Episode 2137 Scott Adams: Trump Insults Barr, Bolton Insults Trump, Grace Insults Olberperson, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump insults Barr
Bolton insults Trump
Grace insults Olbermann
Sadist trolls insult everyone
Actress insults DeSantis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 and possibly robots, too.
And if you'd like this experience to go to levels that I know you deserve, and you know it, too, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or 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.
Ah.
Ah.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, that's the stuff.
Well, today I'll be talking about Trump insulting Bill Barr, John Bolton insulting Trump, Nancy Grace insulting Keith Olbermann, sadist trolls insulting everyone, and an actress insulting DeSantis.
Do you remember a time when we used to have news?
Remember that?
So it was like, it's called N-E-W-S, News, News, have you heard of it?
Now it's pretty much just people insulting people, and then reading a page about it.
It doesn't really feel like news anymore.
Here's something interesting that's happened.
I know a lot of you are boycotting this or that.
But have you noticed that the Fox News page just completely stopped following news?
It seems like they gave up on the whole news thing.
Didn't they?
I mean, CNN's news is just opinion pieces insulting Trump.
And then some things you already knew happened.
There's still a war in Ukraine.
Well, thanks for the deep investigative look there.
So, I don't know if it's, is it purely economic?
I think there's an economic problem, right?
They just don't have investigative anything.
It looks like they gave up on their investigative work and all they do now is report the things they saw in other media.
I think Fox News just does the same thing I do.
Just read other media and talk about it.
It doesn't look like anything new.
But CNN's no better.
All right.
So Elon Musk has invited Alex Soros onto his spaces.
I don't know if he's responded yet to the offer, but the question will be progressive DAs and whether, now that he's taking over for his father, whether he will be still Funding these progressive DAs.
Now we do know that the son is, quote, more political than his father.
Which, you know, by itself is fine, because our system allows people to be as political as they want.
Perfectly legal.
And ethical.
But the funding of the DAs, I don't think, I don't think it worked the way any of the Soroses imagined it should or could work.
So I would be amazed if he could go in public and say, yeah, we're going to do more of this.
So that's why I think this Musk offer is so important.
I love the fact that the news can be doing its celebrity insulting stuff.
And the only thing that was important to us this week is what Elon Musk offered to solve.
Which is, what's up with these progressive DAs ruining our cities?
And so, Musk offers to put Alex, or Alexander, I don't know which he is, Alex or Alexander, don't know which one he prefers, Soros on, and to actually just talk about it and probably solve it.
Actually, just solve it.
It's so different than the regular news.
I feel like when you watch regular news, it's just gonna be people talking at you and you don't know who was lying.
But I feel if Musk brings somebody on to talk about a specific topic, they're trying to actually solve it.
Which would be interesting.
Because you wonder if Alexander Soros has the same sources of information, same, I don't know, same inputs as the rest of us do.
And wouldn't it be interesting to find out?
And wouldn't it be interesting to see him defend it?
You know, defend what they've done so far.
I mean, I don't think that could be any more useful or entertaining at the same time.
So I'm loving Musk doing that.
Apparently, Musk has also invited Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow to do shows, to do their shows on Twitter, promising them that they would have a much bigger audience than they have right now.
And I don't think either of them will say yes, but I like Musk's instincts to make sure that he's always on the side of free speech and not on the side of any political party.
So there's always so much you can do to look objective, but at least that's in the right direction.
It's not like you see MSNBC offering me to go on their show.
He's the only one doing it.
And I would say that these are legitimate offers because, you know, Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow are completely associated with one side.
So there's, you know, it's not like, it's not like they've had, it's not like he's looking for the weakest member of the other side, you know, that trick.
Oh yeah, we have both sides.
We've got Hannity, who's amazing, and then Combs, who's really bad on TV, he's the other side.
Yeah, the Fox News trick, which works so well.
All right.
So that's good.
I saw a tweet by Jonathan Shedler talking about a new study that suggests that people who publicly shame and dogpile on social media are not motivated by moral outrage or desire to do good.
Huh.
Huh.
Is that true?
What could they be motivated by?
The people who shame and dogpile on social media.
What could it be?
What could it be?
What could that be?
What, what, what?
Oh, well, the study says it could be sadism.
That they just get off on the cruelty.
Complete surprise!
It's sort of what Jordan Peterson's been saying for a long time.
We figured out a way to boost the worst among us.
It was like we made a tool to make sure sadists could get maximum contribution into society.
And to me, this helps.
So I've got a troll who's been bugging me lately.
And you probably say to yourself, well, why don't you just block him?
Just block him.
It's easy.
Or mute him or something.
But this particular troll is too fun.
I'm having trouble torturing him in public because he didn't understand my situation so he's flailing around.
So sometimes torturing a troll in public is good, clean fun.
And I recommend it.
But don't try it at home if you're not a professional.
Alright, yeah.
People on social media are mostly broken people.
I hide my sadism behind my profession.
No, I'm not a sadist.
But when I'm on social media, I'm going to go after people hard if they deserve it.
I mean, if they have a comment.
But I tell myself it's all for good reasons.
So the Libs of TikTok got a tweet about a Denver City Council member, Candy CdeBaca.
Who was running for re-election.
I think she lost.
But she was suggesting that white-owned businesses should be taxed extra to give that money to black-owned businesses.
And she lost.
Imagine that.
That open racism was not as popular as you thought.
So Candy Chewbacca lost her re-election bid.
Bummer.
Do you think we've reached peak wokeness?
Now, I've said we have.
What do you think?
Now, just to clarify, peak wokeness doesn't mean there will be less of it.
Right?
That's very important now.
What's that Owen Benjamin says?
Trying to use persuasion by getting us to accept things.
Owen hopes Scott watches his show and gives his opinion.
Okay.
What was I talking about?
I don't know, your comment got me sidetracked there.
Peak wokeness.
Yeah, so peak wokeness, in my opinion, means that you can now openly mock it.
That's what the peak is.
The peak isn't that there will be less of it.
It's just that we can now openly mock it without the same risks that you had before.
And I think that's true in every domain.
You can just openly mock the wokesters.
All right.
So Trump has responded to Bill Barr, who apparently thinks some of the charges are valid, the Mar-a-Lago box and stuff.
And he said that Bill Barr is a gutless pig.
A gutless pig?
I don't even know what that means.
I mean, it feels like those are opposites.
Like a pig is something with a big gut, but he's not even a good pig.
He's like a gutless pig.
That would be like a boneless chicken.
No, a boneless chicken would be good.
But a gutless pig?
Well, I guess you have to gut the pig before you eat it.
I don't know, it's all very confusing.
I don't know if it's his best work, but I'd like to note that all of the news today is about people insulting other people.
So it's not important in any way, but it's just the only news we have is who insulted people.
It's a very light news day today, I have to warn you.
No more UFO news.
All right.
We have a lot of, in this country, would you agree, red flags?
Would you agree that you see a lot of things that are starting to develop that you say, wait a minute, that's a little bit of a red flag, isn't it?
You know, like you see freedom of speech being curtailed, and you say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's a red flag.
It's a red flag.
But I would like to suggest there's one red flag that's in front of all of us that's the biggest of all red flags, to the point where there's never been a bigger red flag.
And here it is.
The sitting president of the United States, who is running for re-election, doesn't feel the need to campaign.
He's one of the least popular presidents of all times, the polls say that he would lose, and he doesn't feel the need to campaign.
That is the reddest of all red flags, ladies and gentlemen.
There is nothing scarier than the guy who's behind feeling he doesn't need to campaign.
Because if the guy who seems to be behind in the polls does no effort to campaign and he fucking wins, it's gonna get ugly.
It's gonna get ugly.
There is no bigger red flag in the country than the guy who's running for re-election from behind It's not campaigning.
Now, we imagine that the reason is that, you know, his surrogates do it and he's doing his job and, you know, maybe he's all less of it.
I don't know about that.
I think that under every situation, you would campaign unless you thought you didn't need to.
Am I wrong?
You would campaign unless you thought it wasn't going to be a real election.
You know, with actual voting making the difference.
It doesn't look like he believes it's a real election coming up.
And if the President of the United States is acting like it's not a real election, there's no bigger flag than that.
That's the biggest of the biggest of the biggest.
You cannot get a bigger red flag than the guy who's behind, and President, not campaigning.
And you could try to sell us about, you know, he's busy, or, you know, his health is not 100%, but he'd be fine for president.
You could try.
But I'm sorry, that's not the message I'm getting.
The message I'm getting is that you've already fixed the election.
Now, I don't have any evidence whatsoever to back up, you know, that kind of speculation.
I'm just saying that's the message they're sending us.
How else would I interpret this?
Because I don't interpret it as he's too weak, you know, physically weak, because if that were true, he would drop out.
Am I wrong?
If he were unable, and they know he'll be unable for the next year, he would already drop out, because they want as much time as possible to get, you know, a good substitute in there.
So, I just don't know what to say about this, except there's something a screamingly direct message to us that the election won't be real.
I don't know.
There's nothing redder than that red flag.
That's all I got to say about that.
A Hamilton actress got on stage at some Tony Awards or some stupid award thing that we don't care about and And cleverly referred to Ron DeSantis, not as the governor of California, but ha, ha, ha, the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
And the audience, did they laugh?
Oh, how they laughed.
Oh, how they laughed at the cleverness involved in that comment.
But I'd like to remind you, if you believe that getting rid of Trump gets rid of the baggage, that's not a thing.
That is not a thing.
You can eliminate from your consideration the fact that Trump has baggage.
Because they would just transfer all their bullshit over to DeSantis, and he would be the Grand Wizard of the KKK on day one when he got ahead of Trump in the polls.
There is no difference in how much baggage a Republican brings to the race.
No difference.
Because the Democrats are just going to see the ridiculous MSNBC version of all the candidates.
And to them, it looks like they all have baggage.
So, yeah.
I would say the number one biggest reason for not voting for Trump Has just been taken away by the Democrats.
The Democrats have removed your best reason to not vote for Trump.
That he's trouble and all of his baggage will, you know, come blowing back on you because, you know, you're just trying to mind your own business and be a, you know, just be a candidate or just be a citizen and suddenly it's your fault too.
I mean, right now, if you wore a Make America Great Again hat, it would not be safe to go in public.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that most places in the country, it would not be safe to be in public supporting your choice of president?
Somebody who was president.
Now, what do you think if you wore a DeSantis hat after he became president?
Let's say he becomes president.
You go outside wearing your DeSantis hat.
Safe?
All safe now?
Because nobody's going to think you're a KKK wizard, right?
No.
No.
They will paint him as a KKK wizard and it will be unsafe to wear his fucking hat outside.
You can't even fucking go outside as a Republican if you have an opinion.
That's the country you live in.
Can't go outside.
You can't go outside safely.
All right.
John Bolton says that Trump should drop out of the race.
And I don't think Trump's ever had a better week.
How would you like to be running for president and have John Bolton say that he backed your opponent?
Isn't that like the best day ever?
Yeah, and I saw some pushback from Democrats saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, you have to remember that Trump actually hired Bolton, and that would be an indication of how bad he is at judging people.
So Trump's a bad judger of people because he once hired Bolton.
Except, did you hear how Trump described the use of Bolton?
He was so insane and warlike that Trump used him just as a threat.
He would just put him in the room to scare people.
He didn't even use him as an advisor.
He literally used him as a scarecrow.
Literally, a scarecrow.
He just put him in the corner and said, you better make a deal with me because look at the scarecrow.
You're not going to want to make a deal with the scarecrow because the scarecrow wants to just bomb you.
I might give you some options.
You know, you talk to me.
I'm a dealmaker.
Maybe we could work something out.
But if you don't make a deal with me, look at that scarecrow.
Scarecrow is going to get you.
Scarecrow is under the bed.
John Bolton is under your bed.
Watch out.
Watch out.
He's in your closet.
He's under your bed.
And he's going to get you if you don't make a deal with me.
So I'm not sure the Democrats quite understood how Trump was using John Bolton there.
Keith Olbermann questioned Nancy Mace, Representative Nancy Mace, when she was making some comparisons to Hillary.
Hillary's email, getting rid of her email and destroying some devices with a hammer.
And Olbermann said that she was hallucinating and those things did not happen.
Now, Nancy Mace, of course, gave him the link to his own favorite network, CNN, to show him that even CNN says it happened.
It very much happened.
She did destroy devices, government devices, phones, I think, with a hammer.
You know, she had people do it, but same thing.
And Olbermann was not aware of that.
He acted like somehow the news hadn't gotten to him, which is weird.
So Nancy Grace responds, she goes, fact, a hammer was used to destroy government devices in Hillary Clinton's server, was wiped out with a program called Bleach Bit.
All fact checked by CNN, link below.
And then she says in her tweet, maybe your weed is stale.
Who's hallucinating now?
Maybe your weed is stale.
This is some good insults today.
We got your gutless pig.
We got your weed is stale.
We got your Ku Klux Klan instead of a governor.
Yeah, yeah, we got some good insults today.
All right, here's some insults to Anderson Cooper.
Who was it who said, I think, RFK Jr.
was backing this comment.
Somebody said that $10 million of Anderson Cooper's $12 million annual salary is from Pfizer.
Now, I think that was meant to be hyperbolic in the sense that Pfizer doesn't write him a direct check, but if Pfizer is 80% of your advertising during a show, it would not be wrong to say that 80% of his pay It comes from Pfizer.
That's not exactly how it works because the revenue of the network comes from different places and a lot of it is carriage fees.
Did you know that?
How many of you know what the carriage fees are for a network, for a cable news show like CNN or Fox News?
Let me explain it.
If you were to order a cable service to watch TV, you would want to make sure that you've got at least the basic channels.
So you'd go to Fox, and you'd say, hey, we want to carry you for free.
For free.
You don't even pay anything.
And we'll let people see your show with all your advertisements.
Now, you'd think that Fox News would say, yay, I have more customers, and they'll get to see my advertising.
So the more customers who see me, the better, because we're selling advertising.
But Fox News and CNN and the other news sites are so important to any cable operation that the cable company pays Fox News to be on their network.
And that's actually, I think, where they get most of their money.
I don't think it's advertising, and I don't think it's Directly based on how many people watch it.
Although they could probably charge more if more people watch it.
So just know that that's where they get their money.
It's not an advertising model so much as a charging cable companies to have you on their model.
But yet it's true that Pfizer is doing most of the advertising on Anderson Cooper's show.
It would not be possible for Anderson Cooper to disagree with Pfizer.
Would you say that's fair?
We don't assume there's any scenario in which you would say something that Pfizer disagreed with.
So is that news?
Are you really watching the news?
One of the biggest areas of news is pharma, and the guy who's reading it to you cannot say something that his sponsor would not like.
I mean, that would be just too expensive.
All right.
Here's an interesting factoid.
You knew that North Korea is always trying to hack everybody's crypto?
But apparently they're so good at it that it's funding their nuclear program.
Like half of their nuclear program is funded by crypto hacking.
Now, who had that on their prediction card for cryptocurrencies?
I think the cryptocurrency will be good, except for the part where it causes a nuclear confrontation.
Who in the world thought that crypto would cause a nuclear confrontation?
And I assume it's all, it's probably all Bitcoin.
I don't know that, but it's probably mostly Bitcoin.
Do you believe getting rid of Biden gets rid of the BS?
No, nobody believes that.
What can you buy with crypto?
Apparently it's good for buying nuclear weapons.
All right.
Do you know that story about Cuba was going to put a Chinese listening post in Cuba?
And we got all excited about it.
Well, apparently the government says they've been doing that kind of thing since 2019.
Business as usual.
Now, I have a theory.
That it's not bad for adversaries to have listening devices on each other.
I don't know that that makes you less safe.
I feel like, you know, having our spy planes fly over each other might make you safer.
Because you got a better idea of what each other's doing.
That always seems like a better situation, not a worse.
Now, might they pick up secret communications?
Well, I hope we're not sending any secret communications through things that you can see from Cuba.
Is that even a thing?
Can you pick up secret conversations from Cuba?
I don't know.
You could pick up normal conversations.
But maybe they have some way to, I don't know, decode stuff that we don't know about.
So I guess the story is we shouldn't be too excited because it's sort of normal business and don't you assume we're doing the same thing?
Don't you assume we're sitting off of the coast of China with our listening devices?
So I'm not terribly sure it's the worst problem in the world.
It just sounds like the big countries all listen to each other and Try to know as much as they can about the other.
And I don't know that that makes us less safe.
It might actually make us more safe.
As long as we're both doing it, and it's, you know, it's fairly transparent, everybody knows the other is doing it.
I don't know, keeping an eye on each other might be better than not.
Might be.
So CNN's trying to spin things as usual, and they got their chief propagandist, this Dean Obadiah, who likes to say anything bad about Trump.
And he's saying that there's a big difference, oh, a big difference, between Hillary getting rid of her emails, or even having stuff that she shouldn't have on her servers, and Trump's documents.
Oh, a big difference.
Do you know what the difference is?
Are you aware of that?
The big, big, big difference.
These are completely different.
Yeah.
The difference is that Dean Obadiah read each of their minds and he read Hillary's mind and found out that she had no bad intentions.
No bad intentions.
So that's fine.
But then he read Trump's mind to find out that him keeping those documents was bad intentions.
Bad intentions.
So how can you compare good intentions to bad intentions?
That wouldn't be fair, would it?
I mean, who does that?
Who compares good intentions to bad intentions?
I mean, one is bad.
It has bad right in the name.
Bad intention.
And then the other is good, because why?
Because that's the word good right in it.
Good intentions.
So those are opposites, completely different.
If you're a mind reader, if you're a mind reader, We've actually gotten to the point where CNN reports mind-reading just matter-of-factly, without any sort of hedging it.
Well, you know, we're just speculating about this.
If they said we're just speculating, or a person in this situation, you would expect them to think this way.
Perfectly reasonable.
But to simply state as a fact what the two of them were intending, It's not exactly news.
It's not even an opinion.
Is that an opinion?
To say that you know what a stranger was thinking and their hidden intentions?
It's not really even an opinion.
It's just bullshit.
Or propaganda.
Or idiocy or something.
I don't know.
Whatever it is, it's definitely not news.
All right, today was a no-news day, as you could tell.
It was literally nothing but people insulting people and misinterpreting people.
Nothing else happening.
What's going on?
Is there something big happening?
Is there something big coming?
All right, let me give you the news about Ukraine.
There's a counter-offensive and Some stuff's getting blown up.
That's really all we know.
And we've got, like, two photographs.
We've got two photographs, so that's it.
Silvio Berlusconi died, but I suppose that was going to happen.
No way around it.
Yeah, there's a road that was destroyed.
I mean, why is it that the biggest news is about a highway situation?
All right, here's what I think.
I think we're seeing the effects of the news business being gutted.
I believe there's news out there.
I would guess that Monday is probably a day when there'd be a lot of it out there.
But there wasn't.
There was basically no news today.
There's nobody who had enough money to do an investigation to come up with something that wasn't just a public figure giving a public speech or writing something in public and then we talk about it.
Well, all we're doing is talking about what people talked about.
Nothing else.
That's all I did.
Today I just talked about what people talked about.
There was no news.
What?
Tom Fitton's house raided by FBI?
That's not true, is it?
Tell me that's not true.
Please.
That's not in the news, is it?
Yeah, okay, I don't think that's true.
No, somebody says it's true.
Oh, I'm seeing a bunch of yeses over on YouTube.
YouTube says it's true.
Tom says it.
Holy...
Oh, a couple months ago.
Somebody says it was a couple months ago.
Why did I never hear that story?
Interesting.
Yeah.
All right.
It's not true?
All right, so forget about that.
Somebody says it's true, somebody says it's not true.
I don't know.
He's just trying to fit in because his shirts are too tight.
They're not fitting.
Did I discuss Dylan going blonde?
No.
Killer whales?
We do have killer whales.
Can't find anything?
All right, we're going to say that that's not real.
Oh, yeah, there was the four Colombian children found in the jungle.
I tried to read that, but... Never use a crackhead for your bag man.
Okay.
The Russian was eaten by a shark.
Yeah, I saw some kind of thing about Lauren Southern's divorce that somehow made news.
I thought, we are completely and totally out of news.
I mean, why does anybody's divorce make news?
San Jose Police Union executive indicted for fentanyl smuggling.
I think that happened a while ago though, right?
Major lab leak, origin of coronavirus.
But why do we care about news about the Wuhan lab leak?
What else is there to say about that?
Don't you all assume that's exactly where it came from and that it's confirmed?
Is there anything else to say about that?
You know, I'm not believing the excess death reports.
because Because I think that the quality of data, the quality of data is so bad that I don't know that we can tell that.
I wouldn't deny it.
Because there are lots of reasons that you would have excess deaths.
But I just don't trust it.
Don't trust the data.
All right.
42 year old from ESPN who died.
I don't know about that.
You don't believe people are dying?
No, of course I believe people are dying.
Insurance companies would know?
Has anybody's insurance gone up?
Has anybody's life insurance gone up?
or does it not work that way?
Yes?
Of course they do have the option of Raising their prices if you believe that there's reason.
Oh, typing sucks.
I love it the people who believe the 4chan rumors about my pandemic opinions.
You guys are so lost.
You actually believe the opposite of my opinion and then went off imagining that you heard something real.
All right.
Why is it that the news is not covering the excess deaths?
Have you ever thought about that?
I don't see Fox News covering it, or Breitbart, or CNN.
So one of the things I tell you is you should ignore the news, the political news, if it's only reported to be true by one side.
But if both sides are ignoring it, and if it's true it's the biggest story in the country, wouldn't you agree?
If it's true that the excess deaths are big and unexplained, it's the biggest story in the country.
So you're telling me that neither the left nor the right is reporting the biggest story in the country, but yet it's true.
There's nobody who has a political incentive to report that correctly.
Nobody?
Not the left and not the right?
See, that's the part that's a problem for me.
If you look on Twitter, it's all over the place.
There's tons of very credible-looking claims about excess deaths on Twitter.
But it's not in the news.
And generally speaking, you would expect that at least the right would have some advantage in at least putting it out there.
They can't because Pharma sponsors them.
That's not a bad theory.
Yeah, that's not a bad theory.
That it is the biggest story in the world and that our news organizations literally won't cover it because of Pharma.
Alright, I buy that.
That explanation is sufficient.
But I'm going to still say that we don't know.
Because I don't trust internet data.
I don't rule it out.
Not at all.
So there's no skepticism in terms of saying that it probably isn't correct.
Because I think there are too many reasons why it might be high.
There's just lots of reasons.
It would be surprising if it's not high.
It's just putting a specific reason for it on this a little harder.
All right. - Yeah.
Jamie Foxx.
All right, let me let me say this about Jamie Foxx.
I think I said this maybe on The Man Cave.
The Jamie Foxx story, which if you haven't heard it, he had some kind of major health problem, but the family is not revealing the nature of it.
So this allows all the the vaccine skeptics to say, oh, it was a vaccination and it's vaccine injury, and that's why they're not talking about it.
But other people say, it definitely was not that.
There's no evidence of that.
Whatever it is, is something else.
And here's what you should learn from that story.
It has nothing to do with Jamie Foxx.
Jamie Foxx is the least important part of the story.
He's simply a mechanism that people are using to sell their political opinion.
So the anti-vaxxers use him to sell their anti-vaxxed opinion.
The other people will either ignore it or say it's not true because that's their political opinion.
But none of this is about Jamie Foxx.
He's actually unimportant in the story.
The story is just people using it to sell their version of events.
Now you know that's the same thing that happened to me.
When I got cancelled, how many people in America do you think care about my opinion?
I mean really.
How many people care about my opinion?
Maybe a few people who follow me, that's about it.
But when I got cancelled, it had nothing to do with what I said or what my opinion was.
You know that, right?
It wasn't about me.
Which is one reason I don't take it personally.
Because it wasn't about me.
It was about people taking an opportunity to sell their version of events, which is that anybody who ever supported Trump must be a white supremacist.
That's all it was about.
It had nothing to do with what I said.
It was just an opportunity.
And it's an opportunity to take somebody off the field.
You weren't even close to being cancelled?
Well, I was cancelled worldwide.
I was economically cancelled.
Steph, poor Steph.
So there's still people on the YouTube who believe that I was pro-vaccination and pro-mask because they got fooled by a Reddit and a 4chan hoax.
Sorry about that.
Yeah, JP Morgan settled on some kind of Epstein stuff, but I don't think that means anything or we know anything about it.
Do you believe there was a pandemic?
That's a word thinking question.
I don't do word thinking.
Will you attend and speak during the Musk-Soros spaces?
Well, I'll tell you what.
I would be surprised if Elon Musk ever makes any move that would show That he knows I exist.
I think my reputation is too toxic right now.
So I think if I volunteered to talk in the Alex Soros... Let's say it happens.
It's not scheduled.
But if it happened, and if I volunteered to talk, I believe I would not be selected.
Because...
If you're Elon Musk, do you want the news to be, Elon Musk runs a right-wing spaces.
Here's a quote from that, you know, accused racist guy.
It's just a problem.
It's a problem he doesn't need.
And by the way, whatever he may or may not think about me personally, Probably isn't that important.
I mean, he does have to manage reputations and companies and stuff.
So I don't mind.
I would have no problem with anybody in a professional sense who wanted to keep a distance from me.
On a personal level, then I would judge quite harshly.
Like I said, I did have one friend, only one, who said it'd be better to keep a distance from you.
Now that's, you know, you're never my friend again.
That was the end of a very long, you know, friendship.
And it's permanently done.
There's no coming back from that.
I'm permanently done.
But only once.
Everybody else either just stayed away or didn't say anything.
Have you watched the numerous black YouTubers that have amplified your cancellation clip?
Well, I do know that black Americans, specifically black men, did not have much of a problem with what I said.
After they found out what was behind it and what was the background.
The first impressions were the same for everybody.
But I would say black men didn't have any special problem with it.
Because once you understand it, you know it's advice that applies bi-directionally.
Right?
And I'll use this example again.
If you were a black American family and you were looking to move into a new community, and you looked at one that had a KKK headquarters, but you figured most of the people there would be fine.
Most of them are probably not racist.
But they do have a KKK headquarters right in that little town.
I would recommend you don't move there.
Would anybody disagree with that?
You should stay away from them.
So if you have reason to believe there's a group of people who have been, let's say, trained to not like you, actually trained to not like you, you should stay away.
And that's what the ESG and the DEI and the CRT do.
They train black Americans to have a negative opinion about white Americans.
And you should stay away from any population group if you can.
That would have a higher disregard for you because it's a free country.
You could go where people mostly like you or don't care one way or the other.
So the advice that I give is the same for any race and gender too.
I would say if you're a woman and you had a choice of moving into a place where you knew there was a bunch of anti-woman people Don't go there.
Find a place where that doesn't exist.
If you're LGBTQ, and you have a choice of where to live, I wouldn't go where there's negative opinion about me.
Why would you?
I would go where you can find the highest opinion, which might be some very blue place, but that's what I'd do.
I'd stay away from the haters.
There are some people who say, but Scott, if you don't make An effort to make sure that you're interacting with everybody.
Things will become segregated even if you didn't want that and you know that has all kinds of costs.
To which I say, if you're talking about individuals, of course.
I've never recommended that you discriminate against an individual, right?
If an individual black guy comes in for a job interview, you should absolutely look at them as an individual and forget everything else.
I've never said differently.
Same with your personal relationships.
If you fall in love with somebody who's a different race, it's not my business.
Everybody's fine with that.
Just go ahead and do it.
But if you're talking about a population group, You can make a safety decision based on the group.
Because it's not discriminated against an individual.
And there's nothing illegal about that.
There's no constitutional rule that says you can't make a safety decision about yourself.
It's completely legal.
And the reason it's completely legal is that there's no way it could be illegal.
You couldn't run a society where you're managing people's risks without them managing it.
People have to manage their own risks.
All right.
And by the way, the reason that it doesn't make sense to discriminate against any individual for their immutable characteristics is that it's not good for the system.
It's not good for the person you were bigoted against, but it doesn't help you either.
It literally doesn't help anybody, because it just cuts you off from 90% of the world.
So you would be cutting yourself off from the talent and beauty of 90% of the world.
So it's not good for you, it's not good for the person you discriminated against, and it's not good for the system that you both live in.
I've never supported that.
So, you know, most of my critics imagine that's what I meant, discriminating against individuals.
I would never discriminate against an individual.
That makes no sense on any level.
All right.
So, um...
Did you hear about the guy at a festival who warned the cashier that the car had him had a Trump bumper sticker?
I did!
And that's another example of haunting Republicans.
Yeah, the story was that somebody at a drive-thru must have called, I think they probably called the restaurant and said the car ahead of me has a Trump bumper sticker.
Now I think the idea was to treat them differently.
Like refuse service or spit in their food or something.
And that was pretty shocking.
It was a drive up.
Oh, a drive up, yeah.
Drive up or drive through?
I saw a mouse with a pencil.
I saw that video.
They sent it through the speaker?
Oh, okay.
Yeah, and then I guess the woman who was told that was not on board with that at all.
So the good news is that the restaurant itself laughed it off as not reasonable.
So that's good.
Yeah, Reddit is having a big boycott today.
So I guess the Reddit users are mad because a lot of the apps are being taken off of Reddit, the apps that work with it, because the API price went too high so the apps can't afford it.
Now the volunteer mods are all up in arms.
What do you think of the criticism from the right that pride is the wrong approach?
Because, first of all, pride is literally discouraged.
On religious grounds, pride is discouraged.
But that's a specific religious point of view.
But do you think that pride still makes sense for the LGBTQ community?
Don't you think they need less pride?
Don't you think they have too much?
Now, when I say less pride, I don't mean about their choice of gender or sexuality, because that doesn't require any pride at all.
It just simply is.
So, you know, I'm not proud of being bald.
I just am.
I just am.
I don't have any pride about it at all.
I just am.
So that's the same way I feel about the LGBT community, which is, if you tell me you just want to exist and live, I say, excellent.
Same page.
Let's all just exist and live and be good to each other.
How about that?
But as soon as you come in and tell me that you've got pride about your thing, then what do I say?
Well, like, what's my automatic reaction to the fact that you have pride about your thing that's different than my thing?
What's wrong with my thing?
Like, why are you pride?
Why are you proud?
But if I said I were proud, I would be cancelled.
Do you think you could get away with saying you were proud to be straight and white?
I have straight white pride.
No, you would be called a white supremacist.
A white supremacist.
You can't have pride.
So I think that LGBTQ should be condemned for having pride because it's very discriminatory.
If everybody else can have pride and say it out loud, then I don't think anybody should be able to do it.
Yeah.
Yeah, to me it's an insult.
It does come off as we're a little bit superior and we're proud of it.
That's how it comes off.
That doesn't mean that's how they mean it.
I'm not saying that.
How people mean something can be completely different from how it's received.
And the whole point of Pride Month is not to change the opinion of the LGBTQ, is it?
Well, maybe it is.
Maybe it is.
Maybe it is a little self-referential.
Actually, I'm modifying my opinion as I think about it.
If the pride is meant to be self-referential, meaning they're talking to each other, that's fine.
It just shouldn't be my business that they're proud or not proud.
I just don't want to be involved in that or any of it.
I don't want them changing my opinion.
But if they want to change their own opinion, and they're all in on it, and they want to feel better about it, And pride is a word that makes somebody who might feel, let's say it makes somebody who might feel uncomfortable in their preferences.
Maybe it makes them more comfortable.
So if that's the purpose of it, then that would be good.
Make people comfortable in their own skin.
But if you're trying to convince me, not the right word.
Not the right word.
You had me at freedom, right?
Do you live in a free country?
Yes.
Is there anything else to talk about?
No.
Are we good?
Absolutely.
Totally good.
Do I have to defend myself and tell you I'm proud?
Nope.
Nope.
You're 100% with me.
There's nothing to discuss.
But I'm proud.
You don't need to be.
It's more than you need.
You already won.
Stop selling past the close.
Oh, that's what it is.
That's what it is.
I just figured out what it was that was bothering me.
It's selling past the close.
Now, I get that not everybody's closed, right?
So they probably need to convince some people who are not me.
But if I'm already sold, On your complete value as a human being and your complete freedom to do what you want, then if you keep selling me, I'm going to get uncomfortable.
I might even change my mind if you sell me too hard.
So that's what it feels a little bit like.
But, you know, part of the problem is that, you know, I'm just one person and they're talking to the world.
So, you know, my personal impression of it Probably shouldn't change their strategy, but that's my impression of it.
All right.
Yeah, coming after the kids is a separate conversation.
How many of you think that there really is a long-term plan among the Democrats to normalize... I don't even want to use the words.
Nah, never mind.
I don't like the topic.
Gonna forget that topic.
Ben Franklin was proud of his humility.
If you're proud of your humility, I assume that was your joke, right?
That you can't be proud of your humility?
I'm kind of proud of my gluttony.
All right.
Yeah, the proud boys didn't do so well, did they?
Humility is a social media driven, yeah.
Long term goal to make it acceptable?
Certainly by some.
Did you see the story about Megan Fox?
And two of her boys, she dresses in girls' clothing, allegedly.
And allegedly, the boys don't think that they're girls.
But the mother believes that they are.
That's the way it's being portrayed on social media.
But that doesn't sound right.
Do you believe that story's true?
I don't know.
There's something wrong with this story, so I'm just going to say we don't know what's going on.
If there's one thing I can teach you, it's that all initial stories about public figures are false.
Yeah, so Robbie Starbucks, I guess, lived in her neighborhood at some point and used to see her kids at the park with his kids.
So, I'm going to say that all stories about public figures are false.
At least at first.
They all are.
So I'd say you don't know anything about that.
Yeah, there's a report that she said the kid was non-binary when in the womb.
Do you believe that?
I don't believe that.
I mean, that's the story, but I don't believe it.
And if she said it, I don't think she meant it, you know, as a literal.
So I would caution you not to believe anything about that story.
Yeah, maybe if you saw the kids themselves talking about it, you could believe that, but you're not.
So I would just let that one go, because I just don't think there's enough credibility in any of that.
that.
What?
You believe she said that?
No.
No, I'm not saying she didn't say it.
I'm not saying she didn't say it.
I'm saying it might have been sort of a Hollywood thing to say.
You know what I mean?
That's like a recreational opinion.
That doesn't sound like a serious opinion.
That sounds like a recreational opinion.
Maybe making the point that she thinks these things are determined at birth.
I mean, it might have been just some bad way to make a point.
She's not going to date you?
Do you think I would want to date Megan Fox?
Like, in the real world?
If she offered it, do you think I would take it?
No, I wouldn't.
Believe it or not, I wouldn't.
I know that's hard to believe.
I promise you, she is beyond my crazy limit.
I do have a limit.
I absolutely have a limit of how much crazy I'm willing to take.
She's well beyond that.
No, she could not possibly be worth it.
Now, I know what you're saying.
Oh boy, she's so attractive.
And yes, she is.
She's insanely attractive.
But can you imagine what comes with that package?
Can you even imagine what comes along with that?
I mean, no.
I'm sorry, she would not be in my top million list.
But she is unambiguously beautiful.
All right.
All right.
That's all I got for you today, YouTube.
I'm going to say bye.
Maybe there'll be better news tomorrow if the news organizations get on it.
