All Episodes
April 29, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:02:11
Episode 2093 Scott Adams: Musk & Maher, AI Does Drunk Kamala, CO2 Eating Microbes, AI Doctors, More

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Musk & Bill Maher Crowder escalates AI does drunk Kamala Obesity drug CO2 eating microbe Pinocchio Biden ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
And if you like your experience to be the kind that you'll talk about to your grandkids, grandkids, I mean, You'll probably live forever, so that's gonna work out for you.
All you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass.
A tank, or a chalice, or a stein.
A canteen jug, or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine here of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Ah!
So good.
Well, if you were a subscriber to the Locals channel, scottadams.locals.com, you would be seeing the new Dilbert comics called Dilbert Reborn.
And I can't show you the edgiest ones, so you're just going to have to trust me that they're edgier than the one I'm going to show you right now.
But here's what I can show you.
And by the way, this would never be allowed in newspapers.
It's going to be fine on YouTube.
YouTube is going to be fine with it.
But newspapers would have had a problem.
So it's the boss.
He's at a meeting and he's got Dilbert on one side and engineer Dave on the other.
And here's what it looks like.
And I'll read it to you so you don't have to read it, just see the setting.
And the boss says, leadership has decided to lower our hiring standards to increase diversity as quickly as possible.
And then Dave, who's the black engineer in the group, says, won't that make people think I was not qualified when you hired me?
And the boss says, yes, but it's also bad for the rest of us.
Then Dave says, OK, as long as it's equitable.
So, that's something I couldn't have done in a newspaper, but having a lot of fun with it behind a subscription site.
And of course the edgier comic is Robots Read News, my other comic, which is always edgier.
Alright, I would like to nominate two words for disgrace.
Can we disgrace words?
So if anybody uses either of these words, you should just laugh at them, like... You've used the disgraced words!
That means you're not even a serious person.
Are you ready?
Here are the two disgraced words in political commentary.
Rant and obsessed.
If you hear somebody say that somebody else ranted, the person who used the word, you should just mock them.
I'm sure they ranted, didn't they?
Did they rant or did they simply talk?
Which did they do?
Did they rant?
Was it ranting?
Or was it just sort of talking?
And how about obsessed?
Hey, here's a story about Disney and DeSantis.
Why are you so obsessed with Disney versus DeSantis?
Why are you obsessed with it?
No, no, no.
You are, you're using one of those words.
Obsessed or rant.
As soon as you hear those words, run away!
Those are not serious people.
Alright, how many of you have seen the AI, I assume it's AI generated, fake Kamala, drunken Kamala video?
If you haven't, I'm going to call it up and show it to you right now because it might be one of the funniest things you'll see in a long time.
All right.
Bear with me while I use my low-tech to find it.
Hmm.
Well, speaking of low-tech, I've got one of those phones that doesn't seem to want to produce anything.
Oh my God.
All my technology is broken today.
So I'd like to give you, here's my demonstration of watching Hulu last night.
So I went to watch Hulu.
Looked a lot like nothing.
But then this morning I went to watch Bill Maher talking to Elon Musk.
So I opened up my HBO app and here it is.
Here's what my HBO app looks like.
So this is Hulu, HBO and Twitter on my phone.
They all look the same now.
Just a nothing.
Why?
I don't know.
I have no fucking idea why.
But for the last several days, no website works on my devices.
So I'm going to reboot my phone and fuck that.
Jesus.
I tell you, how many times a day is there some basic technology that just simply doesn't work for you?
Is it just me?
It's not just me, right?
I mean, ordinary stuff.
Like your car won't start, your phone just doesn't work, you try to get on an app they use all the time, it just doesn't work.
Is that your experience?
Because all day long I'm just solving technical problems.
All day long.
So, yeah.
The last time, I don't even remember the last time I successfully opened a streaming app and watched something.
Do you know how hard I worked trying to watch the Bill Maher-Musk interview?
I never got to see it.
I couldn't find any technology that would just show a streaming video.
Now obviously I know how to use technology.
I'm literally streaming on two devices right now.
I don't think it's me.
I think there's some weird thing happening.
And yesterday there was like almost every website I went to just seemed broken.
Did that happen to you yesterday?
Was yesterday a day when all kinds of websites were broken?
Or was that just me?
I don't know.
All right.
I guess it was just me.
So there's a new obesity drug.
Oh, great.
So now Big Pharma has found a way to battle Big Food.
So Big Food is killing you with food that makes you fat, but Big Pharma Big Pharma found a drug that will save you from the big food.
Now, I'm just guessing that that won't be the healthiest thing for you.
I can't believe... I guess it's a diabetes drug.
It's the second time there's been a... Second time there's been a different kind of diabetes drug that had a secondary use that would help you lose weight.
And apparently it works.
Yeah, the initial reports are it totally works.
Is that the worst thing you've ever heard?
Now humans can eat as much crap as they want, and they won't get fat, as long as they have another drug in their body.
Now, I would think that the nutritional risk from eating foods that would normally make you fat, but somehow you found a way not to make you fat, it's not Ozempic.
Ozempic is the older one.
There's actually a newer, better one.
So the one you're thinking of that was a diabetes drug that had a secondary use for losing weight, this is the third one of those.
There's two of them that use the same drug, and then this is a new one that was just announced today.
So it's not the Ozempic one.
All right, what's it called?
Some other name.
Doesn't matter.
I hate everything about this.
Like, on one hand, it feels like it should be this great breakthrough that's going to help the obese.
But it feels like it's going to make it worse.
Does anybody get that feeling?
That if you could take a drug that would allow you to eat like a glutton all day long and not gain weight?
Or does it not work that way?
Oh, I think maybe it makes you not hungry.
Is that what it does?
Oh, it's an appetite suppressant.
Okay.
So maybe that's even... Is that better or is that worse?
If you suppress your appetite, what kind of food are you likely to eat?
Healthy food that doesn't taste great?
Or if you have a suppressed appetite, are you going to be drawn to sugary food?
Here's what you need.
You need a drug that only makes you not want to eat too much sugary stuff.
That's what you need.
You want a drug that keeps you just as hungry as always, but if you see a piece of cake, you just go, ugh, cake.
And if you see something like a piece of broccoli, you go, mmm, broccoli.
Mmm, gotta get me some broccoli.
So anyway, that's happened.
Here's some good news from science.
There's a microbe that eats CO2.
Now, it's not the first time you've heard of that, right?
There's always some kind of little critter that's eating CO2, but nothing comes of it.
But this one seems to be especially good, like better than anything that ever ate CO2 ever before.
And they found it in some Italian volcano, which is where I go to look for my microbes.
If I need a good microbe to do something that nobody's done, I'll go to an Italian volcano and I'll start looking, because that's where the good ones are.
But here's why this is cool.
Most of the current CO2 capture technologies, I don't know if you knew this, but they'll capture the CO2 and then it's just this physical stuff that they've got to put somewhere.
So they put it in a big hole.
So they put it in a big hole in the ground.
Yeah, just bury it.
Apparently, if you take that same CO2 out of the atmosphere and stick it in this pond full of these microbes, you can put an infinite amount of CO2 into the pond because the microbes will just eat it.
So that seems like a pretty good solution.
So I ask once again, the people who did the 50-year predictions about climate change, did their prediction include An Italian volcano creating a CO2-eating microbe.
Probably not.
So, certainly the technical developments will change everything.
So, that's where it's going.
How many of you saw that there's a bride magazine?
Now, bride magazine, of course, is specifically for brides.
And they put on their cover now a trans-feminine activist.
That alone is not much of a story in 2023.
It's not much of a story, is it?
That a trans person got put on a bride magazine.
And that's not unusual at all.
However, what caught my attention was this specific trans feminine activist is the hairiest human being I've seen since Bigfoot.
I mean, I'm talking about a seriously hairy human.
And this seriously hairy human is on the cover with a bare midriff outfit on.
Stomach is just pure hair.
Now, I'm not making fun of hairy people, because there are lots of hairy people.
Nothing wrong with that.
However, their choice to put it on the magazine read to me a little bit more like embracing and amplifying.
It didn't feel It didn't feel exactly like they were serious about it.
Did anybody have that feeling?
Like it was almost tongue-in-cheek, but not exactly?
Honestly, I can't take that seriously.
It does not look serious.
It looks like they had pressure.
I'm just going to take a speculative guess.
I have no inside knowledge.
This is not part of the story.
But I always think, what was the meeting like?
Don't you always wonder that?
What was that meeting like where they talked about that?
Because I think it was something like there was maybe a trans person in the office, perhaps, and they couldn't say, no, we're not going to put a trans woman on the cover.
Don't you think that there was a back and forth?
No, we can't do that.
And then other people were saying, yes, we need to show that we're a good, progressive company.
And young women in particular are pro-trans.
I think young women are probably the biggest supporters of the trans community.
I'm guessing.
It feels like it would be the case.
So they probably said, yes, we want to be progressive.
And so we want to put a Trans woman on the cover.
Now, in my conspiratorial mind, what I imagine is that the people who were dead set against the trans person being on the cover embraced it and went out and found the one trans person who would do the least good job of representing the company.
Just to say they did it.
And now, if that's what they did, and I'm not saying they did, I'm just speculating how it might have gone, it would be hilarious.
It almost as if Bride Magazine was mocking itself.
That's how I took it.
I'm going to put it in those terms.
It looked like the magazine was mocking itself.
What do you think?
Because I feel like they obviously knew they'd gone way over the line into territory that their readers would have, let's say, an interesting response to.
Do you think that when you look at that cover with the hairiest trans person you've ever seen in your life, you think that they said to themselves, yeah, this is good.
This is just what we wanted.
This is exactly the brand we want to project.
That for Bride magazine, hairy, biologically born males, but now trans women, are exactly the market we're after.
I'm not believing it.
I feel as if it's become parody now.
And I feel as if there's at least one person at Bride, just guessing, I have no information about this, who thought it was just funny to go too far.
I wonder if anybody else will do that.
We'll see.
Alright, I remind you that I'm pro-trans.
Pro-trans.
But that still makes some of the interaction funny.
I think we can still do that.
I saw a Brian Ramelli tweet today about the study of wolves and there's this parasite.
There's a specific parasite that usually is in cats.
This Toxoplasma gondii parasite.
And after 26 years worth of data on wolves, lots of wolves, they found out that if a wolf has this parasite, The wolf is 46 times more likely to become a pack leader.
So there's a parasite that changes the aggressiveness and behavior of wolves to such an extent it actually makes them leaders.
Now, here's my question.
Now, there's a reason for the mechanism.
So there's an evolutionary reason.
So the idea is, if the parasite that wants to be in cats gets into something else, like a mouse, the mouse will actually be attracted to cat urine.
So that the mouse will more likely do dangerous cat-related things and then get eaten.
And then when the cat eats the mouse, then the parasite gets back in the cat where it wanted to be.
So apparently the parasite can infect anybody, but once it infects anybody, one of the behaviors is it makes you recklessly get near cats.
So it might be doing that to the wolves.
It might be making the wolves say, well, I won't necessarily stay in my own territory.
I'll branch out and become a leader in this cat-related territory over here, which makes it more likely that they'll be killed by a cat or some cat-related exposure.
So here's the question.
Do you think there's any chance That humans have, not necessarily this particular microbe, but do you think there are any microbes that are making humans act the way we act?
And that it's even passed down by mother to child?
Because I think this one actually can be passed by birth.
Yeah, it's entirely possible.
And we didn't know about this one.
That was a huge impact on the wolf community until recently.
So don't you think we might be basically empty puppets that are being run by some weird microbes?
Could be.
Could be just part of our operating system.
Because you notice that some people are... Well, let me speculate.
Let's just speculate.
Do you suppose there could be one that causes mass shootings?
Now, I don't think that's what's causing it.
I think it's social influence and access to weapons, of course.
But it could be.
Because when somebody becomes a mass shooter, it just doesn't seem to make any sense to us, does it?
It's almost like they got some microbe that took over their body.
So I'm just going to put that out there, that I will make a prediction.
I predict that in your lifetime, We will discover that there's some different microbe that affects human behavior substantially.
What do you think?
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
We're going to find a microbe that's influencing our behavior in a major way.
We just don't know yet.
All right.
Here's a big question for you.
I saw this on a tweet by a user named Camille.
K-A-M-I-L.
You would pronounce that Camille.
Camille.
I think Camille.
And he tweeted that it looked like he was asking AI, chat GPT, some questions about transgenderism and body dysmorphia.
He convinced the AI, and given we know that the way you ask the question can make a big difference to the answer, he asked the question in a way that got the AI to say that teaching transgenderism to kids causes body dysmorphia, or dysphoria.
Body dysphoria.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
I'm saying that somebody asked AI, and they got the AI to say, yes, that makes total sense.
And the AI even explained his thinking.
If children are told that gender is not sex-related, and that they can choose their gender, because it's not something hard-coded at birth, then they're more likely to do it.
So if they're more likely To wonder about their sexual identity, because they're taught that they can, that that's an ordinary thing.
And the benefit to somebody who has, let's put it this way, if you had body dysphoria already, being taught that transgenderism is a thing, I imagine that'd be really good for you.
Would you agree?
If you had this body dysphoria, wouldn't you be a lot happier to learn in school that it's like a legitimate thing and, you know, you have a couple of paths you could take and all that?
But, imagine if you did not have gender dysphoria.
You're just a kid, and kids can be, you know, wildly confused about lots of stuff.
It's not gender dysphoria.
So then suddenly you start teaching the kids that they have a choice.
Well, you know, could go this way, could go this way, doesn't matter what you were born with, you've got options.
So according to AI, and this is not me, so this is not my opinion, I'm telling you a story about somebody who got AI to say something.
So there are no human opinions involved in any of this.
This is AI's opinion.
Teaching kids transgenderism causes gender dysphoria.
Now, independent of the content of the question and the answer, the bigger question is this.
What happens when AI starts telling us things that make sense, but disagree with what is acceptable and appropriate and woke?
What are we going to do?
Are we going to turn off the AI?
Are we going to call it a liar?
Are we going to say it's a bigot?
AI is a bigot?
I think that's what's going to happen.
Prediction number two.
AI will be labeled bigots.
AI will be called a racist and a misogynist and probably anti-trans at some point.
Don't you think?
And how in the world could that be avoided?
I don't see any way that could be avoided.
Because humans call other humans all these names, you know, bigot, racist, etc.
Are they always right?
How often is a human correct?
When they call somebody else a racist in the United States.
Not often.
Not often.
But it's pretty rare.
It's just something you say against political enemies, mostly.
Now, you don't think that that same impulse will be used on AI?
When AI starts telling you things you don't like, you're going to call it a bigot and a racist and tell everybody to stop listening to it.
You're going to want to... People are going to try to cancel AI.
There I said it.
Humans will try to cancel AI for being too bigoted.
And it doesn't mean it will be bigoted.
It might be.
It's trained by people, so it probably is.
But even if it's not, somebody's not going to like their answer.
And they're going to say, well, that's bigoted.
Yeah, I know you're just being an AI, and I know you're just doing what you're programmed, but that's so bigoted.
So yeah, we'll use that to limit AI.
All right.
How many of you want me to talk about Steven Crowder's divorce, given that he's talking about it publicly?
I'm going to take a vote.
I saw one yes, but mostly no's.
So mostly we should leave him alone.
What do you say?
Just leave him alone to let it work out?
Your vote is accepted.
Topic removed forever from this live stream.
The public has spoken.
And by the way, I'm kind of proud of you.
I didn't know what you would say to that.
I kind of thought it would be closer to 50-50, but I do like the fact that you have a very high, it looks like 80-20 kind of thing, at least, 90-10 maybe.
Well that is a really good statement about all of you, I have to say.
So you're better people than I am, in many ways.
All right, moving on.
The Washington Post, which as you know, seems to like the Democrats better than the Republicans, have given Biden a bottomless Pinocchio.
Apparently that's their worst rating for lying.
The bottomless Pinocchio.
Now for context, they gave Trump a lot of bottomless Pinocchios.
And the standard for the bottomless Pinocchio, which is the worst of all the Pinocchios, bottomless.
The standard is you have to say the same lie like a whole bunch of times, like 30 times or something.
But if you say the whole lie like a whole bunch of times, then it's a bottomless Pinocchio.
And Biden apparently keeps going around saying that he lowered the deficit by a record $1.7 trillion.
A claim that the Washington Post's Kessler gave three Pinocchios in September.
So in September when he started saying it, it was clearly not true, but it wasn't yet a bottomless Pinocchio.
But he's now said it so many times, he's said it 30 times since June, and there's just no truth to it at all apparently.
Apparently it's so untrue That the story doesn't even bother to say why he says it.
Like, well, he's counting this but not that.
It just feels like it's just some shit he made up that he just says it.
And apparently, as far as I can tell, Democrats believe him.
Because I was joking the other day that some CNN pundit said that Biden will try to distract from his age as an issue by talking about the economy.
And I just laughed.
I go, really?
You're going to distract from your bad feature, your age, by talking about your worst feature, how you handle the economy.
And I couldn't even believe anybody would say that, unless they were joking.
I actually tweeted it as a joke, without any change.
I just thought, oh, that's just so funny, just the way it is.
Without anything added, I just thought it was funny that somebody thought they should distract to make us look at his economy.
And then I find out he's been telling people, mostly his own crowd I guess, that he's been lowering the deficit by 1.7 trillion.
Because if that were real, wouldn't you think he did a good job?
I mean, that would be kind of impressive.
Because the thing I'm worried about the most is the deficit.
He says he lowered it.
If he really lowered the deficit by 1.7 trillion, that would be one of the greatest accomplishments of any president.
But he didn't do anything like that.
He just lied about it, because he's old.
Not because he's old, but because he's a liar.
Alright, so I guess he'll be running on his record of honesty against Trump again.
It still blows my mind that somebody thinks he's the honest one.
Joe Biden, he's like one of the most famous liars in all of politics.
Now, Trump would be the other one, of course.
But the fact that everybody thinks that one of them is the honest one, of, you know, Trump versus Biden.
Yeah, pick the one who passes all the fact-checking.
They're exactly the same.
Those two are exactly the same.
They don't tell the truth about anything, if there's a, you know, better story.
And this again is why I tell you we need, the country needs, a debate between Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.
Not because they have a huge chance of becoming president at the moment.
Things could change.
Things could change quickly actually.
But because they both have a history of not being liars.
Now you could argue that they've been wrong about stuff.
I'm not arguing that they've been right about everything.
I'm just saying that there's no evidence that they've intentionally just told a bottomless Pinocchio.
There's no bottomless Pinocchios happening with those two.
So let's see them talk.
Let's see them figure out what's true and what isn't.
All right.
So now doctors are using AI To craft draft responses and save time.
This is one of the best uses of AI that I've seen yet.
So when somebody writes to their doctor, which is common on email, as soon as the doctor goes to respond, AI types out the draft response in the email.
Because most stuff is common.
Somebody will say, hey, I think I have an ear infection.
What should I do?
Well, you don't necessarily need him to come in for, you know, to check him out in person.
So you might say something like, well, here's a prescription for this and use it three times a day and get back to me in a week if it doesn't work.
So that all appears in the email and then the doctor skims it and goes, oh yeah, that's what I was going to say.
Boop.
It's kind of amazing.
Kind of amazing.
But apparently AI was tested by real doctors to see if it could give us answers that are as good as doctors.
And what the doctors judged was that the AI was actually better than human doctors already.
But this makes me ask the following question.
How do humans judge an intelligence that's smarter than they are?
At the moment, They probably can.
Because if it makes like an obvious mistake, you know, it tells you to take a drug too much or something, that'd be obvious.
But what happens in just a little bit of time, maybe a year, when the AI doctor is unambiguously better than human doctors?
But the human doctors will be the ones who decide how good it is, right?
Because they'll test the AI against their own knowledge and opinions.
What happens if they don't match?
Well, in today's world, I mean literally just today, if they don't match, the doctor still wins.
And the doctor's going to go, no, that's not it.
I overrule you.
And everybody thinks that's probably a good idea.
But what happens when there's just no question, just no question, that AI has higher accuracy than human doctors?
It's less than a year away.
That's going to happen.
Well, then the doctor tries to overrule it.
Should they?
Do you want your doctor to overrule the AI if you know the AI is better than the doctor?
So this is where I'm predicting that AI will be capped in some areas.
We will not want AI to be smarter than us after it is smarter than us.
So we're going to treat it like we treat humans.
If you, let's say you go into a debate, let's use real people.
Let's say a dumb person goes into a debate with Ben Shapiro, a famous smart person.
In the real world, Ben Shapiro would annihilate the less intelligent competitor in any kind of a debate.
It would just be a slaughter.
But what does this person who got slaughtered, a hypothetical person, who gets slaughtered in their debate against Ben Shapiro, say about it?
Do they say, Does anybody ever say that?
Nope.
No, they think they won.
If Ben Shapiro just shredded you in front of a huge crowd of people who all agreed that he shredded you, you would still walk away saying, you know, I think it was a tie.
Or I think I actually won because the crowd was just on his side or something like that.
So we're going to do the same thing with AI.
When AI just destroys us with its better arguments, we humans are going to say, no, you got that one wrong.
I think my opinion actually is better than that.
If I'm being honest, I see all your smart AI answer, but no, I think my answer is a little bit more on the mark, if you know what I mean.
So, AI will certainly be gated by our own intelligence.
Cities are starting to convert their empty or office spaces into residential space.
Now they're doing it in Boston, Seattle and some other places, but I don't understand how it's going to work in a city that's a crime infested toilet.
Who's going to want to move into a city just because they can?
It feels like the very worst thing for some cities.
So my prediction is the cities that are, you know, let's say red states or red local government, the Republicans I think probably are good on crime.
So if you were moving into an office building that had been converted in a red city, it might be a great, great thing.
Imagine living in a high-rise in the middle of the city, the city you want to live in, And you've got like a full gym, like not just a little crappy one like they have with some apartment buildings.
They'll give you like a little crappy gym, but like a serious full gym.
And then you've got all these windows looking out at the scenery.
You've got security, because it's probably security in the lobby.
I feel like it would be a really good lifestyle.
You can imagine one floor being food and Starbucks and places where people can take their laptop and stuff and meet other people.
I think it would be kind of awesome.
But it's got to be the right city.
So apparently that will be the thing that these commercial properties are going to do to try and save themselves.
Now the good news is Support local coffee shops.
Well, it would be a local coffee shop.
It'd be right in your building.
It could literally be Starbucks.
Oh, you're saying you don't want it?
Alright, I get it.
I love Starbucks too much to... to be on your side with that.
Alright.
You've probably heard this story from before.
There's a Palestinian Mickey Mouse.
So they've got some kind of character that does a TV show for kids that's just a knockoff of Mickey Mouse, but it's the Palestinian version.
And this was the story from today.
The Hamas TV on Friday.
They did the last episode of this show called Far Four and their Mickey Mouse character, who is not called Mickey Mouse, it's something else.
And he preaches Islamic domination and armed struggle to youngsters.
In the final skit, Farfour is the name of the mouse.
Farfur was beaten to death by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfur's land.
The Palestinian children's programming needs some work.
Palestinian children are watching a giant mouse being beaten to death by an Israeli official trying to buy his land.
At one point the giant mouse called Farfur calls the Israeli a terrorist.
And then he was martyred defending his land.
It must be tough to be a kid over there.
Oh, they grow up so fast.
All right.
I'm only laughing because it's so horrible.
Right.
So somebody says it's not funny.
No, it is funny.
It's funny because it's so beyond the realm of appropriate behavior or acceptable behavior.
It's just crazy.
All the news is just people going too far.
That's too far.
The Bride Magazine with the hairy bride.
That's too far.
You know, if they had just stuck with a trans woman who did a great job of looking like a biologically born woman, well that wouldn't be too far in 2023.
That'd be sort of ordinary, actually.
But Bride magazine had to go too far.
They had to put a Yeti on the cover.
And this is too far, too.
Back in 2014, San Francisco schools dropped 8th grade algebra because they wanted to reduce inequities.
Because apparently some people weren't doing well in algebra.
So their solution was to just stop it.
Just stop doing it.
And it turns out that the parents are organizing to get it back.
Do you know why they're organizing to get To get algebra back into eighth grade.
Because they thought the school went too far.
Too far.
No, it was just too far.
Taking it away for equity.
So they're trying to get it back.
They don't want to be the laughing stock for being one of the places that doesn't teach a basic course to kids.
Now, personally, I don't know how much algebra helps you unless you're going on to STEM and some other high-end stuff.
So, I don't know, I'm somewhere in the middle on this.
I think that the highest achieving students should have access to it.
But I don't think, I just don't think algebra helps the average person.
Do you?
Now, I can honestly say I have used algebra as an adult.
How many of you could say that?
I've used algebra in my day job.
I think I've used it in my cartooning work.
Yeah.
Yeah, usually just simple stuff, you know, solving for a variable, right?
Yeah, just solving for a variable, usually.
So, I would say I do use it, but if I'd never learned it, it wouldn't have made that much of a difference.
I mean, it didn't really change the course of my life or anything.
It was just sort of a handy little tool to have.
I'm sure AI could have done it for me.
Do you think you would need algebra in a world of AI?
Nope.
No, you'll never use basic algebra in a world of AI.
Because you'll just pick up your phone and you'll say, solve for x with 2x equals 3y and y equals this.
You'll just tell the machine to do it.
Of course, you'd have to be smart enough to know it's a formula.
Yeah, maybe we do need a little algebra.
A little bit of algebra for the people who are going on to some types of careers would be good.
All right.
Kansas passed a law.
This feels too far too.
Kansas passed a law that trans people can't use the... I guess if you're going to use the woman's restroom in Kansas and after, I don't know, in a few months or something, when the law goes into effect, you have to have ovaries.
So I think ovaries is where they decided to draw the line.
If you were not born with ovaries, then you'd have to use the male bathroom, I guess.
Now, of course, it's what you're born with, so hysterectomies are not a relevant question.
It's what you were born with.
What do you think of that?
And I'm wondering, what happens if you were, let's say, a trans woman, and you went into a woman's restroom, and somebody complained?
Would you have to prove you do or do not have ovaries?
Or would people just admit it so you wouldn't have to prove it?
How does anybody know if you have ovaries?
Can they tell just by looking at you, I guess?
The person they put on Pride Magazine, you could tell.
But I don't know if you could always tell.
I don't know, we'll see how this law works.
I would like to add to the trans bathroom issue that their natural alliance would be with Their natural alliance would be with people who have pyoresis, shy bladder.
As I've mentioned way too many times, there are a number of people, and I'm one of them, who can't use public restrooms because our bodies just don't, just won't do it.
You can force yourself to, like, be there and, you know, trying to do it, but your body just won't do it if there are people around.
It's sort of a psychological condition, mostly.
Those people, and I'm one of them, so I can say those people in this case, really, really need an option where there's just a single bathroom option.
So, if you added all the trans people, of which there are more every day, and then you add that to the people who are sort of coming out of the water closet, as they like to say, the people who had shy bladder, is that not enough?
And then maybe there's some other things you'd throw in there.
And maybe handicapped as well.
So maybe there are at least three categories of people who legitimately, for reasons that everybody would agree, maybe they need a little extra privacy.
So I think I would disagree with making it some kind of a requirement.
I wouldn't make it a requirement.
It would be nice to have a third option for a variety of people for a variety of reasons.
Oh, children, yeah.
That's another good one.
Because isn't it creepy when I belong to a gym, which I don't now, but when I belong to a gym and I would see fathers bring their five-year-old daughters into the men's locker room and the men are standing there butt-naked and there's this little five-year-old girl who can walk and talk She's just hanging around in the middle of it.
To me, that was just too far.
I wasn't comfortable with it.
But wouldn't it be nice if a father and a young daughter could have their privacy as well?
So, might be other reasons for that.
Alright.
Is there any big story I missed?
Any big story I missed?
Any other famous people die since I started?
Oh, Elon, yeah.
So Elon Musk went on Bill Maher, and I thought it was going to make a bunch of news, but I don't think it did.
Because they just agreed with each other that the woke mind virus is bad and getting cancelled is bad and free speech is good.
And it sounded like Bill Maher was very pro-Musk in terms of what he does as an entrepreneur and as a citizen of the country.
It's all very impressive.
Bill still believes the Russian collusion hoax?
I don't think he does.
Mardin agreed, just stayed quiet.
So I couldn't, as I said, I couldn't stream it because my technology just decided I can't use my apps for reasons I don't understand.
Now let's see if I've rebooted my phone.
Apparently I didn't.
I was going to play you that Kamala Harris, but I'll talk about it.
So there's an AI of Kamala Harris.
In which they started with a speech where she did the crazy talk about time and the passage of time must be contextualized in the current time versus the passage of time.
You know that thing?
So they turned it into a longer rambling thing and they made her sound drunk.
Now, it was so good That, you know, the only reason I know it's fake is that I saw the original.
I would imagine that it was so good that people would look at that and not be able to tell.
Alright, let me see if Twitter is giving... If Twitter doesn't work on my phone, I'm just gonna throw it in the fucking ocean.
Alright, it's working.
Apparently I had to reboot my phone just to use an app.
So I'm going to play it for you here.
I swear this will be worth waiting for.
You're going to love it.
All right.
Today is today.
And yesterday was today yesterday.
Tomorrow will be today tomorrow.
So even her face is a little drunk.
So live today.
So the future today will be as the past today.
As it is tomorrow.
Today is today.
And yesterday was today yesterday.
Tomorrow will be today tomorrow.
So live today.
So the future today will be as the past today.
As it is tomorrow.
Today is today.
And yesterday was today yesterday.
Tomorrow will be today tomorrow.
Oh God.
Alright.
So there's a new embarrassing video of her loving Venn diagrams.
I was watching on Hannity a clip where they showed all the times that she screamed her love of Venn diagrams and giggled uncontrollably.
And it's really cringy to watch them all together because it always starts with, and I'm going to talk about Venn diagrams.
Have I told you how much I love, I love Venn diagrams.
I know you're laughing, but I love them.
I love that Venn diagram.
You know, the three circles, you know, you could put anything in a Venn diagram, anything, a yellow school bus with wifi, you're going to put it in a Venn diagram.
It just looks crazy!
But it also looks inebriated.
It looks inebriated.
And whoever did this AI effort talking about time, obviously thought it looked inebriated enough that the parody would be her fully inebriated.
Now, the mainstream media is completely avoiding the obvious, are they not?
Is it not obvious that she's either inebriated or she acts like somebody who is?
I mean, I don't know if she's inebriated.
But isn't it obvious that she's acting like she is?
How do you ignore that?
I mean, seriously.
How do you ignore that?
Of all things.
Because I think even the media on the right is ignoring it.
Do they think that she's not inebriated?
Do you think the big opinion people on the right don't see it?
Am I the only one that thinks she acts like it?
And again, I don't know.
It could be natural.
But if you saw anybody else acting like that, you would assume they were drunk.
Wouldn't you?
Yeah.
Maybe she's got a microbe that makes her love Venn diagrams.
Excellent callback.
I wish I'd thought of that.
Excellent callback.
You think I planted that idea?
I don't know.
Maybe.
But I think other people would see it, right?
Well, let me ask you.
If you had not heard it from me, if you had never heard of me, never heard anything I ever said about anything ever, would any of you have on your own said, she looks drunk?
Anybody?
It's not just because I influenced you, right?
Yeah.
I'm seeing lots of people say, yeah, she looks it.
Orestone or inebriated in some way, right?
How do we ignore that?
I mean, really?
All right, I'm going to make a prediction.
Within the next month, There will be notable pundits on the right who will expressly say that she's acting inebriated.
What do you say?
Now, I think it would be way too far if they said she's drunk.
Because we don't know that.
We only know she acts like one.
And that part we can confirm, because that's our opinion, right?
Well, I've seen drunks, and I've seen her, and they sort of look the same to me.
Yeah, I think in one month you'll see people calling her inebriated.
You might even see a Democrat do it if they really, really need to get rid of her.
Alright, now, I tweeted that to me it's obvious, and I wondered if Democrats know, that the reason that Biden is running for re-election at this age It's a variety of reasons, you know, it's not just one reason.
But I think the biggest one is to protect Hunter and the rest of the family, maybe his brother too.
Don't you?
I don't think there's any way in the world that a man his age and as obviously, let's say, affected by age, I don't think there's any way he would run just for political reasons or just for personal reasons.
I mean, you know, ambition.
I don't think it's ambition.
I don't think it's to prove a point.
I don't think it's anything except it's the best way to protect his family as long as possible.
Because he might think that as soon as he's out of office, Andre goes to jail.
Which is possible.
It's very possible.
Now, some people said, but Scott, that's stupid, because Joe Biden could just pardon Hunter and anybody else he wanted to pardon, and then there's no risk.
Do you believe that?
No, because first of all, he can only pardon federal offenses, right?
So only federal offenses, and I assume there's going to be some state gun charge or something in there sooner or later.
What would that look like politically if Biden, the Democrats, and the left-leaning press had ever happened in their life?
Because they would have to explain why you'd want to clear somebody who had not been convicted of something.
It would make Hunter look completely guilty, at the same time it would make Joe Biden look completely guilty.
Secondly, do you think there's any chance that he would pardon Hunter, sort of preemptively, without pardoning himself?
Or having his vice president pardon him?
Once the vice president takes over the office?
I don't think so.
Because if he asks for a pardon himself, again, the public is going to say that's guilty.
So somehow he has to get out of office with his family not in jail, without the stigma of a pardon.
Now the pardon is still an option, but can you imagine how much he doesn't want to do that?
Because it's basically a confession of guilt.
The public would see it as a confession of guilt.
Am I wrong?
The public would see it as guilt, right?
It's pretty rare to give somebody a pardon for something they didn't do, and you know for sure they didn't do it.
Because Biden knows for sure what happened.
He knows for sure what's true.
So do you give a pardon?
Yeah.
Everybody would just assume that he figured he would be in trouble without the pardon.
Okay.
All right.
We already know on the guilt.
I saw somebody who follows the news on the left, who believes that the Democrats have seen no evidence that Biden did anything wrong with any of the dealings with Hunter.
Do you think that's true?
I think it is true.
No, I think that the average Democrat is not seeing anything close to news on that topic.
Well, thank you, Emil.
All right.
Yeah, even if, even if, let's say, let's speculate.
If Hunter Biden didn't pay his taxes on any of his gains from his overseas activities, That he would be guilty for federal taxes, but also state taxes.
So even if he got pardoned for all the federal stuff, he'd still have to deal with state taxation.
Can someone tell you what Hunter's been charged with?
The answer is nothing, and that's the point.
The point is he hasn't been charged.
The evidence that he should be charged is somewhat massive.
But I'm also very interested in if there's a taxation issue.
If there's a taxation issue, and it's gone this far, I would say that it's pretty clear that there's something he didn't declare.
Do you think that's fair to say?
If the IRS has an extended investigation, it's because there's something that's not on his taxes that should be.
Right?
Or there's some deduction that shouldn't be there, but I think more likely it's something that didn't show up.
For example, isn't there a story about him receiving a diamond that he says he lost?
Is that true?
Because if it's true, he has to pay taxes on receiving the diamond, and he gets no benefit for losing it.
If you make some money and then it catches on fire in your house and it burns up, your money's just gone.
It's just gone.
So you can imagine there's a whole bunch of sketchy situations where he said in public, or did he say it?
I believe he said that he did receive a diamond and lost it.
Am I remembering that wrong?
Can you confirm that?
You can confirm that, right?
The diamond could have been insured, but almost certainly wasn't.
Do you know why?
Because things like diamonds have to be specifically mentioned in insurance.
Here's what you can't do with your insurance company.
Hey, insurance company, I lost a $75,000 diamond.
How do we know you ever had it?
Oh.
And there's your insurance.
Yeah.
And I can speak from experience.
So if you buy an expensive wedding ring and you don't take a picture of it and send the documentation to your insurance carrier, if it's a real expensive one, they won't cover it.
They're just going to say, you didn't tell us you had it.
So the expensive stuff that's easy to steal and easy to lose, you have to tell them or it's not covered.
So do you believe that as soon as Hunter, this drugged down guy, as soon as he received this diamond, do you think the first thing he did was tell his insurance company, hey, I got an extra diamond?
I don't think so.
No.
No, so I don't think it was covered by insurance.
I'm not exactly sure it was lost.
You know what I mean?
Like I doubt it was lost.
Maybe he just doesn't want to tell you who he gave it to.
Maybe he gave it to a hooker or something.
So, yeah, maybe it could be lost, I suppose.
He lost two laptops so he could lose a diamond.
He was drugged down enough to lose a diamond.
It was the only rock he couldn't smoke.
Bada-boom!
He lost it on Jewelers Row.
Mecca Mouse.
All right, I think we've covered all the big stories today.
Better than anything you're ever going to see in the rest of your life.
You didn't actually lose it, somebody says.
All right.
YouTube, thanks for joining.
And I will see you tomorrow.
Same place, same time.
Export Selection