My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Secret Twitter algorithm
Internet Dads
Attacking cartels
Rogan debate with RFK Jr. & expert?
What's wrong with young women?
Blinken & Fentanyl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's also Father's Day.
Happy Father's Day all you mofos.
If you'd like to take your Father's Day up to a level that nobody's ever experienced before in the history of Father's Day, all you need is a cupper, mugger, glass, a tanker, chalice, a stein, 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 the other day.
A thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, oh, good meme.
There's a meme of me drinking coffee with my Dilbert characters.
Oh, you poor YouTube people.
Don't you wish you saw all the great memes that are going by right now on the Locals platform?
All the YouTubers don't get to see them.
Sorry!
Sorry!
So, as you know, it is Father's Day, and that's the day we celebrate the trans community.
So for all of the people who are fathers, no matter how they were born, we'd like to make this more about the trans community and less about the fathers.
It's more about the trans.
I think you'd all agree that that should be the focus for today.
All right.
Did you know?
Let me give you a little teaser for today's live stream.
I'm pretty sure I'm living in a simulation in which the simulation is responding to my, I don't know, responding to my affirmations or something?
There's something weird about the news today.
I wonder if you can find the pattern.
Oh, maybe that's the way I'll do it.
Now you won't find the pattern.
There's something about the news today that looks very much like I caused most of it.
So that's the theme.
It's going to look like I caused most of the news today.
Now that doesn't mean I did.
I'm not saying I did.
I'm saying it's going to look like that and it's going to be weird.
Now the only people who are going to notice it are the people who have watched me for a long time because they know what things I've tried to persuade.
But wait till you hear the news today.
On CNN, Apparently there's a big trend called Internet Dads.
And it's actually men actually pretending to be your dad online.
So there are really big accounts, millions of viewers.
And one of them is just a black guy who eats food with you.
So he just has dinner with you.
He just gets his plate out and makes a sandwich or whatever.
And he just sits down and talks to you like your dad.
And he was an internet dad.
And apparently there are a number of accounts like this and they're huge.
Internet dads.
It's a thing.
All right.
And it's funny what the internet dads do.
I saw one of them, a little clip, and it was just somebody talking to the camera saying, I'm very proud of you.
I wonder I wonder if that works.
It probably does.
Probably if people get used to a character, even if they're just talking to the screen and they say, I'm proud of you, it probably does work.
A little bit.
All right.
So I've told you internet dads would be huge.
And here it is.
Lauren Bo-Bert.
Bo-Bert.
Bo-Bert.
Dog-Bert.
Dill-Bert.
Rat-Bert.
Cat-Bert.
Bo-Bert.
Boebert, Representative Lauren Boebert, is introducing articles of impeachment for Joe Biden based on his not protecting the border as his constitutional duty requires.
Requires.
Do you think that'll go far?
The articles of impeachment?
No.
No, that won't go far.
However, I do like that she's introducing them.
Calls attention to a very big issue, the border.
And you know it's it's stunting and it's persuasion and it's not too serious in terms of legislation but I like it.
I think she does a good job of getting attention for her points of view and I'm never never against getting attention.
In the Hill there is an article talking about a fringe idea.
There's a fringe idea coming out of the Republican side.
A fringe idea.
If you haven't read the article, don't cheat if you've read the article.
If you haven't read the article on The Hill, what do you think they're talking about is the fringe idea from the Republicans?
Fringe.
The fringe idea is using the military to attack the cartels.
It's a fringe idea.
Which they go on to explain that five of the six major candidates for the Republican Party favor it.
Chris DeSantis is a little ambiguous about using the military, which removes him from consideration, in my opinion.
Because I'm a single-issue voter on fentanyl.
So DeSantis is great, by the way.
I think he's a very, very capable politician.
But I'm just a one-issue voter this specific election, just on fentanyl.
And would you say that if five out of the six of the major candidates for the Republican Party, five out of six are in favor of using the military, and the Hill calls it a fringe idea?
Well, what would be a non-fringe idea?
So Something the Democrats are in favor of?
Is that by definition?
If five out of six Democrat candidates for president were in favor of the same thing, would that be called fringe?
Five out of six of the candidates?
What do you think?
I think no.
And by the way, on the Republican side, it's not just five out of six.
It includes the one who's going to win.
At least the primary.
You know, Trump.
In all likelihood, if you believe the polls.
I think there's a lot of... a lot will change, so I'm not sure he's going to win the... even the primary.
You know, if he has legal problems, etc.
Probably.
Most likely he will.
Can't guarantee it, though.
However, that's fringe.
There's your fringe idea, 5-N-6.
But I wanted to see if it included the arguments against it.
And there are some strong arguments against using the military.
Here's one of them.
The Mexican government might not like it.
The Mexican government not liking it is the idea. - Yeah.
No, it's not the side effect.
It's not the side effect.
It's the idea.
The idea is to do something that the Mexican government very much doesn't want us to do.
That's the whole point, is to do the thing they don't want us to do.
So it's not really an argument against it to say they don't want us to do it.
It's more like a description of the idea.
Let's do the thing they don't want us to do.
Well, I don't know, they don't want us to do it.
I know, but that's the whole point.
That they don't want us to do it, and nobody's doing it.
But it's so important, we have to do it anyway.
I don't know, they don't like it.
Might not like it.
And they might retaliate.
They might retaliate.
My God.
Think of the things the Mexican government could do to the United States.
Are you thinking of things?
Because I can't think of any.
What would be an example?
Remove their diplomats?
What the fuck are they going to do?
I mean, I'd love to hear examples if there are any examples, but it doesn't sound like the strongest argument.
Here's another one.
The military wouldn't be useful because the cartels are dispersed all over the country.
They're dispersed.
I wonder if we've ever successfully fought against any armed group that was dispersed across a vast area.
Yes, we have.
Our most recent largest military victory was against ISIS, a dispersed group that was all over the place.
And I haven't heard from Al-Qaeda lately.
When was the last time Al-Qaeda scared you?
I feel like Al Qaeda was dispersed all over the place.
And you know what?
The U.S.
military dispersed them a little bit more, didn't they?
So instead of being dispersed across territory, they dispersed their chromosomes all over the fucking place until there weren't enough left to cause any problems.
Yes, our military can hunt down dispersed people and kill them.
I'm pretty sure they're good at it.
Might take a while.
Might take five years.
But is it worth it?
Yes.
Yes.
Five years of killing them would be worth it.
Alright, speaking of that, Blinken is going to China to see if they can make a breakthrough in the fentanyl stuff because it's holding up the other stuff.
So there are other important things we want to talk to China about.
But the fentanyl thing's kind of a roadblock.
Now, we want them to stop sending fentanyl precursors to Mexico, that the cartels turn into fentanyl.
China's excuse is, these are just ordinary drugs.
We send these ordinary drugs to lots of places for lots of different reasons.
You can't get on us for sending ordinary drugs to ordinary places.
Now, the story they don't tell you is that they try to make these things illegal, but the bad guys just add a molecule or two to make them legal again.
So that's all a little game that the Chinese play so they don't have to shut it down, basically.
So it doesn't look like they're being honest.
It looks like they're using an excuse, because they like to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year.
It weakens us.
And they say the problem's on our end.
Problem's on our end.
Because we're a bunch of drug users.
Now, it reminds me, I saw a tweet this morning from Jessica Vaughan, said she has a Russian roommate, I guess, who is saying that Russia doesn't have any homeless problem.
It just doesn't have one.
Now, apparently they don't have drug addicts either, or something, or they don't have craziness.
But it did make me wonder, where did they go?
Do you think that Russia just doesn't have any mental illness and drug addiction?
Or are they, did somebody kill them?
I mean, do they get put in hospitals?
Do they drink themselves to death with vodka and nobody notices?
I have lots of questions.
You think they're locked up?
Maybe.
But China and Russia don't seem to have a lot of homeless problems.
I'm not sure that they're handling it the way we would want to.
Probably pretty brutal over there.
All right.
Have you heard that these diabetes drugs, new diabetes drugs, are helping people quit addictions?
So there are people who are taking the diabetes drug for diabetes, and they discover that they stop drinking.
Or they stopped smoking.
And it was easy.
They just lost their urge to do those things.
And now they're thinking that this drug interferes with some part of the brain that involves addiction.
Now, does this sound like good news to you?
Would you say that's good news?
Because it scares the hell out of me.
And here's why.
They develop a drug for one purpose.
And then they find out it alters your brain.
What are the odds that the only way it alters your brain is this good way?
Is there such a thing as a drug that can reprogram your brain?
It'll reprogram your brain.
But only in that one way?
Just this one narrow way that happens to be so positive?
Isn't that a nice coincidence, eh?
Don't you feel lucky?
How about those side effects?
Any side effects?
I don't know.
It's feeling like COVID vaccine 2.0.
It's feeling a little bit too much like, you know, we're five years away from the government requiring it.
You know, we got this big problem with addiction.
You know it would be good.
I've got an idea.
What if everyone had to get an Ozempic vaccination?
No more addiction.
We could solve addiction in the United States.
Give everybody a shot.
I don't know if you could put it in a shot.
I'm just saying that to be more provocative.
But at what point does the government get to decide what's good for you?
They do it all the time, right?
I mean, that's the whole point of the childhood vaccinations, is that the government has decided what's good for you, not your parents.
And where's the line?
How far can they take it?
Could they take it all the way to, we'd like to give you a vaccination to make sure you don't grow up to be an addict?
And what if it worked?
It might actually just work.
I mean, the other possibility is it just works, and everybody's happy, and it changes everything, and we're all twice as delighted when it's done.
It is possible.
But none of this looks safe and healthy to me.
Yeah, it's got, like, every red flag you could possibly see.
And here's the other question that I ask.
Do you think it's a coincidence that Ozempic, a real pharma, serious pharma drug, is helping with addiction at exactly the same time in history that we've discovered that these cheap and easily available psychedelics might do exactly the same thing, as in cure your addiction?
What a coincidence, huh?
Big ol' coincidence that after a million years of human civilization, exactly the same time we find this free, you know, naturally evolved stuff that anybody can get and cure their addiction in maybe one or two experiences.
You know, that's the kind of reports we're getting.
Exactly the same time you can do it for free.
Big Pharma has a drug that doesn't too.
Which do you think will win in the court of legal opinion?
If you think that the big pharma has this drug that can cure addiction, at the same time the psychedelics can cure addiction, and let's say that we imagine they work about, you know, similarly effective, which one do you think will be illegal and which one will be required?
That is We're going to find out because I've got a feeling that the mushrooms will be illegal and the big pharma product that costs a lot of money will be mandatory at some point.
All right.
Apparently the Oscars... I love this story because it's one of my too far stories.
So I keep telling you that wokeness has peaked.
Which is completely different from saying we'll have less of it.
I'm not going to say we'll have less of it.
I'm saying it's peaked in terms of you can openly mock it for being dumbass stupidity.
You can just openly mock it now.
Here's what I'll openly mock.
So the Oscars, beginning in 2024, in order to win an Oscar, the film producers and directors will be required to submit to the Academy a dossier of the sort of points I guess they have a point system.
For the film crew's race, gender, sexual orientation and disability status of their film's cast and crew.
So it's not just the cast.
Now the entire crew has to be also diverse.
You can't get an Oscar if you... You can't get an Oscar unless you're... Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
This already is destroying the entire industry, correct?
Wouldn't you say that Hollywood has destroyed itself primarily by forcing diversity into every product, which is a burden on the writing?
By the way, that's the least racist, most accurate way to describe it, if you don't want to sound like a bigot, is that if you're a writer, it's hard enough to write a good story about anything.
But if you burden the story with, and you've got to have a handicapped person in it, and it's got to be multiracial, and it's got to be three trans, whatever it is, the burden on the production definitely is going to affect your quality.
Even if all the people involved are first rate.
It's just an extra burden on the writing, etc.
So, Hollywood has completely destroyed itself Because they've made their product so woke that you can't watch it.
It's just unwatchable crap now.
And I have to admit I kind of enjoy watching it.
Watching the Oscars become a complete joke to the point where the people who work in the industry are saying, alright, this is too far.
This is way too far.
And now it's just ridiculous.
Makes my heart sing.
I don't know.
To me it's just funny.
Because I always tell you that things that have gone too far generally hit the wall by continuing to go too far until it's just stupid and it's ridiculous and you can just laugh at it.
And we're there.
We're there.
I saw an article I'm not going to reference in terms of the URL.
But the idea was that the country is falling apart because of a lack of general competence, because the world is more complicated, but there are more promotions of people for social reasons over competency.
And therefore we have more incompetent people in important jobs that are complicated jobs than ever before, and that that's the reason that everything seems broken.
Now, I've told you that if you try to get customer support anywhere, it's just a joke now.
We always made fun of how hard it was to get help on the phone and stuff, but even if you can guess somebody on the phone, which is hard enough, you're talking to somebody that you know is unqualified half of the time.
I mean, you just tell.
They don't even know their own job.
I can't tell you the amount of problems I've had because somebody tried to help me with a technical problem and didn't know how to do it and made everything worse.
Yeah, my health care especially.
Trying to get help from my health care organization.
Oh my God.
So would you agree that there's, maybe in the last just few years, three to five years, that there's a competency problem that's just glaringly obvious?
That the United States is no longer just good at stuff.
Just good at basic stuff.
Now, I don't think it's all a diversity hiring situation.
There's also something about young people.
If you took a 16-year-old from my generation, you would think that they were 25 today.
You realize that, right?
A 16-year-old from my generation, if you just introduced them into the modern world, people would think they were 25.
Because they would act capable.
They would be able to do what most 25-year-olds can do.
And they would do it right in front of you, and they wouldn't complain, and they would show up on time, and they'd work hard, and they would have some future intended for themselves.
You would never see that in a 16-year-old today.
So there's a competency problem of just young people are not being taught just to do stuff, just simply doing things.
Because if you're playing video games, you're in an artificial world where all the problems are artificial.
If you spend all of your time in the real world, you're solving real problems all day long, just one after another.
If you sit in front of your video games, you're solving problems, but they're all the fake ones that don't apply to the real world.
Anyway, I think the competence problem is big and bad.
It has something to do with things are getting more complicated.
So at the same time our capabilities might be coming down for several different reasons, the complexity of our systems is going up.
And I think we've reached some kind of a crossover point where we're generally just not capable of handling our own systems.
We don't have the capability to handle it.
All right.
I saw a graph on a tweet from Razib Khan.
And he said, what's happened in the late 2010s to drive women to the left?
So it was a graph that showed that women, and young women in particular, in the late 2010s, suddenly the graph that had been relatively flat for a long time, just went zoop!
And women became super lefty in the last 10 years or so.
Super lefty.
And he asked, what caused it?
Why did young women become super left?
And I would say, there's only one reason.
Propaganda.
No, propaganda.
If you say it's the Me Too thing, it's part of that.
That becomes part of the propaganda.
If you say it's about abortion, yes, that's part of the propaganda.
Right?
And what about colleges?
It also coincides with a huge increase in college enrollment of women in soft majors.
Do you think that made any difference?
Of course it did.
It made a huge difference.
So you've got Me Too, you've got the college universities, you've got social media persuading in one direction, you've got the mainstream media persuading in the same direction.
So the surprise would be if it didn't happen.
If you looked at all the stuff that was happening, and specifically the rise of Trump, when Trump hit the scene, the entire mainstream media tried to make him the enemy of women.
So you could totally see that it was propaganda.
It was based on real events in the world, but then it was propagandized.
And women were the most affected, probably because the natural topics were more in their domain.
So the Me Too stuff was mostly a woman problem.
Not entirely, but mostly.
And abortion feels like mostly a female problem.
Not entirely, but you know.
So I feel like that's the least mysterious shift we've ever seen.
It's completely obvious from the propaganda and the topics that were in the news.
All right.
This story, I had to read it like 50 times to make sure I wasn't hallucinating.
You might have the same experience.
You're going to say, when was the date of this story?
Did we not already go through this?
How could we possibly be talking about this today?
And here's the story.
Twitter just found another shadow ban algorithm that they hadn't found before.
There was actually something that was suppressing you if, I think if you got a number of complaints from other Twitter users, you would be suppressed.
But you wouldn't know it.
Do you know who was also suppressed?
Elon Musk.
That's right.
Because Elon Musk has the kind of account, because, you know, it's the biggest famous account.
He's going to get a lot of people complaining about him.
Just, you know, protest complaints.
So the actual owner of Twitter, Unbeknownst to himself, was banning himself.
That's a real thing.
Musk was shadow banning himself.
Accidentally, he didn't know it.
Because Twitter still had an algorithm that was banning people like him.
People who get complaints.
Now, Elon Musk confirmed this.
Musk actually confirmed it.
Now, doesn't that make you feel like, wait a minute, isn't this a repeat?
I thought they went in there and they tore out by the roots all of those bad algorithms and it was full transparency.
Told us what he was doing, which I love.
And I love this too.
I love the fact that this is full transparency.
We just found this thing, this is what it did, and we're trying to get rid of it.
I love that kind of mistake.
Because it's a mistake that it exists.
You could argue it's a mistake that they didn't find until now.
But I love the fact that once they found it, it was full disclosure.
And then we're going to go fix it.
So that part, A+.
I say this all the time, but I think it's always worth repeating.
If you judge people by their mistakes, you're going to have a very sad life.
Because everybody makes mistakes, including you.
But if you judge people by how they respond to their mistakes, in this case you could call it a mistake that that algorithm still existed.
But the way they handled it, A+.
So that's my final grade.
My final grade is A+, because I care about how you handled it.
I don't care that it was there.
I mean, I care, but I'm not going to judge anybody for it.
All right.
I'm going to make a further prediction.
That there will be some point in the maybe near future in which Twitter will discover that the tweaking of these algorithms was available to people on the outside.
Meaning that there was probably at least somebody somewhere who could actually dial into, I'll say dial in, use the old term, could just dial into Twitter and tweak the algorithm any way they wanted.
Probably an intelligence agency.
Probably an intelligence agency.
Now, it could be that they just had an insider who would do it for them, which would look the same.
I'm not saying they necessarily could hack the system, or that they had a backdoor, which is possible.
They just might have an insider who could do it for them.
Makes you wonder how many other suppression algorithms are in the code.
Now, I would like to, once again, claim the best prediction about this.
Back when Jack Dorsey was running it, I said two things.
Number one, there's no way that Jack Dorsey knows what the algorithm is doing.
And people laughed at me.
Actually laughed.
It's like, my God, of course he knows.
Of course he knows.
Nope.
I would say it is now confirmed beyond any doubt.
He did not know because it was unknowable.
The complexity of it, and the number of places they had shadow banning code, it was just bigger than any one person would know.
And I even said that it's not just that Jack Dorsey might not know what the code is doing, but I speculated that there was nobody in Twitter who would know.
Would you agree with that now?
They just found this.
Can you give me credit for saying that nobody knew what the algorithm was doing?
Now, maybe there was some secret person to do, but in terms of management, nobody knew.
Yeah.
So everything you suspected about Twitter having some kind of suppression was all true. - No.
Do you remember, was it a week ago, I told you I thought Twitter was suppressing me?
How many of you remember me saying that like a week ago?
Like, it seemed obvious to me that something had happened again.
Now, how many complaints do you think I get on my Twitter account?
I mean, I wouldn't necessarily see them, right?
I wouldn't be aware of them.
But given my recent dust-up in the public, you don't think a lot of people are reporting my account for, you know, just to try to screw with me?
Of course they are.
So this specific suppression algorithm they found is exactly in my ballpark.
And it's exactly in Musk's ballpark, too.
We're both the kind of personalities that attract a lot of complaints.
And that's what got us suppressed.
Yeah, I noticed it looked like somebody just put the brakes on my account a few weeks ago.
It just looked like everything stopped suddenly.
Anyway, so that's probably what it was.
All right.
This is amazing.
There's a JFK Jr.
story about a CDC whistleblower, and this is the most mind-blowing story.
Now, I'll simply tell you what he's saying.
I have no way to validate this as true.
He's a credible personality, and he's saying it, and he's running for president, so I'm going to repeat it.
He says there's a CDC whistleblower who personally was in a meeting where they looked at data that black children were being injured by this medicine, and they decided to hide the fact, and all the documents were collected up and thrown in the same trash before they left the room.
Does that sound true?
Yeah, it's too on the nose.
My suspicion is that if you ask the company about this, they would say something like, yes, we did collect them all and throw them away, but it's because the study was bad.
And then if you looked into it, you'd find out, maybe there were some holes in the study.
Now, I'm not defending them, because I don't even remember what company it was, frankly.
I'm just telling you, you should never believe one side of an argument.
Never believe one side of an argument.
Doesn't matter how convincing it is.
Never believe one side of an argument.
That's why we have lawyers.
That's why there are two lawyers.
If you could believe one side, you'd only need one lawyer for every trial.
Okay, we're gonna tell you what he did.
Now vote.
No defense needed.
Just one lawyer.
No, you don't do that because one lawyer can always be convincing.
That's what they learn to do.
So when RFK Jr., who is a trained lawyer, when he goes on Joe Rogan and he says a bunch of things that sound really true, well, it should sound true.
He's trained to make things sound true.
He's really good at it because that's exactly his profession.
So whether it is true, you should not use your confidence in his argument as part of your reasoning.
Because the confidence in his argument will always be there, whether he's right or not.
Because he would be a guy who could make a confident argument about something that's true or not true.
He would have that skill, so you don't know what he's doing.
And you don't know if he could just be wrong and confidently arguing, but maybe wrong on some facts.
So, have I ever told you that watching Joe Rogan have somebody on for three hours is not only not helping, it's worse than nothing?
Have you heard me say that?
That having one expert on for three hours is worse than nothing.
It would be better just not even have them on.
Yeah.
I've been saying that for a long time.
And I've said the ideal situation would be Joe Rogan or somebody like him having two experts on who disagree.
And do you remember what I said about the format?
You know, what the format should be if there are the two experts?
There was one thing I said about the format that was important.
No time limit.
No time limit.
That was very important.
Because otherwise, the person who has the weakest argument just runs the clock out.
You can't let one of them run the clock out when they're losing.
You need a winner.
You need to just stay there until somebody's ground down.
So, here's a real thing that happened in the news.
So Joe Rogan had RFK Jr.
on, and RFK Jr.
made a bunch of claims about vaccinations and whatnot.
And there is an expert on vaccinations, I guess, or some expert in that field is relevant, Professor Peter Hotez.
He's an MD and a PhD.
And I guess on Twitter, at least, he was critical of RFK Jr.' 's claims.
So Joe Rogan, Invited Professor Peter Hotez to appear with RFK Jr., the two of them, on the show.
And here's the best part.
No time limit.
No time limit.
Elon Musk weighed in, and Elon was very much in favor of this idea.
And I think Joe Rogan offered $100,000 to charity if they would debate.
Other people on the internet, Bill Ackman and a number of other rich people, said, I'll give you $100,000.
I'll give you a quarter million.
Somebody said that Tate offered half a million.
I'm not sure that's true.
But you can see people were trying to jump on board and fund it.
Now, the funding would be for charity.
And Musk actually started mocking Hotez in public by saying he must not like charity, jokingly, but trying to put a little pressure on him to do it.
How happy are you?
How happy are you?
He's so far not agreed to it, at least as of a few minutes ago.
Do you think he will?
Do you think he'll take it?
Now, I'm going to be charitable here.
He's a critic, but that does not mean he would be the best person to debate in public.
Simply being an expert and a critic does not make you as capable as Joe Rogan.
You know, talking in public.
And it does not make you nearly as capable as RFK Jr.
talking in public.
So it could be that, you know, it's just not the format that his skills fit.
I don't know that.
I'm just speculating.
There could be an obvious reason why he wouldn't want to do it, which had nothing to do with his confidence of his point.
But if he doesn't do it, don't you think you could find another expert to do it?
Don't you think you could find somebody else who has a similar view, who is also an expert, who would love to get on there and debate RFK Jr.
and embarrass him in front of the world?
So, I think this is one of the best outcomes in a long time.
We're finally on the cusp of an Internet dad Getting two experts to argue in front of you with no time limit.
That's what we need.
That's everything.
Now, if it happens, I mean, maybe it won't be perfect the first time.
Maybe the people run on too much.
Anything could happen.
But there is nothing that is more positive, more useful, a better signal for the country than what Joe Rogan is doing right now.
Joe Rogan saving the country.
Or I would say that today or this week, Joe Rogan did more for the country than Congress.
If he pulls this off, if he pulls it off, he's doing more for the country, civilization.
It's not just the country.
He's doing more for civilization than the entire government, if he can pull this off.
It's that important.
I'd love to see it.
Because you know, there's no mainstream media company that could do that.
Do you know why?
Obviously, they're all funded by Big Pharma.
So if you're funded by Big Pharma, there's no freaking way you're going to host a debate on any of this stuff.
So it's the perfect thing at the perfect time with at least one of the people would be the perfect person.
We hope the other one says yes.
And this would be frankly amazing.
Because I have to tell you, I don't know who's right.
And unlike my usual artificial certainty, I don't even lean one way.
I just don't know.
I'm pretty sure that if you're on the right, you only see things that agree with you.
If you're on the left, you only see things that agree with you.
I've seen both.
If you don't go look for the other side, you'll never see it.
Because the other side argument, whatever the other side is, your algorithm has locked you in a bubble.
You're going to see countless anti-vaccine stuff once you get in the bubble.
You will never see the other side.
You've got to go Google and look for it.
I've done it.
I know that it's not going to come to me naturally.
I've got to go look for it.
If you do, you're going to come away with some humility, to use Art's word.
You're going to come away with some humility.
And the humility is listening to that one person or that one side did not serve you.
It did not serve you.
Because you haven't heard the other side.
So please, please, let's make this work.
All right.
Chris Hayes tweeted about this situation.
MSNBC, Chris Hayes.
He says, very cool to watch all these millionaires and billionaires push an anti-vax line that has killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of working people.
So I tweeted to that, retweeted him and said, confidence in data on any topic feels absurd in 2013.
Doesn't it feel absurd to see a talking head act with some certainty about the science?
Now, I'm not even saying he's wrong.
I'm not claiming he's wrong.
I'm claiming that I don't know.
And if he says he knows, that's almost like a mental problem.
I mean, it would seem like, what would that be?
What's the name of that syndrome where you think you're smarter than you are?
What's that called with the two names?
Why am I blanking on that?
You know what I'm talking about.
Yeah, Dunning-Kruger.
Dunning-Kruger.
Doesn't that seem like Dunning-Kruger to you?
And again, he might be right, but it would only be by accident.
You don't think he has some mastery of that data that you don't, do you?
Do you think he's seen the same data that you've seen?
Or do you think that Chris Hayes, because like all of us, once he starts interacting with a certain kind of information, it's all he sees.
It's all that gets fed to him.
It's all anybody talks about in his circle.
Referring to 2013 might be the mental problem.
John.
You're so weak, John.
So weak.
Anyway.
But I love the fact that he's mocking the millionaires and billionaires for pushing an anti-vax line.
Is that what you say?
When Joe Rogan and Elon Musk and all the other people kicked in, when they were begging the two experts to debate in public, that was pushing an anti-vax line.
Asking the person who is the most positive about vaccines and an expert, we will pay you any amount of money.
We'll give you... Well, not him, actually, to charity, I guess.
What will it take?
Please, dear God, can you get on and inform us in a way that is credible with somebody who can challenge you?
Literally begging for better information, and Chris Hayes says that they're anti-vax.
Begging for both sides.
It's the main thing they're spending time on today.
Is to get both sides of the argument.
And they can't get it.
So far.
And that's anti-vax.
Wanting both sides.
Alright.
Ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to read you my Robots Read News comic.
That you could see if you were a subscriber to the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
But as you know, the robots never move.
They're just reading the news.
One robot.
And the robot says, President Biden expects to spend at least half of his summer vacation in the afterlife.
He has a cloud next to Queen Elizabeth, and he is reportedly disturbed every time the wind blows up her flowing robe.
So Biden asked God to shave the Queen.
God shave the Queen.
It's Father's Day.
It's a dad joke.
Dad jokes on Father's Days are allowed.
They are allowed.
Now, you might also ask, but what kind of a dad joke did you do for Father's Day?
Well, if I could find it, I'd tell you right here.
Here it is.
So it's a big old Sunday comic.
And this is an example of what I sometimes do in the Dilbert comic, which is I get a little bit ahead of the readers.
So the people who are watching this will get this joke, but maybe 80% of the public wouldn't get it.
And they'd have to look it up, I guess.
Anyway, so the boss is there with Dilbert.
It's a meeting room.
And there's an empty chair between them, and the boss says, I called this meeting to introduce our new super-prompt engineer.
And he looks at the empty chair and he says, but apparently he's running late.
And Dilber says, the super-prompt engineer is late?
Boss says, yes, that's what I said.
Then Dilber says, that's not very super-prompt, is it?
And the boss says, I have no idea what you're talking about.
And then the super prompt engineer walks in and he says, Hi everyone!
Sorry I'm late!
I guess I'm not as super prompt as I thought!
And then he looks around the room and he says, Really?
Nothing?
And Dilbert touches him gently on the arm and says, Let it go.
Let it go.
Alright, that's your Dad Jokes for the Day!
YouTube, thanks for joining!
And, uh, I will talk to you all tomorrow.
I'm going to stay and talk to the locals, people, because they're special.
