here, is my suggestion for ending the war in the most humane way.
You ready?
Bakhmut is already thoroughly destroyed.
There's just nothing left.
It's just rubble.
They seem to want to both fight over that rubble.
The Ukrainians definitely want to control that rubble.
The Russians, they want that rubble more than anybody.
Here's my suggestion.
Decide the entire war On the battle for Bakhmut.
Just decide.
All right, we'll do it here.
Whoever wins in Bakhmut, you get to keep, you know, the parts you've already captured.
And we'll just call peace right there.
If Ukraine wins, we'll take Crimea back.
And we'll, you know, all the disputed regions we'll take back.
If Russia wins, they get to keep all the regions that they've already conquered.
But the only place you'll fight is in Bakhmut.
Because it's already destroyed.
It's basically, it's like one battlefield that no innocents will be killed.
So here's the argument.
Unless the way you want to win the war is by attacking civilians, which the Russians have done.
They've attacked, well, they've attacked more the infrastructure which directly affects the civilians.
So, oh no, you say my idea is silly, you say my idea is absurd, and it is.
My idea is absurd.
And that's the point.
That's the point.
Imagine if that suggestion were raised.
It won't happen, but imagine if that became like a headline.
Why don't you just fight it out in Bakhmut, winner take all?
Just fight it out there.
Because here's the thinking.
Whoever can win and control Bakhmut is probably going to win the whole thing.
Yes or no.
Whoever, if you said we're just going to decide on Bakhmut, whoever would win that, probably would win the whole thing.
Not guaranteed.
Not guaranteed.
There's no guarantees at war.
But probably.
Why would you say no?
Why would you say no?
Because Russia would go after the whole infrastructure and take down the whole country.
That would be... See, I think they would.
But then they'd stretch their forces, right?
So if Russia stretches their already stretched forces, remember, they can't even capture Bakhmut.
Bakhmut seems to be the limit of their power right now.
If they could capture more than that, I think you'd see a lot more action.
It looks like that's all they have.
And so, imagine an absurd solution to an absurd war.
Which is not crazy.
And it's not that the solution would work or that it would hold.
What it would do is show, hold on, you haven't heard the punchline yet.
Hold on.
If you say my idea is so stupid that it should not be considered, then you're understanding the idea.
You are understanding the idea if you say that's absurd, it's stupid, all these reasons, it's dumb, it's never been done, it's unprecedented, Putin would laugh.
All of those things?
True.
That's why it's a good idea.
It's a persuasion idea, it's not a war idea.
Here's why.
If you actually engaged Russia with this idea, it would show how absurd the war itself is.
It would also highlight that there are no better ideas.
There are no better ideas.
If the best idea is... I was going to swear, but I'm holding back.
If the best idea was freaking stupid, but you also came to understand it as the best idea, it would change how you thought about the whole war.
It would make it harder to push the war, for Russia anyway.
It would make them harder to push a war if the other side was suggesting an absurd way to end it.
Absurd.
Believe it or not, it would help.
Because it would clarify the absurdity of the whole enterprise.
All right.
It'll never happen.
It's just a sort of a thought experiment.
So RFK Jr.
says out loud that he's thinking about running for president.
And I got to say, that's an interesting prospect.
You know what would be good for America, just really good for America, would be a strong Republican candidate running against RFK Jr.
instead of Biden.
Because that would be an actual contest.
And I don't think that RFK Jr.
comes from the crazy wing of the left.
My guess is, I don't know, but my guess is he's closer to a realistic center.
But he also has this weird quality that he agrees with a lot of Republicans on vaccinations, specifically the COVID stuff.
And that won him a lot of fans.
A lot of fans on the right, just for that one take.
I think he earned his place on the national stage.
What do you think?
Whether or not you want to vote for him, separate question.
But I think he earned his place.
What do you say?
So I would give him a lot of respect for what he's done so far.
Interesting.
Yeah, you don't have to say you'd vote for him.
But wouldn't you prefer him over Biden?
Let me ask you that.
Would you prefer RFK Jr.
over Biden if that were your only choices?
Yeah, yes.
Absolutely.
Because the one thing that JFK Jr.
signals very clearly is that he's not on the take.
If there's anybody who's more clearly signaled that he can't be bought, it's RFK Jr.
Nobody's ever signaled that as strongly as he does.
I mean, he could be wrong about anything, but he signals it.
Really strongly that he can't be bought because of the vaccination stuff.
If he could be bought, he would have been bought.
You don't think somebody tried?
Of course they did.
Of course they did.
Apparently he can't be bought, at least not on vaccinations.
So this is a really positive impact.
Now let's talk about his voice.
Here's an update you might not be aware of, but he did have a procedure To help with his voice and I've listened to his recent speeches and it does seem to have helped.
It's not a complete fix, it might improve more as he gets used to whatever the medical procedure was.
So it might improve, but It's serviceable.
You know, it works now.
He can say things, you can listen to him, he can communicate, and you can get used to it.
So, I'm not sure, do you know that RFK Jr., he thanked me personally for helping him get his voice problem fixed?
How many of you were aware of that?
Because I've mentioned it a few times.
It's strange to be in my position, Because you touch so many things that become part of history, just sort of accidentally touching them.
But the back story is I had a voice problem for three and a half years where I couldn't speak.
Something called a spasmodic dysphonia.
I don't know if that's why he has, but I had made some suggestions of surgeries he could get that might help.
He told me he looked into it.
You know, just by DM.
He told me he looked into those surgeries, decided not to get the surgery that I got, which was surgery in the neck.
That's what this scar is.
But he did a different procedure.
I won't mention it because that's his business.
But he did a different procedure and got some benefits.
And it did make a difference.
So, isn't that weird how that could have changed history?
Such small little things.
I was just trying to help somebody who had maybe a similar problem, I wasn't sure.
Just trying to help somebody.
May have changed the world.
How weird that is.
That is so weird that it could have changed the world.
Accidentally.
Alright.
How would you like to talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene appearing on 60 Minutes?
Well, if you haven't seen it, I haven't seen the whole interview.
I'll probably go back and watch it.
But I'm going to play a clip in which Marjorie Taylor Greene is challenged by 60 Minutes Leslie Stahl on the question of calling Democrats pedophiles.
Oh no!
Imagine being on 60 Minutes and being, like, trapped on that question.
It's like, oh, what am I going to do now?
I did say those things.
Now I have to explain why I said those outrageous things on 60 Minutes.
What will I do?
Well, let's see what Marjorie Taylor Greene did.
She says that are over the top, like the Democrats are a party of pedophiles.
I would definitely say so.
They support grooming children.
They are not pedophiles.
Why would you say that?
Democrats support, even Joe Biden the president himself supports children being sexualized and having transgender surgeries.
Sexualizing children is what pedophiles do to children.
Okay.
And things she says that are over the top, like, the Democrats are a party of pedophiles.
Oh, no.
Oh no.
Oh no.
Marjorie Taylor Greene just got invited into their house with a flame thrower.
She just set their furniture on fire.
Okay.
I am such a fan right now.
I'm such a fan.
I was sort of on the fence.
I was a little bit on the fence about MTG.
I was a little bit on the fence, but not anymore.
That's so funny.
All right, let me tell you what I'm laughing about.
So if the case is not obvious, you may be laughing at your own joke.
So here's.
So first, we have to talk about her point.
All right.
So the point she made is if the Democrats, including Joe Biden, are in favor of Trans-related, let's say, activities with children, that the trans topic, this would be Marjorie Taylor Greene's opinion.
Alright, so this is not my opinion.
There's no my opinion in this.
I'm just explaining her opinion.
So, she's making the point that the trans situation by its nature, if you put children into that environment, it's a sexualized environment.
And if you're intentionally putting children in a sexualized environment, she's gonna call you a pedophile.
Or a groomer.
Now, do you accept that as a logical argument?
Is that logical?
Oh, a lot of people say yes.
Alright, that's why it's funny, because a lot of people are gonna say yes.
So, to Republicans who watch this, Was it not your impression that she just dunked on Leslie Stahl and that her answer was sort of perfect?
I'm not saying true.
Not technically true.
I'm not saying that.
But in a political sense, in a persuasion sense, yeah, it was kind of perfect.
Now, the fact that she didn't back down, she didn't blink, she didn't hesitate, she didn't hum, she didn't pause, she didn't say, uh, well, uh, uh, she didn't stammer.
She just looked right in her eyes and said, Democrats, including Joe Biden, are in favor of putting children into these trans situations.
That's a pedophile.
It was kind of amazing.
It was just sort of an amazing moment.
Now here's the part that I've been laughing about all morning.
I'm not sure if you caught this.
It's not why she's sad.
And it's not just that Leslie Stahl did the eye roll, which we'll talk about.
It's that MTG, by going on such a large platform, and by going right into the belly of the beast, going right into their living room with her fire, you know, her fire thrower, flame thrower, you can't ignore it now.
It can't be ignored.
So before it was just something that people said on social media, you know, she said it on social media, maybe in a speech, but you can ignore it.
Now 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes has created this as news.
Before it was just stuff crazy people were saying.
Now it's news.
And do you know what is the best part of this?
For the rest of time, Democrats are going to have to answer the question, Are they pedophiles?
Standing ovation.
I don't like to give too many standing ovations because it cheapens them.
Thank you.
But Marjorie Taylor Greene just paid back Democrats for the fine people hoax.
She just paid them back.
How sick are you, for those of you who have ever been, let's say, Trump supporters, how sick are you of having to defend whether you're a racist just because you're a Republican?
Are you tired of it?
Are you sick of it?
Do you wish you had something you could do that felt like payback?
Well, you got it.
And let me tell you, I have been completely against calling Democrats pedophiles and groomers.
Completely against it.
I'm completely in favor with this argument.
With MTG's argument.
I would stick to that and say, hey, I wouldn't want my children around you.
That's it.
Now I'm not going to use the P word or the G word if I'm tweeting because on social media I think that's too far.
I don't like using those words and I don't think it's good for your Twitter account either.
You probably get suppressed if you use words like that.
So I'm not really in favor of using groomer or pedo.
Here's what I suggest.
I ran a Twitter poll, highly unscientific, In which I asked my followers, who of course lean right, even though I don't.
Just to remind you, I'm more left-leaning, but my followers are clearly conservative types.
Mostly.
And I asked this question on Twitter.
Would you be okay with a Democrat babysitting your child?
75% said no.
25% were either maybe or yes.
That's the right question.
That's the question that prevents you from looking absurd.
Because the suggestion is in the question.
Right?
But there's more than that.
This is good persuasion because it allows the user to imagine several interpretations.
If I say I wouldn't let a Democrat babysit my kid, Your first thought might be, oh, because they might try to touch them or something.
Or your first thought might be, no, they're going to teach them woke stuff.
Or, no, they're going to teach them that I'm a racist.
The parents are racist.
Because that actually happens.
That's like a real thing.
But it allows people to think of all the ways that somebody could damage your kid.
It also brings it right into your house.
If I say, hey, it looks like they're damaging people you don't know, people you'll never meet, they might be damaging them.
You might care, but you won't care the way you will if you think it's your house.
That you care about a lot.
So if you imagine somebody in your house, this is the persuasion part, you make it visual in the mind, then you imagine your own child, even if you don't have one, you can imagine having one.
And you put that Democrat in your mind in the same room alone with your child, and you could think of a lot of things that could go wrong, couldn't you?
You could think of a lot of things that could go wrong leaving your child with a Democrat.
Now, of course, Does anybody mind if I do a special, just a little notice for the stupid people?
Because every now and then, this is like the smartest audience in the world, but every now and then somebody will like accidentally get over here and there'll be a stupid person watching.
So this will just be a message for the stupid people and I'll try to talk it in stupid language so the rest of you just talk among yourselves.
This will just be for the few stupid people who wandered in here.
When I say Democrats, I never mean every one of them.
I never mean every one of them.
When I say something about a race, like white people, I do not mean every white people.
I do not mean that.
If I say Elbonians like to play chess, I don't mean every Elbonian likes to play chess.
I don't mean everyone.
So what would be not helpful would be for you to tweet at me, he thinks everyone is dangerous to children.
That's the end of my notice for the stupid people.
I'll return to my normal persona for the rest of you.
Alright, here's what else is funny about the Marjorie Taylor Greene thing.
You saw the eye roll from Lesley Stahl.
I'd play it again, but I'd rather do an impression of it myself.
So after Marjorie Taylor Greene gives a full-throated support of her opinion, Lesley Stahl does... That look.
What would be...
What would be a reaction you would expect from somebody who was a very experienced news person, a person who interviews people for a living, and is known to ask difficult questions?
If somebody says something that you disagree with, and you've got decades of experience in this exact situation, what would you expect?
You know what I would have expected?
An argument against what she said.
That's what I would have expected.
I would have expected some kind of counterclaim.
Well, I see what you're saying, but have you considered X?
Or, I hear what you're saying, but how does that make sense with this variable?
Or, could you explain that more because what I thought I heard was this.
Wouldn't you expect something like that But instead it was... What would you call that reaction?
Is there a word for that reaction?
Is there a description of it?
Cognitive dissonance.
It's cognitive dissonance.
It's not just One of the tells.
It's the big one.
It's the big one.
That was the most obvious signal for her brain was broken that I've ever seen in my life.
Here's how I interpreted it.
Now, I'm not a mind reader, right?
So if I talk about what Leslie Stahl is maybe thinking.
Can I do a little... I have to pause again.
There might still be some stupid people watching.
Anyway, I'm not going to do that.
So I think that was a telephone cognitive dissonance and here's why.
I think that Leslie Stahl recognized some connecting logic in what Marjorie Taylor Greene was saying and did not want to get involved in it.
She didn't want to ask more questions because she definitely didn't want to hear the answers.
Know what I mean?
Because if she had gone at it factually, to say, alright, explain that, here's why you're wrong, do you know what it would have been?
It would have been more of Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about the sexualization of children in the trans, let's say, arena.
And Leslie Stahl wouldn't have had a fucking thing to say about that.
Right?
She would have been trapped.
I think she knew she was trapped.
I think Marjorie Taylor Greene led her into a narrow ravine, and once she got into that narrow ravine and she looked up and saw all the snipers, she thought, "Oh, fuck." That's what it looked like to me.
Now, of course, we're all reading our own experience into it, right?
So it's possible that the only thing she was thinking is, you crazy, you crazy biatch.
And I'm sure the Democrats will interpret it as her just scoffing and dismissing her.
But to me, that scoffing and dismissing was because she couldn't handle the topic.
There was only one person in the room who was capable of of just even discussing the topic.
And it wasn't Leslie Stahl.
She took a pass.
She bowed out.
She's like, I'm out of the room.
I'm out.
Yeah, no, that was a complete win for MTG.
So in summary, I would not call the Dems pedos and groomers.
I would just say I wouldn't let them babysit my children.
And I tried that out with a critic of mine.
Some critic came at me this morning for something and I just replied, I wouldn't want you babysitting my children.
That's usually the end of the conversation.
And by the way, I'm quite serious about this.
I wouldn't want, given the brokenness of the woke philosophy, I wouldn't want a child of mine to be around it.
I would consider that poison for their success.
Because the woke philosophy is a backwards-looking, victim-blaming, bullshit, useless thing that will someday go away.
Whereas I would rather my child be taught how to succeed, you know, how to, you know, Make it work even though there's adversity.
You know, how to push through problems.
How to be an optimist.
That's what I want them to learn.
I don't want to learn that they're racist because they're white.
I don't want to learn that they're pieces of crap because they're, you know, they like Donald Trump or something.
So no, I legitimately, no joke, would not want a child To be around a Democrat who bought into the entire wokeness campaign.
But this brings us back to RFK Jr.
I've never heard a thing he's ever said that sounded extra woke.
So I don't know where he stands on a lot of stuff.
I guess it's an open question.
But he doesn't scare me at all.
If RFK Jr.
wanted to babysit my kid, I'd be totally okay with that.
Totally okay, yeah.
I mean, I would trust him.
So it's not every Democrat, but you get the point.
All right, and this goes to my other framing that I'm liking as days go by, that woke is a performance, not an opinion.
Has anybody got to use that yet?
Where if somebody comes at them with a woke argument, you can say, that was a very good performance.
I don't take seriously any of the woke stuff, that's just performance.
But your performance was excellent.
Good performance.
I wouldn't even address the content of it.
I think we should stop addressing the content of those complaints.
We should just say, good performance.
Because here's where we're going wrong.
We who don't like the overwokeness.
I like a little bit of wokeness.
I like calling people what they like to be called, for example.
But if you go overwoke, you're into crazy town.
And if somebody's in crazy town and they're just performing, For example, the person who at least presents themselves as a black man who called Keith Olbermann a racist because he had a problem with what somebody did with a hand gesture, which had nothing to do with race, of course.
Do you think that person had a serious point about Keith Olbermann being a racist?
Do you think they even believed in their own mind that they had a good point Because there was no race involved in the story at all.
It could not have been more race-free.
It was the most race-uninterested story there ever was, and still this guy came up with an argument that Keith Olbermann was a racist.
That's performance.
You see that, right?
That was not a real opinion.
That was a performance of somebody who wanted to show themselves in a certain way.
I strongly suggest that you at least test their performance frame.
Instead of dealing with any of the argument, none of it.
Just don't deal with any of it.
Just say, excellent performance.
Your wokeness score is a 9 and a 10.
Good job.
And just move on.
Because you cannot take that seriously as a topic.
It just can't be taken seriously.
Some of it, right?
Some of it I like.
But if it's the absurd stuff, just congratulate them for the performance.
Move on.
Alright, fun stuff on Twitter.
I often talk about reality fitting a three-act play.
The first act is something bad usually happens.
The second act is the fun and games part where you've worked through that initial bad part but now you're doing some series of things which are interesting and funny.
That's what makes the movie.
Later there's a third act where somebody gets into such terrible trouble you can't even imagine how they could get out.
Twitter is in its second act.
The first act was Musk overpays for Twitter by 24 billion dollars or whatever it was.
So that's the first act.
And then he finds out that under the hood, it's just twigs and beer and wokeness.
It's just like there's nothing good in there.
It's just amazing it runs.
He fires 75% of the staff.
Makes the entire left hoppin' mad.
So this is all the first act.
This is just the upheaval.
So the first act is all the bad upheaval stuff is happening.
Second act is happening now.
So Musk has gotten control of Twitter.
He's gotten rid of, sounds like a lot of the troublemakers.
He's got a lean, you know, kind of lean machine.
Oh yeah, it has some problems.
Maybe some performance hiccups, etc.
But they get worked on.
And he's got some new features.
He's got a subscription model that's looking promising, etc.
So he's got sort of a handle on it.
It's still bleeding cash, but he's got a little handle on it.
Here's the fun part.
Twitter's context notes have started reliably fact-checking the news.
Oh, it is game on!
It is game on!
Let me tell you just a few things that have happened recently.
So first of all, the New York Times refused to get verified.
Which Musk, first of all, dunks on them because they push their own subscription service so hard.
So he goes, well, that's highly hypocritical, given that their entire business model depends on subscriptions, right?
So if they're pushing their subscription and they're complaining because he has a subscription model, as if Twitter As if Twitter is not a gigantically useful business tool for the New York Times.
They must get a tremendous amount of traffic from Twitter.
It's a business.
And he wants to charge them for the value they got from his business.
And they're like, oh no!
So that's the first thing.
So I enjoyed that because it made the New York Times look like idiots, basically.
Or, you know, at least inconsistent.
Then, Later, Musk tweets also about the New York Times.
He goes, the real tragedy of the New York Times is that their propaganda isn't even interesting.
Their propaganda isn't even interesting.
I love the fact that now that he's got, you know, Twitter to have his back, meaning that the context notes will be fact-checking these entities.
Yeah, they do look like propaganda now.
All right.
But he also had He had this comment about Twitter itself.
Elon Musk did.
He said, you could literally film a Walking Dead episode unedited in downtown San Francisco.
This is where San Francisco politics leads, and Twitter was exporting this self-destructive mind virus to the world.
With some exceptions.
Other tech companies are still doing so.
Wow.
Wow.
That's about the most truthful and insightful tweet you're going to see.
Yes, Twitter was responsible for a mined virus that destroyed a city.
That actually happened.
Now, not by itself, but if you said it was the biggest element of it, I wouldn't be surprised.
It might have been the biggest element of a mind virus.
And I love that he sees this as a virus, the mind virus, the wokeness and the craziness.
It is a mind virus.
That's exactly what it is.
And so he took over the company and he removed the virus.
Now, that is some baller billionaire shit right there.
That's some good stuff right there.
But the Reuters, I think it was Reuters who did a story that said that Tesla had failed to meet some benchmark it had given for production of vehicles.
And so the Reuters tweets this story that Tesla fell short of its goal.
A context note is immediately attached to it.
Yes.
And Elon Musk tweets, deceptive headline backfires on Reuters.
He puts it in quote, deceptive headline backfires on Reuters, because it turns out it wasn't true.
They had actually exceeded their goal.
And Reuters did a headline saying they'd missed it.
It was literally opposite of the truth.
But on Twitter, Instantly flagged and instantly corrected.
And even better yet, instantly publicly mocked by the guy who owns Twitter.
Can I be happier?
I can't be.
I can't be happier than this.
That's everything I wanted.
Everything I wanted was for Twitter to start fact-checking the fake news.
And they did.
You know what I'm waiting for?
I'm waiting for... I'm going to whisper this, okay?
This is a Joe Biden whisper.
I'm waiting for Joe Biden to do a speech mentioning the fine people hoax again.
Please.
Just one more, Joe.
Can you give us one more fine people hoax?
Now the Twitter is poised to call bullshit on that.
I want to see Twitter put a note the next time Biden says that.
Because I think they're ready to do it.
I think they might be poised.
And it's going to be glorious.
Same with the drinking bleach hoax, right?
It's going to be glorious.
So that's Act 2.
What is Act 3?
If I had to guess, the government will try to close down Twitter.
Somehow.
I think the Democrats will try to Take Musk out of the game somehow.
I think they'll fail, and then Musk will turn Twitter into what he's wanted to turn it into, the app that does everything.
Which could be worth $250 billion.
Which would change the news, get rid of the woke virus, and make him ten times his, or maybe five times his investment.
That would be a good act three with an act four.
All right.
I feel vindicated about an early opinion that the so-called Restrict Act was not about banning TikTok, which was the whole point of it, but was a way for the government to get more power over more things in general.
And I called it down as a, you know, I guess a Trojan horse.
But I'm happy to see people who are smarter than me by a lot on stuff like this.
David Sachs is saying it's a bait and switch.
Basically, they're trying to make it illegal to use a VPN.
If you're not technical, Don't worry.
It just means that you can... What's the best way?
A virtual private network is a, let's say it's an app you could put on your phone or your device, and you are not as easily identifiable.
It takes away your identity.
So the point is that you could use a VPN to get to a website that would be banned otherwise.
Right, because you'd be coming in as if you're from another country, for example.
So let's say America bans TikTok.
If you used a VPN to pretend you were coming from not from America, then presumably, technically, you could get in.
So this law tries to block the use of VPNs, at least in this context, which is a big problem.
Right?
This is not what we signed up for.
When the public said, and a lot of the public said, ban TikTok, they did not say ban our VPNs.
The VPN is what you use to protect yourself from the fucking government.
This is exactly the worst thing that could happen.
It's the worst, worst thing that could happen.
Instead of banning TikTok, they ban your fucking VPNs.
It couldn't be worse.
If anybody votes for this, they have to be dead to you.
Republican or Democrat.
Anybody who votes for this monstrosity, this is beyond the pale.
I don't usually get worked up about little political stuff.
Usually it's just news and it's fun.
But this is too far.
And the fact that they're doing this right in front of us, they're not even... I mean, they're hoping that we're dumb enough not to notice that it was never a TikTok ban.
But the fact that they're trying to get away with this, through this back door?
Absolute scum.
Yeah.
You cannot respect this as a difference of opinion.
Would you agree?
This is not about a difference of opinion.
This is not politics.
This is not policy.
This isn't anything.
This is the government just fucking you.
There's no other way to look at this.
Like I get their little argument and blah, blah, blah, it might protect you in some way.
I don't care.
If you want a fucking law about banning VPNs, let's call it that.
Let's debate that.
Right?
Let's debate that.
But if you're gonna hide this fucking thing in a TikTok ban that's not really a TikTok ban, and TikTok would probably find a way around it anyway.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
It's terrible.
Well, I saw the Machiavelli account that often has deepfakes, has helpfully created a well-labeled deepfake, so you can tell it's a deepfake, it's labeled that, of Mark Warner, one of the main authors of this abortion bill.
Well, it's not about abortion, but you know what I mean.
And he's got Mark Warner basically explaining his own bill in his own words as a deepfake.
But, you know, being a clown about it.
Good job.
And I think part of what Machiavelli is showing, well I know for sure because he says it directly, he's trying to warn people what's coming.
It's not about the meme.
And he says it directly.
It's not about the meme.
I'm showing you that you need to be afraid of this.
You need to be aware of it.
You need to see it coming.
We need to figure out how to deal with it, that the news is going to be fakes.
And I think that's very helpful.
And it's very ballsy.
It's so ballsy.
Because I think he's already been, you know, he's had some trouble on Twitter already.
But this was the perfect application of that.
I like the application of having somebody who's doing something sketchy have their deep fake explain it to you.
That's strong.
That is strong persuasion.
I like that.
All right, but I'm also happy that the internet dads, as I like to call them, are stepping up to call this out.
All right, what else we got?
Ladies and gentlemen, that's about all I have.
Is there any story I missed?
Anything you wish I talked about?
I've been noticing that there are a lot of stories that don't make the front page of either Fox News or CNN.
And yet, pundits talk about them.
Which is weird.
That's different from before.
It used to be that everything, if it was a story at all of any substance, it would at least be on one of those two sites.
But there's a lot of stuff that's not on either site now, which is making me wonder what's going on.
All right.
Have we ever seen the full list of what accounts on Twitter are allegedly boosted?
And which ones are, well, I guess just the boosted list.
Was that even real?
Because there was a story of, I don't know, 15 or so accounts that, like Cat Turd, that apparently were boosted.
I don't know if that story is real.
What do you think?
Because if they had some of the list, why don't we have the whole list?
Because it's not that extensive.
Maybe 30 people.
I don't know.
Will we see Epstein's client list?
Probably not.
All right.
There's no organic way that Cat Turd could be relevant.
Agreed.
So I blocked Cat Turd, that's an account on Twitter.
I blocked Cat Turd a long time ago.
I forget why, but I'm sure I had a good reason.
But I've never understood why that account got so big.
To me that was always a mystery, because I didn't see value there.
I understand why Jack Posabic has a big account.
I understand why Mike Cernovich has lots of followers.
But I never understood Cat Turd.
Like that did look like there was something artificial going on there, but I didn't understand it.
Dutch farmers revolt is never discussed.
Yeah, I haven't discussed that.
And I'm not current on it, but it looks like there might be some pushback that's working.
I think that's the current situation.
Paris protests.
Are the Paris protests being intentionally kept out of the news?
I've seen those claims.
Oh, Finland's in NATO?
Is that official yet?
Finland's in NATO?
I'm not sure that matters too much.
Oh, here's a question I have for you.
I've seen stories about James O'Keefe, a number of them, positive and negative, on Twitter.
But usually all I see is somebody referring to it.
I have no idea what the story is.
There's some James O'Keefe story that is not in the news, because I looked for it, and quick search on social media was people referring to it, but I couldn't find the actual allegation.
What is the allegation?
Has he done something?
Oh, Russell Brand was on Bill Maher last night?
No, I didn't see that.
Oh, Finland voted their Prime Minister out?
But in addition, they joined NATO, right?
They voted the Prime Minister out for what reason?
The media is ignoring the Paul Town story.
Is the media ignoring the Paul Town story?
I am, because I never heard about Paul Town.
If you say Paul Town again, I'm going to block you.
So don't do that.
All right, I'll block you.
So we're not going to talk about Paul Town, and I'm not going to look into it because you yelled it in caps too many times.
So that's your rule.
You get the opposite of what you yell in caps.
Goodbye.
Finland voted in a conservative, so that's why that's news.
Okay.
James Keefe knew about Mike Gill, took the money, illegal wiretaps, FBI handler, sponsored by an Israeli who is... I don't understand any of that.
I was just reading a summary of the story.
There must be a large complicated story, but why have I not seen that anywhere?
We'll get rid of all the Paul Town references.
By the way, I was perfectly willing to look into whatever was going on with Paul Town, but now I'm not going to do it.
Oh, there's lots of people asking for it.
Oh, there's lots of people who want me not to talk about it.
Alright, I'm definitely not talking about it now.
So, nope.
There will be nothing about Paul Towne.
No, too many assholes.
Too many assholes.
And by the way, whatever Paul Towne is about, I am not in favour of it.
So I'm against Paul Towne.
I don't even know what this story is.
Who is he?
I have no idea.
But I'm opposed to whatever he is.
I'm opposed to Mike Town.
Only because of what you said about him.
I don't know anything else.
Oh, Mike Town?
Don't even know his name, don't care.
Alright.
Alright, I'm gonna turn off YouTube because you can't stop saying Paul Town.
