Episode 2132 Scott Adams: Tucker Is Back, CNN is Flailing, Depression Cure, NYC Now An Ashtray
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tucker is back
CNN is flailing
Ukraine is no longer damned
Depression is cured (maybe)
Manufacturing is up
Monkeys love themselves
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization, the best thing you've ever seen in your whole life.
If you'd like it to be even better, I'll bet you could do that.
All you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen joke, 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 dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah, delightful.
All right, well, let's see.
We got stories.
Turns out New York City and much of the Northeast is under a thick veil of smoke from Canadian forest fires.
I'll tell you, Canada is just becoming a trouble country, isn't it?
You know, you think they're up there just minding their own business, sipping some Molson, wrestling with the The mooses?
The mice?
Whatever they do up there, I don't really know.
But it's causing a lot of smoke.
And we found the only way to make New York City less hospitable.
So the good news is, it's sort of good news, bad situation.
So the bad news is, it's really hard to breathe in New York City.
So if you're going to do calling balls and strikes, you'd say the bad part is they can't breathe, and it's giving them all asthma and headaches.
That's the bad part of all that smoke.
On the plus side, you can't see the crime coming.
I know that's not a lot, because the crime will still come, but you don't see it as quickly, and I think that's an upgrade.
Because you'll suffer less because you don't see it coming.
It still comes, either way.
So get out of New York City as soon as you can.
There is, however, a hope for people who stay in New York City.
Because researchers have found the reason that mushrooms and LSD work.
They found the blah blah blah that binds to the blah blah blah.
I don't want to get too technical here, but there's a thing that binds to a thing.
And the way they found it is they looked at LSD as well as psilocybin.
Because both of those are implicated in curing depression.
They're trying to find out what's going on here.
And it turns out that the thing that binds in the hallucinogens binds way better than the off-the-shelf stuff that is supposed to treat depression.
So it does what the prescription drugs do, but a hundred times better.
Without negative consequences.
Because you can just do your hallucinogens and then be done with it.
But if you're on depression meds, you're just taking them all the time.
So you've got the side effects forever.
Whereas if you do LSD or psilocybin, you've got the, you know, you've got an interesting trip, and then it's over.
And then your depression is lessened.
But they figured out how to isolate the part that helps you with your depression separate from the part that gets you in your trip.
So that that might give them an avenue to commercialize it.
Because the first thing that your drug company wants to do is take the fun out of your drugs, am I right?
Takes the fun out of it.
But maybe it'll cure your depression.
So that would be worthwhile, I guess.
Now the biggest story I think today, a lot of big stories, but none bigger than this.
According to an article in the Guardian, evolutionary biologists, and this is important work, you know sometimes you think science is not getting it done.
You know, we don't trust science.
Science may have lied to us.
You know, maybe their models are not all that accurate and stuff.
So we do a lot of criticizing of science, but when they do good work like this, well, what I'll tell you about here, you have to give them some credit.
So what the evolutionary biologists have done, according to the Guardian, they've traced back the origins of masturbations and they found out which monkey started it.
So, we got that going for us.
Now, they think that it started 40 million years ago.
No.
How long ago?
Yeah, like, the first humans by tens of millions of years.
So yeah, 40 million years ago, evolutionary biologists have determined, they've discovered the first masturbating monkeys.
Now, how do you think they determined that?
How do you think an evolutionary biologist Can reach back in time 40 million years and determine which monkeys were beating off.
Does that sound like something that really happened in the actual real world?
Guardian?
Did they really know which monkeys were beating off?
I don't think so.
I would call this another story where science is just making itself look ridiculous.
Because, first of all, we don't really need to know which monkeys beat off first.
I'm happy to know that evolution, after 40 million years, brought us to the point where Jeffrey Toobin can do it on Zoom.
So, I mean, there's an interesting evolutionary story there.
But other than that, did it matter?
Was it terribly important why monkeys are masturbating?
Somebody got paid for that.
Somebody got paid for that.
And then after they got paid to figure out which monkeys I'm estimating, apparently they just made up the answer.
I don't know.
What do you think, Eric?
I don't know.
40 billion years ago, let's say the monkeys were getting busy.
Is anybody gonna check?
How could they check?
We can't even check.
Well, why are we claiming that we know?
Nobody else will know the difference either.
All right, monkeys beat off 40 million years ago.
Could you have a lower opinion of science right now?
I mean, after we get through the pandemic, you're expecting some big wins for science?
So far, the only win is they figured out how to cure your depression without you having a good time.
That was the first story.
We figured out how to cure your depression, but we've removed the part where you have a really good time while it happens.
That's fucking it.
That's what science gave you.
They took away the fun, and they kept the drug.
And they figured out that monkeys were beating off 40 million years ago.
Yeah, how does that help you with your climate change?
Well, speaking of masturbating monkeys, there's a story from CNN.
Anybody?
Anybody?
Best segue of any podcast ever.
Yes, from Masturbating Monkeys to CNN, their CEO, Chris Lichterlichter.
We never bothered to learn his name because we didn't think he'd stay.
I never bothered to figure out how to pronounce his last name.
I just figured he wasn't going to last.
Chris.
Let's call him Chris.
Lichterlichter or something.
Anyway, so I wondered if CNN would cover the story of their own problems, and they did.
And the way they covered it was, this is unbelievable.
So this is CNN's own words.
Chris Light, or Licht, or Licht, or Licht, or whatever, the embattled chief executive and chairman of CNN, so they called their own CEO, embattled, whose brief one-year tenure at the network was stained by a series of severe missteps.
Severe missteps.
And then the article links to the example of the biggest of all the missteps.
What do you think the article was?
What do you think was his big misstep?
Having Trump on the town hall.
Yeah, the only successful thing that CNN did all year.
It was the only success they had.
And CNN called it a big failure.
Because the person who is most likely to be your next president of the United States Was featured on their network.
And they can't have that.
Because their job is to prevent him from being president.
So he gets fired for being, probably for being a adult white guy.
But that wasn't mentioned.
Instead it was mentioned that he had helped another adult white guy, Trump.
But it's not overrated.
It's not about race.
It's not about race.
It's not about gender.
He was replaced by a woman, temporarily.
Now would you like to take bets?
Do you believe that he could be replaced by another adult white man?
Do you think there's any chance that can happen at CNN?
Any chance?
No.
No.
Their next hire will be based on race and gender.
And if they don't pick a trans for that job, well, I call them haters.
And I would say that would be a severe misstep.
A severe misstep.
I think they need a Yeah, possibly a trans.
So that's what I'd like to see.
I'd like to see them walk the walk and talk the talk.
They should do what they say and get themselves a properly diverse CEO.
Well, it looks like Trump broke them.
The trail of destruction that Trump has left.
But I feel like he finished off CNN.
So I wonder if anything else is happening that would be relevant to give us context to this story about the struggling CNN, whose best primetime shows get about 300,000 viewers.
About 300,000.
How would that compare to other things that we're seeing lately?
You'll see 300,000 viewers.
Oh, there's a story by, so Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
was saying on a podcast, With, I think, Jordan Peterson, that he thinks the 2024 election will be decided by podcasts.
He thinks it'll be podcasts, not network television.
Now, did you hear anybody else say that, make that prediction?
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
So, but it's not, I wouldn't say that's 100% of the story.
I would say the story is you can use the podcast to get enough traction that then the networks will cover you.
Because if you don't get to the networks, the old people will never know you exist.
And if the old people don't know you exist, you're not getting elected.
So the podcast might give you some life, and they might be able to test you out and get some good quotes and some viral videos and all that stuff, which is great.
But you're still going to need to get on TV.
And, you know, when it comes out to the final two, they will be on TV, so I guess that takes care of itself when you get to the final two.
But if you're running in the primaries, you're trying to make a dent, it's all podcasts.
And I would say that's one of the best things that's happened to the country.
You know, we like to focus on all the negative, but wow!
I would say this year you really see the maturity of the podcasting It's not just that the technology and the audience and everything is maturing, it's that the type of voices you get are completely different.
They're completely different.
There never was a Joe Rogan.
You're not going to see a Jordan Peterson on network news.
Same with Ben Shapiro, same with me.
There's a lot of voices that are now interesting and different and actually making an impact.
Speaking of that, you may have heard That Tucker Carlson is back.
He's back, but he's on Twitter.
So he did his first little video.
Maybe you could call it a show.
I don't know what he's going to call it.
An episode?
But it was one monologue, basically.
Similar to how he used to do on his Fox News.
And I wonder how that did.
Poor Poor Tucker, he gets kicked off a show that was killing CNN by about 10 to 1 in viewership.
He would have maybe 4 million when CNN would have less than 400,000.
So he was about 10 times bigger than CNN, but then he lost his gig on Fox News.
So the poor guy, poor, poor Tucker Carlson has to take his show to Twitter and Let me see an update.
How many numbers, views did he get on his little, tiny little... 64 million.
64 million.
No, 68.
I'm sorry.
Update.
68 million.
Let me say that again.
CNN primetime?
300,000 to 400,000 people.
In prime time, 300,000 to 400,000 people.
Fox News, Tucker Carlson, 10 times that.
Four million.
Talk to Carlson on Twitter.
Fifteen times that so far.
Twenty times it.
Now, I don't know how many people watched the video, because somebody said that that number might be impressions, not views.
Yeah, I'm seeing that in the comments.
So apparently it's impressions, not views.
So that doesn't mean they watched it.
It means that it showed up for them to watch it.
But, yeah.
But 68 million impressions probably translates into the biggest audience for a news person of all time.
That's my guess.
I mean, it could be 6 million, but it would still be record breaking.
So, good for Tucker.
And how did Tucker do?
Well, he's got a technique.
I think Hannity does this a little bit, but Tucker perfected it, where you say a bunch of things that you know your audience agrees with, and they really have some emotion in it.
So you're like, oh yeah, that's true.
Oh, that's true.
Oh, that's true.
And then he gets to the thing that's not quite proven.
After you've been nodding along, yeah, that's true, that's true, that's true, that's true.
And he gets to the last thing, and you're still nodding when he says it.
You're like, oh.
Maybe.
And he did that with the, he starts with Nord Stream 2.
And you're like, you know, Nord Stream 2, it turns out that the Ukrainians and the Americans were behind the blowing it up.
And his audience is like, yep, yep, we knew that.
I mean, it wasn't official, but we knew that.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Nord Stream 2.
And Biden lied to the country about it, said they didn't know anything about it.
Yep.
And then he goes to the Ukraine dam.
And now you're like, and he says the Ukraine dam almost certainly was done by Ukraine, because it was in Russian territory.
And, you know, you don't really blow up a dam in your own territory.
I mean, there's some speculation about maybe there's some advantage, but not really, right?
So then Tucker goes from the Nord Stream thing, which is pretty much confirmed, to the dam thing, which is not confirmed, but you pretty much know it's true.
Right?
So now you've gone from certainly true to almost probably true.
That Ukraine was behind it.
And then after you're still nodding along, yep, yep, almost probably true.
I'll bet you Ukraine did blow up that day.
And the next thing you know, he's talking about the aliens being real and the whistleblower has the goods.
And you're like, yep, and aliens?
Okay, I guess so.
Aliens too.
I'm on board.
Let's go with the aliens.
I still believe there are no aliens but I'm not going to criticize Tucker for this because he does what Joe Rogan does and I call it recreational belief.
Recreational belief.
It's different from actually believing something.
So recreational belief would be like when I see stories about the pyramids And the story will be that the aliens built them, or the story is that there was an ancient civilization in America and we've lost their technology.
I don't know if any of that's true, but I like to believe it recreationally.
You know what I mean?
I'll believe it-ish, because it's fun.
I just enjoy it.
So when Tucker talks about the aliens, it's either the biggest story in the history of human civilization, Or it's just fun to believe it.
It's just kind of fun.
So I don't care if it's true or not.
I don't care if he believes it or not.
It's recreational.
It's Bigfoot news.
And if you can just enjoy it for the fun of it, that's good.
Let's just enjoy it for the fun of it.
I don't believe there are any aliens.
Could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.
That would be the greatest thing ever.
I would love to be wrong about that.
I mean, I'd really, really love to be wrong about it.
Until they all kill us.
Well, Mike Pence is in the race, and let me tell you all the interesting parts about that.
Okay, there are no interesting parts about that.
What he's offering you is Trump's policy, but without the fun.
Trump's policies without the fun.
I believe that Mike Pence would be in favor of taking the fun out of the hallucinogenics to help you cure the depression.
Yes, I'm going to give you Trump's policies, but with none of the interesting fun parts.
We'll just get the job done.
You know what I hate about that?
The thing I hate about it, it's like a really good proposition.
It's a really good offer.
It's like a really good offer.
Like a really, really, really good offer that nobody's going to take.
Poor guy.
I have so much respect for Mike Pence, but it just doesn't translate into excitement.
He's basically the guy who just makes the right decisions one time after another, and that doesn't get you to the presidency, I don't think.
But no, I have immense respect for Mike Pence.
I'm sure I don't agree with him on everything, policy-wise.
I'm sure we would have some differences.
But he's a solid guy.
I like that he's in the race.
And I will add him to my list of people who would be perfectly acceptable presidents.
Left and right.
We now have the best set of choices I've ever seen for interesting and capable young people.
Now Biden is the only person running that I think is incapable.
Everybody else, they've got something to offer.
I think Biden's the only problem.
All right.
Well, we like drama in our politics, so he's just not bringing that.
There's a news story that's I don't know what to think of it yet.
So you know that Representative Comer and Senator Chuck Grassley are after the FBI saying that the FBI has a document which apparently they've seen in person and they would like that document to be, you know, entered into the record and made public, I think, I think made public so that we can see it.
And apparently it's an accusation about Biden taking a bribe.
Now that would be a pretty big accusation.
Now the FBI does not want that available but they did offer to show it to Comer and Grassley so they've seen it.
So they know it exists and the FBI says it's part of an ongoing investigation so they don't want to make it public.
Now here's the thing.
I'm not sure I disagree with the FBI on this.
What do you think?
Because if it is an ongoing investigation, that means they will soon be able to determine if the accusation is valid or not.
Right?
And wouldn't you rather only see accusations that have at least a little bit of checking out to make sure they're valid?
Because otherwise you're just maligning somebody who doesn't have a comment.
Right?
There must be lots of accusations that don't pan out.
So I'm a little bit on the fence on this one.
Because in terms of, you know, innocence until proven guilty, keeping this stuff out of the news until you've looked into it makes sense.
On the other hand, it also seems like a transparent attempt to keep it out of the news, because it would be bad for Biden.
But I don't know that that's bad.
I don't think you should take on a president on a rumor or an allegation.
On the other hand, every rumor and allegation about Trump became known.
So at what point do we have a right to know the allegations?
You know, you can make an argument that the public has a right to know, especially an allegation of that magnitude.
It would be the ultimate allegation.
But on the other hand, because we got two hands, I think you should be innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think every accusation somebody makes should be public.
So I don't know where to end up on this.
I guess I'd have to see the document, but I don't know that we will.
So the government can just keep this from you for whatever reason.
Speaking of the FBI, Rasmussen did a poll on the FBI and found out its popularity here.
Well, not popularity, but 60% of likely U.S.
voters believe it is likely that top officials at the FBI helped cover up wrongdoing by Biden or his family members.
60% of the country thinks the FBI was in on a plot. 60%.
Oh my god, so that would include basically every Republican, but a slice of other people too, independents and whatnot.
That's insane.
Insane, but true.
Here's a story that didn't get a lot of attention, but apparently it's true.
I saw it on Twitter.
That American manufacturing is way up.
Did you know that?
Talk about like the best news.
So at the same time that China's exports are down I think seven and a half percent if you can believe any numbers on China.
So China's exports are down seven and a half percent and American chip making and the basically the activity that predicts manufacturing Booming is happening.
So all of the investments in plants and manufacturing assets are happening.
So at the moment, we're undergoing a manufacturing boom, and it does seem to be related to Biden policies.
It does seem to be related to the CHIPS, specifically the CHIPS Act that's trying to bring CHIPS back to America.
So I hate to say it, but it looks like the... Well, no, I don't hate to say it.
That's the wrong thing.
It looks like Biden might have a win on this.
What do you think?
Is this a clean win?
Because I think Trump would have done it.
To me, it looked like a policy that probably just made sense.
We had to repatriate some of those industries.
You're not willing to give him credit for that?
Yeah, I don't think it's a clean bill.
None of them are.
There's always something in it you don't like.
But if it gets the job done, you're not going to give them credit.
If it actually brings chip manufacturing back onto our shore, you're not going to say that's a clean win.
You're going to be tough grading on this, aren't you?
All right.
All right.
By the way, the reason you watch me is that I don't just take one side all the time.
That's the point of what I do.
It would be useless if I did.
All right, so we'll keep an eye on that.
Apple's new iOS has some new features, and one of them is it will block you.
It'll block a naughty, nude picture that's unsolicited.
So if somebody sends you a picture, it'll block it until you choose to see it, I guess.
I'm wondering if this is the end of smartphones.
I have this weird theory that 20% of all electronic travel traffic is dick pics.
What happens if Apple gets rid of dick pics?
I mean, the total internet traffic is just going to fall through the floor.
Uh, so you got that.
And apparently they've changed it so that the autocorrect will no longer change the F word to the word duck.
So, the number of times I have typed This ducking thing or that ducking thing, except I didn't say ducking, and it changed it to ducking.
Oh my god.
It was one of the things I've hated the most about my phone.
And the reason I hated it is not because it's an error or a bad user interface.
I hated it because it felt like it was censoring me.
Do you know what I mean?
Did you have that feeling?
It felt personal.
It didn't feel like a mistake.
It felt like it was, yeah, scolding.
Exactly.
It felt like somebody was telling me what I can and cannot say in my private conversations.
And it really was offensive to me.
That's the only autocorrect that I found offensive.
Everything else was okay.
But they changed it.
So, that's cool.
I should tell you that I sold all my Apple stock because I don't know if they have an answer to AI yet.
And I don't think the glasses thing is going to be big.
What do you think?
What's your guess on the, what do you call it, the mixed reality headsets?
I say it's not going to be big.
I think it's going to be Apple watch-like.
Maybe gamers will like it.
Maybe it's a party trick.
I just don't see everybody in the family getting one.
Certainly not at $3,000 or $3,500 or whatever.
Yeah, I don't see it happening.
I knew that at some point we would see the loss of Steve Jobs, but apparently it's taken a while.
I feel like this is the one.
This is the one that stands out as something that I think Steve Jobs would not have done.
What do you think?
Do you think Steve Jobs would have introduced this headset?
He did the Lisa.
There was always that.
Yeah.
You think so?
Maybe.
It's possible because they were running out of ideas, but I don't know.
I think if I were Jobs, here's what I would have done.
I would have introduced it as an alternative to in-person school.
This is what I would have done.
I would have introduced it as an education tool and training tool only.
And I would have limited it to that.
And then every expert in the world would say, whoa!
That's the best thing anybody ever did for education.
Right?
They would have said it was the best thing that ever happened in education.
Because you could watch your shows, you could homeschool, you could learn training, you could move objects around.
But by making it the everything thing that everybody might want, but for a whole bunch of different disparate reasons, I think the marketing just fell apart.
Because I don't know why I want one.
I want one for miscellaneous and various reasons.
I'll tell you what doesn't get me excited.
Miscellaneous and various anything.
Well, I don't even think it's good for porn.
I mean, I don't know, but I would imagine it doesn't really add much for porn.
Maybe it's okay for gamers.
Maybe it gives you a headache.
I don't know.
I don't know if it works with my glasses on.
Who knows?
But I think Steve Jobs would have said, we've developed the greatest product ever for homeschooling and for corporate training and everything else.
And then build it from there.
Then it would look like the biggest hit of all time.
Because he would just own that category.
And then it would grow from there.
That's the way I would have done it.
If I were alive and Steve Jobs.
All right.
What else is going on?
Not a lot.
Looks like that was about all that's going on.
Is there anything else happening that I've missed?
Aliens.
Well, how many of you believe that the aliens are not only visiting Earth, but the government has their ships and their dead bodies?
How many believe that's true?
Go.
I won't mock you.
I will not mock you, you can admit.
I see almost nobody.
All right, it looks like 10% yeses and the rest are no.
Is that because I talked you out of it?
I feel like I may have embarrassed you out of that belief.
It's all nos.
Okay.
Well, I was not expecting that.
I actually thought it'd be close to half yes, but it looks like it's almost all nos.
We do have yeses, but it's at least 80% nos, it looks like.
All right.
Now, you know, I'm just going to jump around a few things.
As I'm watching RFK Jr.
navigate all the podcasts, the one thing that I feel deeply bad for him about is that he gets asked the same questions.
And he has to give the same long explanations, which are excellent, by the way.
If you haven't heard his long explanations of how we got where we are with Big Pharma, it's riveting.
It's really tight and complete and a good story.
But I think he ends up telling that story on every podcast.
So he's probably doing it three times a day.
Do you know how tired you get of telling your own story three times a day?
I tell you, when I do a book tour, which by the way, I'll be doing some kind of a podcast book tour over the summer, which we're there, so only maybe a month or two.
So we'll see.
But I'm gonna be really tired of talking about myself after the first, you know, ten podcasts.
The question... Cornel West entered the presidential race, is it official?
Cornel West is in?
Alright, it's official.
I'm guessing he's running as a Democrat.
He's in, all right.
And Chris Christie is in too, right?
You know, I'm just waiting for Trump to be asked about Chris Christie's possibilities.
I feel like he's going to say fat chance.
I just feel like that's coming.
What do you think about Chris Christie becoming president?
Fat chance.
That seems like a typical Trump.
All right.
Now I did look into the, remember you asked me about RFK Jr.
wanting to, quote, execute people who were opposed to climate change.
How many of you thought he was referring to just ordinary people who were opposed to climate change and that he wanted them jailed or executed?
Okay, I've confirmed that was never the case.
Never said anything like that.
He was talking about people who were Polluting in a way that was killing people while creating disinformation so that they could get away with what they were doing.
So he was talking about way over the top corporate behavior that killed people.
Corporate behavior in which people lied intentionally to do dangerous things that actually killed people or damaged them.
Now in that case if you say somebody should be killed Or executed or go to jail.
Because they intentionally did something that killed people.
Like lots of people.
Not even just one person.
Lots of people.
If it's intentional, and it killed lots of people, it's not crazy to call for their execution.
That's not crazy.
Mass murderers are typically executed.
It's the same reason I'm calling for the execution of cartels.
And anybody we can get in China who's involved, we should kill them all.
Because they're mass murderers.
Mass murderers you have to kill.
That's not negotiable.
Or at least put them away forever.
But you can't get away with mass murder.
Nobody can get away with that.
I mean, if you can catch them, you've got to treat them in the harshest possible way, and there's no way around that.
That's not negotiable.
All right.
Sterilizing.
You know, I do have this idea about crime.
I would agree with the Democrats halfway about crime, which is too many people are being picked up by police and put in jail for too many things.
There's something that has to stop that.
But we didn't have a plan.
Getting rid of police was exactly the wrong thing, because then just people stole more stuff.
So I have a plan for decreasing crime without police.
You ready for it?
Because I think technology can get us there.
Instead of taking somebody's freedom away, let's say they shoplifted.
And you don't really want to put them in jail, because that's just going to cause some cascade of problems later.
So what do you do?
You can't let them steal.
At the same time, if you don't want to put them in jail, they're just going to steal some more.
So I would suggest that there might be a middle ground here in which you take away their privacy.
So let me say this another way.
If you're going to let a criminal and a jail, you fucking owe me that information, my government.
If you're letting somebody who did, let's say, a violent crime, and you let them out of jail, and then they walk into my store, you fucking owe me the information that that guy that you let out of jail just walked into my fucking store.
His privacy, he lost that.
You lost your privacy when you were dangerous.
As soon as you're dangerous, you don't get privacy.
Because I have a right to protect myself and I have a right to that information.
I have a right to his private information.
And maybe not a legal right, but let's say a moral and ethical right.
If a criminal is let out of jail because our justice system doesn't want to keep him in there, but he's legitimately a risk, either for shoplifting or physical risk, I need to know where that fucker is.
All the time.
Because I want to stay away from him.
I want to watch him if they come in my store.
I don't know what I can do about it in these days, but I certainly want to keep an eye on him.
Take a picture at least.
If they're dangerous, I want to know to get away.
I want to know who to stay away from and who not to.
So, I believe we have the technology to take somebody's privacy away.
Put an ankle bracelet on.
If they take it off, put them in jail.
But I would just keep the ankle bracelet on there forever, as long as they keep doing crimes.
Oh, you did another crime?
Well, that's another year of ankle bracelet.
Imagine the criminal walking down the sidewalk, and the people with their smartphones all get an alert, and so they just give them room.
Or how about you know that there's a dangerous person somewhere, and so you keep an eye on them in case you need to help somebody out.
Let's say you're on the subway, and a person with a violent criminal record gets on.
Well, you would know to put them in a headlock.
Okay, that's too far.
But you get my point, right?
If you're gonna let them out, you owe the rest of us that information.
Not legally, not constitutionally, but you fucking owe us.
Anybody disagree?
Does anybody disagree with that?
That they owe us that information if they're gonna let criminals out of jail?
You better tell us!
Yeah, and I'm pretty adamant about that.
Now, I don't mean necessarily a first offender, right?
I don't think a first offender, for let's say shoplifting or something, I don't think a first offender needs to have like a privacy, you know, bracelet on their ankle.
But if you're one of these arrested 42 times a year people, yeah, you need a bracelet on your ankle so I can stay the hell away from you.
All right.
It'll become a fashion accessory.
I'm all about that.
All right.
Yeah, it'd be sort of a scarlet letter, but it would be temporary.
I mean, it would have to have some kind of timeout.
You couldn't put it on there forever.
All right.
Make them glow.
Tattoos.
All right.
Yeah, CNN fired Chris Licklite.
We talked about that already.
Girls would use it as a dating app.
Oh, you were so cynical.
But women do seem to like men who are murderers and in prison for life, so it's a thing.
That was done to you in high school for smoking weed.
You were just made public?
Oh yeah, that probably is what works.
Yeah.
So if somebody gets picked up, then the parents don't let them come over for the sleepovers after that.
Oh yeah, maybe that Apple mixed reality headset can help you see criminals.
Oh my God, it would actually do that.
Because all it needs is facial recognition.
If the criminals are in kind of some system where their faces are known, then the Apple Mixed Reality could actually light people up in a crowd to tell you who the criminals were.
I wonder if it could also tell you who's single.
Imagine going to an event, go to a bar or something, and you put it on, and it just uses facial recognition to tell you who's single, based on their social media.
Could get pretty close to it.
Of course, whether they wear a ring or not will tell you that as well.
Alright.
Anything else that's happening?
Could show you cancelled cartoonists.
Yeah, so people could stay away from me.
I guess it works both ways.
People want to stay away from me.
The SPLC has labeled the Moms for Liberty as a hate group.
I don't know enough about the Moms for Liberty to have an opinion on that, but I have an opinion on the SPLC, which is, I don't think they're a credible organization.
I'm sorry, the SPLC.
The Southern Poverty Law Center.
They label people as hate groups.
If you get labeled by them, you're in bad shape.
Yeah, and they do seem to be a force for evil.
That does seem to be the case at the SPLC.
All right, no Dilbert t-shirts.
I'm not really that much into merchandise.
FTX, yeah.
DeSantis, oh, the kidnapping.
What about Tate?
Yeah, we don't want to cut off the hands of the thieves.
Probably don't want to do that.
But...
What's my handle on Twitter?
It's at Scott Adams says.
By the way, I'm very proud of that Twitter handle.
Because when I went to sign up for Twitter, of course, you know, my own name was taken, etc.
So I had to figure out some variant.
And I thought, well, if I'm on here just saying stuff, I'll just put my name and then says.
And it turns out that really worked because when people quote me, they quote my Twitter handle as part of the sentence.
And as Scott Adams says, and then they say whatever I tweeted.
And I've seen some people copy that, the says part.
Because there aren't that many things you can do after all the good stuff is taken.
What about the PGA?
I don't know if I like that.
I don't know.
The golf news was not interesting to me.
You added doctor to yours?
Alright, Matt Walsh.
Somebody said that Matt Walsh's video, What Has a Woman, got 180 million impressions, probably.
I didn't say that Apple doesn't have AI.
I said that they're behind.
Meaning that their S-I-R-I is, it feels like something from the 90s.
And they have not announced anything that looks interesting to me there yet.
Aliens have a different frequency from us, okay?
All right.
You work with somebody with my name?
Oh, I'm sorry.
You know, I used to use a Google Alert to look for stories about myself, in case anything was important.
And of course there are too many people named Scott Adams so it kicks up lots of stories about other people.
And I always look, I'm hoping that nobody with my name ruins, ruined my reputation.
Like I would have hated it if there had been a Scott Adams who became like a serial killer or did some heinous crime.
And then it turns out I was the one who ruined it.
I ruined the day for all the other people.
It turns out having my name is a really bad deal.
I think it's hilarious that I'm the one who ruined the name.
Disgraced cartoonist.
Alright.
You and Trump ruin everything.
We do.
I'm a destroyer of worlds.
I can't believe you would trust the government with people's privacy.
I don't think that happened.
Did that happen?
I'm not sure I saw anything like that happening.
All right.
Was Mark Twain cancelled?
Did that ever happen?
Somebody said Mark Twain got cancelled.
I don't remember Mark Twain.
He did?
Oh, for the N-word, but not during his life.
During his life he was never cancelled, right?
Or was he?
I don't know.
Have I ever met another Scott Adams?
I have, yes.
I've met black Scott Adams too.
Black Scott Adams lives near me.
He's got a lot of explaining.
How would you like to be Black Scott Adams now?
He lives somewhere in my area.
I feel so bad for him.
Well, I was, but then I wasn't.
Maybe I'll go back.
Did my ancestors own slaves?
I don't think my ancestors owned anything.
I don't think they owned slaves.
I once did a, what do you call it, the ancestor check, when you check your ancestry, and actually found a will for one of the Adam's ancestors.
And you look at the will, you know, the items that are being left to the next generation, and it is so revealing.
So here were the items left in one of my ancestor's will.
My good copper pot, that stick that I use to stir stuff, and a handkerchief.
No, I just made that up.
But some of them were just cooking tools.
That was it.
That was the entirety of what my ancestor owned, was just some items that you could hold in your hands.
That's it.
That's all he owned.
No property, no slaves, no nothing.
And so, but apparently, starting with that nothing, thanks to slavery, I've prospered on the backs of other Americans, apparently.
We've only endorsed the migrants.
I thought about it.
I know that surprises you, but I actually thought about it.
I'm still thinking about it.
I wouldn't mind taking a family from Mexico.
It wouldn't be terrible.
I mean, if you have room.
Now, I wouldn't take some unattended males.
But if it was a family of four with a real mom and dad and two real kids, maybe.
Yeah, if it's for a month or something, sure.
I could see it.
It's not out of the question.
I think it's unlikely.
It's unlikely, but it's not out of the question.
For how long?
I don't know.
Month?
Whatever it takes.
Am I related to John Adams?
I'm not a descendant of.
But probably cousins.
Yeah, I probably won't do it.
Thank you.
But I don't rule it out.
You know, they are human beings after all.
All right.
Would you put them to work?
That's an interesting question.
Would I put them to work?
They would probably want to.
They would probably volunteer.
So the thing you don't understand about that culture, if you're not sort of deeply in it, is that they're helpful by nature.
I mean, they would offer to help.
That would be automatic.
Now that's the South of the border culture.
There's a lot of people coming in from other cultures who are just using that passing point, and that would be different.
But if you told me it would be an actual born in Central America or Mexico, and it was a family, I would have all positive feelings about that.
Except for the fact that, you know, some laws are broken.
Yeah, these are all just generalizations, you are correct.
Big old generalizations.
All right, that's all I got for today, YouTube.
I'm going to say bye until tomorrow, and let's see if we find those aliens between now and then.
