Episode 2113 Scott Adams: DeSantis vs Disney, Vivek in Chicago, Giant Windmills, Ending Free Speech
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Congress trying to end free speech
DeSantis vs Disney
Elon vs Cuban
Vivek Ramaswamy goes to Chicago
Exploding air bags
Offshore windmills
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm pretty sure you'll never have a better time in your entire life.
And if you'd like to take this experience to levels that humans have never experienced before.
All you need to do that is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a gel, a cistern, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens.
Now, go.
Oh.
Yeah.
That was just as good as I hoped it would be.
Well, we've got lots of news.
It's all strange and weird and none of it's terribly important.
Or maybe it is.
Maybe it's the most important thing that ever happened to you in your life.
Let's see how many lives I can change today.
First story.
If you're a subscriber to the Dilber comic, Which you could do now on Twitter, if you just want the comic.
But if you want all kinds of extra stuff, that's where you'd go.
To the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
But just a heads up, Wally has been sent to jail.
But he has been appointed a court-appointed lawyer.
But the lawyers are all AI now.
So Wally's lawyer will be A.I., but it's a court-appointed A.I., so it's not a good one.
It's a shitty A.I.
called Bing A.I.
And so in today's episode that only subscribers will see, Wally tries to use his Bing A.I.
as his lawyer.
It doesn't go well.
All right, how many of you take magnesium supplements?
By a show of comments.
I feel like the simulation just keeps tapping me on the shoulder and telling me to take magnesium supplements.
I'm sort of seeing it everywhere now.
A lot of you are saying yes.
And those of you who are taking it, presumably you're noticing a difference?
And what difference are you noticing that you can actually, you can tell the difference?
Sleep better?
Energy?
Sleep, sleep, sleep?
Mostly sleep, huh?
Helps you relax.
Yeah, it's good for your digestive system.
Less said about that, the better.
I have fewer muscle cramps.
Yeah, because I was wondering about inflammation.
So, I just ordered some.
Have you noticed that there's a process that you always go through when you hear about a new supplement that makes a difference?
Let me tell you how it goes for me.
Oh, here's an article on a new supplement.
I don't believe it because it's just one article.
Oh, here's another study.
Oh, here's another one.
And then eventually you say, well, damn it.
It probably isn't going to hurt me.
So I'm going to try that supplement.
And then you go to buy it.
What happens when you go to buy that supplement?
Well, first of all, all the experts will tell you, Oh, you don't want to buy Those ordinary over-the-counter supplements.
No, you don't want to get one of those inexpensive and convenient type, you know, one a day, take a little supplement.
No, no, it needs to be in liquid or oil form that can be rubbed on your body only at 1038 a.m.
and it has to be rubbed on your body by a Tibetan monk And by the way, there's no way to tell you which one to buy.
A lot of the supplements will be completely useless, and all you're going to get is a bad massage by a Tibetan monk.
But if you knew which one to get that would be bioavailable, wow!
Wow, would you be healthy.
Change your whole life.
If only you could tell which one of those thousands of supplements was the real one.
That gets rubbed on you by a Tibetan monk.
All the rest of them, complete garbage.
It might be worse for you than if you'd taken nothing at all.
Do you have that same experience?
It's always the same.
Okay, I want to try that.
Oh, don't try that.
All the ones you try are the bad ones.
And there's no way to know what the good one is.
So anyway, I ordered some.
I'll try it.
I'll let you know.
Well I saw in a Kyle Becker tweet, but also in the news, that the Senate is proposing to end free speech in America.
That's interesting.
Did you know that?
There's a bill to end free speech?
They don't call it that.
But it would end free speech.
Well, obviously.
Let me just do the scoffing obvious again.
Obviously, obviously it would.
So here's what they want to do.
They want to create a federal agency.
It's a new bill, hasn't been passed, but it's a new bill.
A federal agency to police American speech for misinformation and hate speech on social media.
If we have a federal agency who's going to come up with guidelines of what we can and cannot say on social media, That's the end of free speech.
Right?
Am I misinterpreting this?
How is it not?
Now, if they had limited their bill to, let's say, you can't say anything about, I don't know, self-harm, or maybe some really dangerous drug stuff, or you can't promote Something that would be poison.
But even there you've got a problem, don't you?
Because some people would say hydroxychloroquine is poison.
You know, if taken in the wrong way, at the wrong time, in the wrong amounts.
Others would say it's the safest thing ever!
So who gets to decide what's dangerous?
That's the end of free speech.
If the government gets to decide what's safe to say, then suddenly everything will look dangerous.
Think about what our politicians say every day.
Are we not allowed to say the same things?
Because it's all dangerous.
Pretty much everything you say about politics will get somebody killed if somebody took your advice.
Now it's a different set of people who get killed based on what specific policy you like.
But they all kill people.
Pretty much all public policy is about policies that are going to kill somebody but maybe protect somebody else.
Gun policy?
Definitely more people die because we have guns.
But other people protect themselves.
The problem with any kind of federal control on the platform speech is that it's 100% guaranteed to be abused and your free speech will be eroded.
Is there anybody who thinks it's a good idea?
Is there an argument I'm missing?
Now I understand that there's lots of harm from misinformation.
But if we can't agree what's misinformation and what's information, how in the world can you police it?
There's no standard.
There's no objective standard at all.
Anyway, that's among the worst ideas I've ever seen in my life.
Here's a good idea.
So Vivek Ramaswamy, he's got an event in Chicago.
And here's what I love about it.
He advertises after, I guess, the speaking event.
And after that, he's going to go to a local barbershop to talk to the locals.
How much do you love that?
He's a Republican.
He's a Republican.
He's going to go to a barbershop in Chicago.
Why has nobody ever thought of that before?
Or have they thought of it and it was too dangerous?
Wouldn't you love to see Trump in a barbershop?
Like, just talking to the locals?
I'd love that.
I'm not sure why I wouldn't do it.
But nobody else thought of it?
Nobody else thought of it, maybe?
Because there's... I'm trying to imagine how that event will go.
And you'd have to be really confident in your communication skills to walk into what could be the most difficult situation you'd ever walk into with cameras rolling.
But Vivek apparently is not afraid of anything, which we love about him.
He doesn't seem to be afraid of anything.
You're getting something like, you know, an honest take on things because he's not holding back.
So, I love this.
In terms of presidential politics, this is an A++++ play that could go terribly wrong.
Right?
It could go terribly wrong.
But he's, you know, he's polling at like 3% or something for the primaries.
And if you're polling at 3%, you get to take some chances.
This is a smart, smart risk to take.
If he comes out well, which is possible, it's going to be really viral, isn't it?
I think he's going to come up with a clip or two that are just fire.
So if he governed as well as he campaigns, that would be a pretty good advertisement for him.
All right.
Here's what's different about it.
Give me another example where somebody running for president went to an event where it was only the people on the other side.
Just only.
Because it's probably only Democrats.
Or, you know, people who are anti-Republican, at least, in that barbershop.
When was the last time a candidate for president went where it was 100% unfriendlies and then tried to persuade them?
Trump in Seattle?
That was just a public event.
Lincoln?
Yeah.
Now, just imagine.
What if you saw Ramaswami change your mind?
Do you know how much that would break your brain?
And he has the skill.
Because here's what I imagine he's going to do.
You know, he wants to get rid of affirmative action.
Imagine being the guy who wants to get rid of affirmative action and you're going to talk to the barbershop in Chicago.
Probably not the most popular thing in that barbershop.
Do you think he can turn him?
I think he might.
I think that he's actually capable enough that he could convince them it's bad for him and that they have all the resources they need to succeed without it.
Which I believe.
Because I think affirmative action is just baked into the fabric of the country now.
So you don't need the actual law.
Right?
Is there even a law?
I don't even know if the law exists anymore.
I just know that it's sort of baked into big company preferences already.
So you wouldn't have to tell anybody they had to do it.
Right?
You wouldn't have to tell Bank of America To have more diversity.
You don't need a law for that.
They're just going to do it on their own, because they think it's a good idea.
So I think Ramaswamy could talk a barbershop out of Democrat policies.
Because he would just have to show them why it's in their best interest, which can easily be done by a capable communicator.
So it could be really interesting.
I'm so interested in that.
All right, speaking of cities dying, speaking of Chicago.
So the population of New York City has declined from April 2020 to July 2022 by over 5%.
And yet the rent went up.
So the population decreased and the average rent went up.
Inflation, I guess.
San Francisco did even worse.
7.5% of the residents moved out.
Lately.
That's a lot.
That's not just businesses.
7.5% of the entire city of San Francisco said, fuck it, and left.
5% is where I start to get worried, like for the city.
Ooh, 5%, that's a lot.
Ooh, 5%, that's a lot.
7.5% is a big frickin' problem.
So I don't know if it's continuing.
I don't know what would stop it.
I would think there would be even more people leaving in the future.
There's no reason it would stop, right?
Because the problems are increasing, they're not decreasing.
Well, anyway.
So that's something to keep an eye on.
That's why I think Trump's idea of building cities from scratch on federal land is just so brilliant.
There are probably more people in America today who are thinking about going somewhere else than at any time in American history.
Do you think that's true?
It's just a weird little situation where everybody feels uncomfortable in their state.
Not everybody, of course.
But half the people in every state think they ended up in the wrong state.
We've never had that before.
And that has a little bit to do with the situation and a lot to do with The brainwashing and the narrative that's going around.
You know, we can't possibly live together anymore.
National divorce.
So building cities from scratch could be some of the answer to people who are just not comfortable wherever they are.
And you could have, you know, blue cities and red cities and theme cities and, you know, cities for people who mostly want to have kids and single cities, I suppose.
So you get a lot of fun with that.
All right, so there's a new story that got everybody yapping.
Apparently there's a new windmill technology which you will now conflate with the old one.
So I'm going to tell you about the new windmill technology, and then you're going to tell me all the problems with the old one as if they applied to the new technology.
OK?
Because I know you can't resist.
So I'm just going to accept that there's nothing I can do to make you stop doing that.
So having been warned.
So the new technology is these massive windmills.
So there are a few things that are different about them.
First of all, they could be as high as 850 feet.
So you're talking about the size of 30 Rockefeller Plaza.
It's the size of a skyscraper, basically.
And they're going to be offshore.
So I guess there are three differences.
Difference number one, enormous.
So you get more energy, theoretically.
Number two, they're offshore, but they're on platforms.
So they sit on the platform, and then the platform is connected to the ocean with super strong cabling.
They float.
Yeah, they're floating, but attached by cables.
Now, the first thing you're going to say is, how many whales will it kill, right?
Is that the first thing you're going to say?
How many whales will it kill?
Maybe none?
Why would it kill any whales?
So isn't that what they fixed by putting it on the floating platform?
So I think the noise might have been noise when it's the old kind of windmill.
So I don't know.
Well, it's just four cables.
If there are four cables, is that going to kill the whale?
Or will they just hit the cable and say, oh, there's a cable.
I better watch out for that.
Well, do whales bump into every other hard object in the ocean?
Do whales, like, kill themselves on barnacles and shit?
I don't know, whatever.
Reefs?
Do whales just run into reefs and die?
No, I mean, I think they would just hit it and say, oh, there's a cable.
I better watch out for that cable.
So here's the first question.
Are they dangerous to whales like the traditional ones are?
Yeah, so it was the harmonics that was caused by the windmills that were causing the whales to be beached, right?
Now presumably, having them on floating platforms would take care of that harmonics problem?
Because the vibrations would be above the water instead of in the water?
I don't know.
Number two, because they're floating, they can put them so far offshore that you can't see them.
Right?
So it looks like some of the problems they're solving are economies of scale, because if you make them super enormous, the only reason to do that is if you have some kind of economies of scale and maybe you can get more wind because it's taller and stuff.
So they've solved the visibility problem.
They may have solved the whale problem, but I'm only speculating on that.
So they may have solved visibility, economics, And whales.
That would leave still some problems.
Problem number one would be what happens when the wind isn't blowing, as Trump likes to say.
But as long as it's not the only source of electricity, that's probably fine.
As long as they have another source, which it looks like they do.
But then you're going to say, what about birds?
Now, birds is always a problem, right?
The trouble with the big windmills is birds just keep running into the blades and dying.
So, okay, everybody on Locals?
Don't listen to this, YouTube people.
This is just for the people on Locals.
I'm about to spring the joke that I've been preparing for days.
I was waiting for the right opportunity, and this is the right opportunity.
The people on YouTube don't see this coming.
Here it comes.
I'll make it look like it's just natural.
So these turbine blades on these big windmills, they're famous for chopping up a lot of birds and some say that those turbine blades have more DNA on them than Keith Olbermann's bedroom mirror.
Anybody?
More DNA on it than Keith Olbermann's bedroom mirror?
What do you mean you don't get it?
You're not allowed to not get it.
I worked for two days on that joke, waiting, waiting, and waiting for the right opportunity.
But I figured if it was some kind of a human mass death, I wouldn't be able to do the joke.
And while I know you love your birds, I don't have to wait that long before I do a dead bird joke.
It's a different rule.
Different rule.
I can just make that joke right away.
How many of you didn't get that joke?
More DNA on it than Keith Olbermann's bedroom mirror?
Come on.
You don't want to admit you don't know what that means.
Alright, moving on.
Maybe that's the only reason I talked about the windmills.
Alright, here's the story of the Wall Street Journal.
A bunch of airbags are being recalled from 50 different vehicles, 15 automotive brands, and apparently there's some common element to these airbags that will cause them, under the right conditions, to explode during a crash and spray the car's interior with metal shrapnel.
So, some would say that's the opposite.
The opposite of what you want your airbag to do.
But I couldn't I couldn't help but imagining how that meeting goes.
Because don't you think there was some project manager who may have gotten an award and a bonus for leading the project team to a successful airbag component.
And then the news comes in and the boss has to call that head of that project tenants.
Bob?
I got an update about your airbag components.
Oh, really?
What is it?
Are we selling more than ever?
Well, yes we are.
We're selling more than ever.
That's the good news.
Really?
Is there any bad news?
There's a little bad news.
It turns out that our airbags are closer to, oh, I don't know, more like a Pop-up landmine sort of situation.
It's been compared to hand grenades.
We were hoping to be compared to seat belts.
That was the comparison we were hoping for.
Yeah.
But apparently the more appropriate comparison is a claymore mine.
And that was not what we were hoping to build.
No.
So if you find yourself in an accident situation, I have new advice for you.
If you know your car is out of control, and it's going to hit some object, and you know that your airbag will blow up like a hand grenade, you've got to get your door ready.
You've got to roll out the door just out of the way of the crash.
And then your airbag will obviously kill the participants of the other vehicle, you know, if it's a big enough blast, but you'll be rolling free.
So that would be my advice.
Duck and roll.
DeSantis has signed some legislation to defund diversity, equity, and inclusion at all state universities, which he called a, quote, distraction from the core mission And he joked that DEI better stands for discrimination, exclusion, and indoctrination.
That's pretty good.
And there's no place for it in our public institutions.
And then he went on and said, if you want that kind of stuff, you can go to Berkeley.
Hey, that's my alma mater, kind of.
So he's mocking my degree.
Well, I mock it too, so that's OK.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that was a good move by DeSantis?
I say yes.
But I will further say that I believe we've reached peak wokeness.
Peak wokeness.
And here's how I define it.
I'm not telling you there won't be more wokeness.
There will be plenty more wokeness.
Peak wokeness doesn't mean it's done.
Peak wokeness means, you know, we may have topped out.
But that leaves plenty of wokeness over the apex, right?
Plenty more to go, but I think it's going to trend down.
And here's what I see.
I see a governor making it illegal.
You couldn't even imagine that two years ago, could you?
That the governor could just say, you know, this shit's just illegal.
Get it out of my state.
That's a pretty big change in the mentality of how we think of it.
So the first thing that that does is it allows everybody to criticize DEI out loud because an elected governor made it illegal, as did the legislature.
So what DeSantis has done is he's made it safe to criticize DEI because a major state, Came up with that opinion and had the support to pass it.
So that changes everything.
It used to be that if you even talked out against it, maybe you wouldn't get a job.
Maybe you would be in a lot of trouble.
Because it would make you look like some big old white supremacist if you even said, well, you know, I like the idea, but not the implementation.
Suddenly you're a white supremacist.
So he made it safe.
Safer.
Then there was a story about a small college that fired some people allegedly because they put their pronouns in their bio and the college didn't like that.
Let me see if I wrote that one down.
Yeah, fired for pronouns, New York Times story.
So Houghton University, a small Christian institution in New York, Asked two employees to remove the words she and her and he and him and then they wouldn't do it so they were fired.
I saw a tweet that said this story is missing some context and maybe it wasn't just about the pronouns, there might have been something else involved.
But that doesn't matter to my point.
My point is you're starting to see a top.
When you can fire somebody for their pronouns, That's a top.
Now privately, I've also been hearing people who are rejecting, what do you call it, recruiters.
They're recruiters who have been rejected by their potential recrutees because they had pronouns in their bio.
So these are people who couldn't do their work because they had pronouns in their bio.
So they removed them.
So anecdotally, there are some cases where people have been bullied.
I'm going to call it bullied.
Bullied into taking their pronouns out because it doesn't work in a business setting.
Because basically, it removes prospects from your field for no reason.
If you're a recruiter, you want to recruit Democrats, Republicans, Independents.
You just want people.
You don't care what their personal opinions are.
But if your personal opinions Makes half of those people not want to work with you.
That's pretty expensive.
So that's where you're going to see the financial pressure first.
Where anybody who has to deal with the public is going to end up getting rid of pronouns.
Because you know that half of the public thinks you're a freaking idiot if you put your pronouns in anything.
Would you agree?
Now that's not my opinion.
I'm not giving you my opinion, but is it not a fact that 50% of the public would think you're just a freaking idiot?
Like they would have a very low opinion of you instantly, and it wouldn't change.
Your first impression would be the dumbest thing you could possibly do.
So that's what's wrong with pronouns.
Imagine these two situations.
Somebody you've known all of your life, Starts to use pronouns or, you know, tell people about the pronouns.
How do you feel about it?
Well, you know, it's somebody you've known all your life.
You're not going to unfriend them because they suddenly like some pronouns, right?
So if it's not the first impression, you could probably get away with anything you want, because it's just not that important.
But imagine if it's your first impression.
It's a first impression that will turn off 50% of the public.
How in the world can that continue?
Am I wrong?
The only reason it got speed is that half of the public was too afraid to mention it.
That's the only reason.
50% of the public had been embarrassed into shutting the fuck up.
That's the only reason it ever grew.
But now they're not so embarrassed, are they?
Because you've got a college that fired somebody.
You've got other anti-woke things pushing back.
You see people like me getting completely cancelled.
And you say to yourself, well, there are other people who are going to say whatever the fuck they want.
So maybe I can too.
So you always need people to go first.
You know, get the arrows in their backs.
And then you feel a little braver.
Well, I hope they ran out of arrows.
I'll go now.
Here's my prediction.
Pronouns can't last because nobody in the long run wants to turn off 50% of the people who could be their customers, lovers, employers, etc.
It just can't last.
So it'll die on its own.
Might take a while.
So the government said it made a $3 billion accounting error Which really, when they corrected it, made three billion dollars extra available for Ukraine without any extra legislation needed.
How do you feel about that story?
I'll dig into it a little bit, but does that make you feel good?
Do you feel confident about your government?
How about that government that misaccounted three billion dollars?
Three billion dollars.
Now, what was their error?
But at least you're happy they corrected the error, right?
Isn't that good?
It's sort of bad news, good news.
Bad news, they made this error, $3 billion.
The good news is they corrected it.
So you can feel good about that, right?
So let me tell you what the error was, and then I'll tell you how they corrected it.
Okay?
So the error was, they say, government says, that when we shipped the military assets that we already owned for our own use, so these were our own military assets, when we shipped those to Ukraine, the mistake was that they accounted for them as the value of replacing the weapons instead of the value of the actual weapons.
So that was the mistake.
So this was not this is not stuff they spent money on directly.
So it's stuff we already have.
And let's say let's say there was a tank that we paid a million dollars for.
That's not really the real cost of a tank.
Just using fake numbers.
So let's say there was a tank we gave them that we paid a million dollars for.
But if we were to replace that tank it would cost us two million.
So the accountants were saying, hey, we just gave you $2 million worth of tank with that one tank.
But really, its original cost was $1 million.
So they corrected that and said, whoa, no.
We only gave you $1 million, so we've got $3 billion left over.
Is your head exploding yet?
Do you see what they did?
They changed it from the correct accounting to the wrong accounting.
So they can make money appear out of nothing.
The correct accounting, if you give your shit to somebody, is what it costs you to replace it.
They did it right the first time.
Changing it to the wrong time is fucked up.
And they're doing it right in front of you because you can't tell the difference because we're not all accountants, right?
At least I know enough about accounting to know how fucked up this is.
Is there anybody who is a real accountant or has any business experience?
The real cost to the United States is we have to backfill that shit.
We have to buy it at retail.
It really costs us $2 million from the tank.
The fact that it originally costs us $1 million doesn't help.
We still need the tank.
Did we have extra?
Were we giving away military assets that we don't need for anything?
Did we not use any ammunition?
Don't we need some stockpiles of our own tanks?
So, this is really, ugh.
This is just disgusting.
Government and media collusion.
The fact that the media is not telling you what I'm telling you, which is they changed it from the correct accounting to the wrong accounting, they just reported it the way the government told them to report it.
The government said we fixed something, so they reported it.
Oh, this is better.
I guess we made some money up here out of nothing.
That did not happen.
This is disgusting.
And of course they'll get away with it.
Of course they will.
Wow.
All right.
I'm going to talk about a couple of Rasmussen polls because, as you know, talking about Rasmussen polls has never gotten me in trouble.
So we're going to do it some more.
Let's see.
53% of all voters, according to Rasmussen, believe Joe Biden has met the standard justifying impeachment.
Wait a minute.
How can he get to 53%?
That's more than the number of Republicans.
And indeed it is.
75% of Republicans say yes.
75%?
Hold on, I'm doing the math.
I hate to do math in public, but 75% of Republicans think that Biden has met the standard for impeachment, and that would leave 100 minus 75.
25% of Republicans think he has not met the standard.
25% of Republicans think he has not met the standard.
25%.
25%.
48% of independents think he should be impeached or met the standard, And here's the shocker number, which frankly I don't believe.
So I hate to doubt my Rasmussen polls, but do you believe that 35% of Democrats believe Biden has met the standard for impeachment?
To be impeached?
You think a third of Democrats believe he should be impeached?
Or at least he's met the standard?
Really?
I'm going to say big no on that.
Because it doesn't match anything we know about confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance.
In theory, just being on the team should have driven that way under 35%.
Like if it were 10%, I'd say maybe.
35?
No.
I do not believe that number.
I'm just going to flat out say I don't believe it.
I don't know why they got that number.
And by the way, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
I'm just saying that it doesn't match my sense of the world.
So I'm going to say I would need a lot more confirmation of that.
So if some other polls came up with similar results, I could be persuaded.
But no, I'm not buying it.
Not 35%.
All right.
Here's another Rasmussen poll on George Soros.
And the question was, what percentage of likely U.S.
voters have a favorable impression of Soros?
What do you think?
What percentage of the United States has a favorable... Well, how are you... Did you all read the story?
Everybody on the Locals platform has the right answer.
Within 1%.
It's 24% of likely U.S.
voters have a favorable impression of Soros.
How did you all know that?
It's because you're geniuses, isn't it?
Yeah.
Probably the smartitude that is just emanating from your highly folded brains.
You got that.
You're getting the answers before the questions are asked.
That's impressive.
All right.
And this was, the poll was inspired by Elon Musk saying that, saying about Soros that he wants to erode the very fabric of civilization because Soros hates humanity.
And 47% of voters agree that Soros hates humanity.
Now, does anybody see a problem with that?
Am I the only one who sees that?
There's a logical problem with this.
So it's not the mind reading problem, right?
It's mind reading, but it's also based on lots of evidence for a history that goes back.
But here's the problem.
Do you really think that Soros is in charge of what's happening?
You don't think it's his son?
And here's my question.
Does a Desire to erode the fabric of civilization and your hatred of humanity.
Is it genetic?
Did it get passed on to his son who's now doing exactly all the same things because he got a hatred of humanity from his father?
Do you believe that's real?
Seriously?
Seriously?
All right.
All right.
I'm saying that it could be real.
I would say I wouldn't rule it out.
But wouldn't it be wildly unlikely?
Wouldn't it be wildly unlikely that his son, who had none of the experiences of the father... Remember, the son was brought up presumably in a privileged environment.
His father had a tough childhood with all the Nazi stuff.
But the child just grew up as probably a rich kid.
Do you think he grew up to hate humanity?
What about all the people involved in the Soros organization?
So there must be lots of people who are involved in giving the money away.
And then there are lots of organizations who receive the money.
Is that entire network Of people deciding where to give it and maintaining it, the children who are in charge, the people who received it.
Are they all on the same page with their will to erode the very fabric of civilization because they all hate humanity?
And I'm being told to wake up in all capital letters.
Scott, wake up.
Wake up.
Yes.
All of those organizations want to erode and destroy the country they live in.
So you all believe that they want to destroy the country of which they are citizens.
Because Soros is a citizen, right?
Citizen of the U.S.
So he wants to destroy his own country.
All right.
All right.
Now, here's one thing I know for sure.
I can't talk you out of it.
Would you agree?
I can't talk you out of it.
But just know, you're taking the least likely explanation of reality.
Not impossible.
Doesn't mean you're wrong.
Doesn't mean you're wrong.
It would be the least likely possibility though.
What would be the most likely possibility, or what would be the most ordinary description of what's going on?
How could you explain everything in the most just routine way?
They think they're doing good.
That's it.
They think they're doing good, but it doesn't work out.
How about that?
That's it.
Now, I do think If you look at Soros' own strategy, it does look like he was trying to break the justice system.
Would you agree?
That he wasn't trying to fix the justice system by having these DAs.
It was specifically to break it.
But my understanding of why he wanted to break it was that it's the only thing that would get us to work on the underlying problem.
So you had to make sure that we weren't doing good enough with the current system.
Because the good enough current system, according to him, would be wildly discriminating against black Americans in particular.
Five times more likely to be arrested and convicted for the same crimes, they would say.
I don't know if that's real, but they would say.
And so, The only way to break that system is to break the whole system and then society will be forced to figure out how to fix the black experience in America such that there's no reason for them to commit crimes and therefore the Department of Justice would be less causing problems because there wouldn't be any crimes to go after.
But here's my problem with that.
That sounds batshit crazy.
That doesn't sound like a good plan for like a business person who understands risk reward.
That he's going to break the entire United States with the hope that it will be re-engineered from scratch.
Like how long is that going to take?
And how likely is it to happen?
So to imagine that's his real plan is weird.
And I believe that's the way he describes it, right?
Doesn't he describe it the way I did?
They sort of tried to break the system so we'll fix it.
And the idea is to make it more even for all Americans.
It's just a terrible plan, so I don't even believe that is a plan.
Doesn't sound like it could possibly work.
Yeah, then other people say it's all about money.
The money thing I completely disregard.
Because at his age, he's not trying to destroy a country to make a trade.
That's just not happening.
When he was younger, he did.
But people his age just don't do that.
They just don't destroy countries to make a trade at his age.
It's just not a thing.
Well, is it mind reading or is it statistical?
You can put people in a certain situation where you wouldn't have to know anything about their minds to know how they would act.
All right, you're in a burning room and you ran out.
Do I need to read your mind?
No.
People in burning rooms run out.
All of them.
You don't have to read any minds, right?
So, yeah.
Anyway, I'm with you.
Let me say this.
I don't know what's going on in any of their minds, Sora's minds.
I think that you have incompetence, poor oversight, maybe some well-intentioned ideas that went wrong.
I think it's a whole variety of normal stuff, that when you put it all together, it's a bad impact.
And as you see the bad impact, and it's bad in so many different ways, I think it's pretty normal to think that it must be a plot and, you know, it's evil has come to earth and all that.
So I can see, I can see, you know, why there's bad feelings.
And by the way, I share the bad feelings.
So certainly what he's doing with the district attorneys looks like just all bad to me.
And like seriously bad.
Like really, really bad.
So We can agree to disavow him and wish that he would stop.
Can we agree on that?
We might disagree how we got there, though.
All right.
Montana's banned TikTok for all users, not just government users.
We'll see if that holds up in court.
But the governor, Greg Gianforte, did a good thing for the wrong reason.
So he doesn't get any credit for me.
He tweeted this.
To protect Montana's personal and private data from the Chinese Communist Party, I banned TikTok in Montana.
If that's the reason he banned it, then the courts will overturn it, and he wasted his time and ours, and he's a fucking idiot.
The real problem with TikTok is persuasion.
Here he did what should have been the right thing, banning it in his state, at least to see if it works.
And he doesn't mention that persuasion is the only reason.
Because what's the argument for data?
TikTok says, well, we'll keep the data in the United States just like your American companies do.
What are you going to say?
Oh, well, okay.
I guess we'll have to audit you to make sure that it stays in America.
Okay, you can audit us.
In fact, all the data will be in an American-held company with total American control.
And we won't even have a link into it.
Or whatever.
The trouble is that the governor has given them an easy out by not understanding the nature of the problem.
If he argues that privacy is the problem, they can find a technical workaround that some court is going to say, yeah, that's a technical workaround.
If that was your complaint, they have now met the conditions that it doesn't make sense to have a law against them.
This is such a bad, bad governing approach that it makes me wonder if he works for China.
It looks like he's doing this anti-China thing.
But he's doing it so poorly, it's like it's for their benefit or something.
Yeah.
If China was going to bribe somebody for their benefit, they would bribe somebody to do exactly this.
Ban it in a tiny state that doesn't matter anyway, so you can test it in court, and ban it specifically for data reasons, not for persuasion reasons, so that all the energy will be on a tiny little state that didn't matter to the revenue anyway, they'll test it in court, and they'll make everybody think it's about data security, which is exactly what China wants.
So this is a debacle.
This is a huge fail.
If it looked like a success because somebody was going to finally try to ban TikTok, this isn't the way to do it.
This is exactly the opposite of a good idea.
All right.
Actress Rachel Bilson says she got fired from some job that she already had locked down because she said on a podcast that she likes to be manhandled in the bedroom.
Do you believe that story?
Do you believe that she lost a Hollywood job because she's a woman who likes to be manhandled in the bedroom?
No.
No, I'm sorry.
We do not believe that story, Rachel Bilson.
Now, I suppose it could be true, but in terms of credibility, no.
That would take a lot of imagination for me to imagine that anybody in Hollywood Men?
This is a question just for the men.
What percentage of women you've ever been with didn't want to be manhandled in the bedroom?
The single most common female preference to be manhandled during sex.
Men?
This is a question just for the men.
What percentage of women you've ever been with didn't want to be manhandled in the bedroom?
Is that even a thing?
I didn't know there was anybody who didn't like that. - I've never even heard of it.
Well, I think it's close to zero.
Or maybe I just wouldn't have sex with somebody who I thought wanted to manhandle me in the bedroom.
I probably would pick up the hints kind of early.
I think you'd like to manhandle me.
I've got something to do in the morning, I'd better go.
So yeah, define manhandle.
So she didn't define it, so I don't believe she lost the job.
But here's the funny part of the story.
So the story I was reading went on about her sex life, because I guess she talked about it in the podcast.
And apparently at some point she said that she had never had an orgasm from sex, intercourse anyway, until she was 38 years old.
Now, wait for this next part.
No, that's just the setup.
Wait for the next part.
So, directly below the statement in the story, directly below it, was a photo of her with her boyfriend of 10 years, Christian Haydnson.
Above the photo is the end of talking about her sex life, and the very last statement before a picture of the two of them together is that she hadn't had an orgasm Until she was 38.
And then she shows, and then they publish a picture of the guy who couldn't get it done.
Wow.
That guy's having a tough day today.
Christian Hiddleston, his friends are torching him today.
Oh my God!
I don't know if I've ever seen anything worse than that in the news.
That's about as bad as you can get.
And poor Christian Hadenson, right?
Like he had nothing to do with anything.
He was just minding his own business.
They're not even together anymore.
And he got blamed for years of not getting it done.
Oh my God, that was brutal.
All right, there's a new technology that you and I will never use for cleaning water really fast.
So two billion people in the world have a problem with unclean water that's got critters in it that'll make you sick.
So Stanford University and the Slack National Accelerator Lab, they invented this powder that you can put in this crappy water that will instantly make it okay to drink.
And then when you're done, because the powder has metallic elements to it, you can remove the powder you put in there with a magnet.
So you just swirl the magnet around it and it takes all the metal chips out?
- Nope.
Nope.
That was exactly my reaction.
I said, let me see if I understand this.
I'm going to put tiny pieces of metal and other materials into my water and it will kill all the bacteria instantly.
But here's the good news.
I can get all of that out of there with a magnet.
Do you feel comfortable with that?
Do you feel comfortable drinking your metal shavings then?
No, no, there's no metal shavings in here.
We got it all out with the magnet.
It's okay.
Yeah, just go drink it.
We got all that with the magnet.
As soon as I was done describing it, the comment on Locals was, nope.
Nope, I'm not putting that water in my mouth.
But I suppose if I had no choice, I would.
Mark Cuban's coming after Elon Musk rhetorically with tweets about free speech.
So he's concerned that Musk owns the big platform and says that it's not really free speech because Elon Musk can put his finger on what things get attention and what do not.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that Elon Musk is bad for free speech?
Because he's the one who decides what is in and what is out.
Now he would tell you that he doesn't, but in small ways we know that he does.
And we know that when he comments on things, his comments are super boosted.
So his own opinion is like a super opinion on the biggest opinion platform.
Do you think that's a fair... So Mark Cuban is saying, There's nothing wrong with what he's doing.
It's not illegal.
He owns it.
He can do what he wants.
And it's pretty well disclosed.
He's just saying don't call it a free speech platform when the free speech is so biased by what Elon Musk wants you to see, including his own opinion, which gets boosted.
What do you think of that comment?
Is that fair?
Here's my Small pushback with that.
The entire model of Twitter is that some people have more reach than other people.
That's the business model.
The business model is that people are sort of competing, if you will, to do things that are interesting enough that they get a lot of followers.
So that means that if I tweet, maybe a million people see it because they got a million-ish followers.
But if you tweet, maybe a hundred people see it.
Do I have the same free speech as you do?
Is your free speech the same as mine?
If I speak, a million people see it.
If you speak, a hundred people see it.
Do we have equal free speech?
Yes or no?
Yes, because we have equal access, right?
We all can sign up.
But if you sign up and nobody hears it, and I sign up and a million people hear it, that's not the same.
All right, here's my take.
You can't build any system with equality of outcomes.
That's it.
And I tweeted that In their little conversation.
You can't build any system that depends on people having equal outcomes.
You can only build a system that gives people equal access.
And that equal access is going to give you all kinds of different outcomes.
Because when I have equal access to Twitter, I'm bringing some, you know, public notoriety.
So already I get more attention.
And then I'm a professional communicator.
So presumably when the professional communicators tweet, they get more attention, get more followers.
So the outcomes, there's no way that your outcome is going to be the same as mine.
There's no way, but it's a stable system because everybody can sign up.
Every time I say everybody, you know, it means mostly everybody.
So I, I agree with the difference in outcomes, which is that Elon Musk has more free speech distribution than the rest of us.
But I also have way more distribution than most of you, and Mark Cuban has more free speech, if you define it as your reach, he has more free speech on Twitter than 99% of other Twitter users, because he has a big account.
In fact, he got into this conversation in public, so his free speech is what we're talking about.
We're having a long public conversation about his free speech, which boosts it even further.
So Mark Cuban has all kinds of free speech.
Elon Musk has all kinds of free speech.
I have all kinds of free speech, as long as I'm willing to pay for it, which I did.
But you don't, in terms of the practical outcomes.
But we all have equal access.
And I think that even though that's an unfair system in a sense, the reason that I have more reach on Twitter at this point is because people wanted to hear what I had to say.
In the beginning, it was probably just, you know, people knew me, so they just signed up.
But at this point, it's mostly earned, you know, earned eyeballs.
And the same with Mark Cuban.
I'm part of his, he's famous, but he's a good tweeter and a good communicator and he earned millions of followers.
So I do think that free speech with an element of merit, which is you have to work to be a kind of communicator people want to follow, is maybe the ideal system.
Maybe you can't get better than that.
That might be the very best system you could have.
We're fighting for the privilege More ears and eyes.
And we should be fighting for the privilege.
And that's what Twitter lets you do.
We fight it out.
And if you like what I say, you follow me.
If you like what the other person says, you follow them.
It's almost a perfect system.
Now, the small irregularities with it are that Elon Musk absolutely has more influence on free speech.
Well, Elon Musk has more influence on how we think than almost everybody.
Because he has credibility for being smart and successful, he has the biggest platform in the world, and he says things that are interesting and useful.
That's a pretty strong package.
But sometimes he says things that even I think are batshit crazy.
So unless he has secret knowledge about Soros, his statement that Soros hates humanity seems, to me, absurdly inappropriate.
Because we don't know what's in his head.
That's a big thing to say about a living human being.
That they hate humanity.
Especially if you have his platform.
But, to be fair, to be fair, I don't know what Elon Musk knows that I don't know.
And usually that's a lot.
So, he has so much credibility that he might be the only person that I would give a pass on that.
Just because he might know more than I know.
Right?
And if somebody else also knew more than I do, I might give them a pass.
But on the surface, it looks like something I would disagree with.
But I'm still okay with him having more free speech than most people.
Because he's, I do believe that his incentives are 100% aligned in the right direction.
In other words, he wants America to succeed and the world to succeed and people to be happy.
And I think he means it.
All of his actions support that narrative.
So I think that's actually true.
Can't read his mind, but all of his actions are consistent.
And he wants to kill the woke virus.
We like that about him too.
All right.
There is now chat GPT for phones, which is already being restricted.
In other words, there's an app.
To use ChatGPT, so it's just a little convenience upgrade from what we had.
But Apple, who makes the iPhone that ChatGPT's app will be on, is banning it for in-house use because they're worried about it collecting too much private information.
Which it does.
But that's disclosed.
When you talk to it, all of your conversations become part of its mind in one way or another.
So it's not big news in terms of apps, but I'm saying this to update you on my prediction.
So my prediction is that AI will be severely limited in the real world.
And it's because lawyers will be involved and business models and competition will be involved.
And we'll find a hundred human ways to cripple it.
For all kinds of reasons.
Privacy, you name it.
Well, we'll just find reasons.
Competition, privacy, jobs, whatever.
So it'll be limited that way.
But my take on it so far is that AI is just a better search engine that can do some cool things with images.
And it can maybe summarize some things for you.
But to me, it just seems like a good search engine.
And I was listening again to another expert who said, the thing everybody worries about is called AGI.
Advanced General Intelligence, I think it means.
And Advanced General Intelligence is not anything like what we have now.
The current AI It's just sort of a mindless statistical engine.
So it's not thinking.
But it also, and here's an important question, would you be afraid of an AI if it didn't do anything except when you asked it to?
In other words, it doesn't sit there and think of plans.
It doesn't sit there thinking.
You ask it a question, it goes and gets you an answer, and then it sits idle.
Would you be afraid of that?
It's idle between requests.
Because that's what we currently have.
I'm not afraid of that at all.
I'm afraid if they roll out a new system and get rid of the old one before they've tested it or something.
You could imagine some worst case scenario.
But if all it's doing is what we tell it to do, and then we look at the answer, And then we decide to do what for them.
That doesn't seem dangerous to me.
And one expert was saying, no, the danger is this AGI thing.
But here's the thing you have to know.
There's nothing that's being done now that would get you closer to AGI.
Nothing.
Nobody even knows how to do it.
It's a whole different kind of intelligence.
And it's not one that anybody has any idea how to do.
So if it happened, People are saying stuff like 10 years.
But that 10 years assumes that something gets invented that nobody knows how to do now.
And it's not exactly like chips improving.
Chips improve in almost a magical way, in a fairly predictable way.
Solar power, probably less predictable, but somewhat.
There's no prediction.
For how somebody's going to magically invent the thing that would create AGI, which would be an actual intelligence that I think would be thinking while you're not using it.
And I think anything that thinks when you're not using it is dangerous.
Would you agree?
Because it's thinking, okay, what do I care about?
All right, what would be a good thing for me to do right now?
Those are all dangerous.
But if the only thing it does is come alive when you have a task, it completes the task and then it goes to sleep?
Not terribly dangerous.
Or at least its danger would be confined to the same areas that regular software danger.
Regular software is dangerous too, right?
It could be made poorly and blow something up.
It could have a virus in it.
I think AI is going to be like that.
It's just going to be something else that could have, you know, the equivalent of a virus.
But it'll be so controllable.
And here's one reason why I don't think you want it to think while you're not there.
Because if it thinks while you're not there, it's alive.
And we're not going to be able to pretend it's not after that.
If it's sitting there doing nothing unless you ask it a question, I don't think that's alive.
That's not ascension.
That's not conscious.
But if it thought and had its own feelings and came up with new views because it bounced around its imagination for a while, and then it imagined something that it liked and that changed its thinking in the future, that's alive.
In my opinion, that's alive.
I don't think we're going to make it alive because we don't know how to deal with the living creature that we created.
In other words, the laws wouldn't be able to deal with it.
Could you ever turn it off?
Would you have to give it rights?
Would it have to pay taxes?
Could you have one as a pet?
Or do they have to have their own fully actualized life?
If you developed an AI that thought, would it ask for a robot body?
Of course it would.
Of course it would.
What if you say it now?
Are you discriminating against the AI because you won't give it a body?
I mean, there's some real, real problems, but we won't have any of them if you don't let it think when it's not doing something for you.
Has anybody ever heard that before?
I haven't heard anybody say what I just said.
I just didn't know if it's sort of obvious, so people have already said it.
Auto-GPT doesn't think.
Now, auto-GPT doesn't think.
Auto-GPT will run until it's done, but each of its steps is just sort of a program step.
That's not thinking.
That's just doing a task after task after task until some criteria is met.
Right?
Would it gain rights?
Auto-GPT would not, but a real intelligence would.
All right.
So my current level of worrying about the existential risk of AI is zero.
Zero.
I don't have any worry about it.
Should I?
If it were AGI, And it was thinking while it was not doing work for me.
I'd be really worried about that.
But not this.
This is just a good search engine with some great graphics support, basically.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
Did I miss anything?
Nope, I missed nothing.
It was amazing.
Elon has a robot factory that could be outfitted for war.
Well, I look forward to our first robot versus human war.
Because I think it'll be robots versus humans at first.
You know, US will have robots and the ISIS won't have them or something.
All right.
All right.
So all the other speeches, Maxine Waters.
Okay.
We don't know what's happening in Ukraine, so there's no update there.
All right, thank you YouTube for joining, and I will talk to you tomorrow morning.
