Episode 2155 Scott Adams: The Most Fun You Can Have Catching Up With The News. Bring Coffee!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
News & coffee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, the best thing that's ever happened in your life.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that are impossible to even describe, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled Pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day.
A little bit of oxytocin today.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh yeah, that's good.
Yeah, that's good.
Now your day is going to look excellent.
Well, Geraldo, He has quit fired from Fox News, meaning that he was fired from The Five, but he was still employed at the network.
But that wasn't good enough, so Geraldo has quit.
He quit fired.
I don't think it's related to affirmative action.
Probably just a coincidence.
We'll get to affirmative action.
Did you see a news story yesterday that said aspartame causes cancer?
How many of you... Sorry.
How many of you saw that?
And you thought that was true, right?
You saw that story and you said, well, that's probably true.
Well, I got community noted today.
It's true-ish.
What I didn't know until I read the community notes is that there are many layers, many layers of how bad it is for cancer.
So at the lowest level, which is what aspartame was assigned to, there's all kinds of normal things in that.
Like going to Disneyland?
Eh, that could cause you cancer.
You know, there are lots of things that are in the bottom rung.
Like getting into your car?
Could cause cancer.
Wearing clothes?
Maybe.
Could cause cancer.
So it's the lowest level, I don't know.
So it seems like that was a very important context.
Because it would be in a level of things that you commonly experience and don't worry about, basically.
All right, I guess we should talk about this Supreme Court decision.
Affirmative action for universities and colleges has been ended.
Or has it?
Or has it?
I don't think there's any real change.
I think we're just talking about words.
There's no indication anything in the real world will change.
Maybe.
We'll see.
But it looks like all they did was change the wording.
Because the new wording, which is funny, let's see, the new wording is... This is how Harvard will skirt the law.
So Harvard said they can still consider, quote, this is based on the Supreme Court decision, We will certainly comply with the court's order.
applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.
And then it says, we will certainly comply with the court's order.
We will certainly comply with the court's order.
They just tell you they're not going to change anything.
They're saying it directly, but in a Harvard way.
You know, it's So it sounds like they're going to comply, which they totally are.
But apparently the order gives them such a gigantic workaround that Harvard just said, did you just give us a huge workaround where we can do what we're doing the same as we've always been doing it?
Apparently, the answer is yes.
There's a huge workaround.
They can't discriminate against race.
Instead, instead of discriminating by race, they can take race into consideration when they make their decision.
Oh, that's completely different.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but when they had affirmative action, they didn't have a goal, did they?
There was no specific thing they were trying to hit.
You know, just more of it, I guess.
So how is this different?
How in any way is this different?
Black kid writes an essay and says, I've been a victim of systemic racism all my life.
You're in.
That's exactly what we're looking for.
How in the world does it change anything?
Nothing changed.
Nothing changed at all.
All right.
But so my favorite kind of story is when somebody's opinion, usually a famous person, when their opinion becomes so absurd, but they hold on to it anyway, when people go from having an opinion to pretending to have an opinion, then everything gets funny.
And what could be funnier than watching Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson Debating that Supreme Court ruling.
Because, am I wrong in assuming that Justice Thomas was the Republicans' affirmative action?
Is that too harsh?
Does anybody think that they looked at the whole world and just coincidentally he was black?
Does anybody think that?
Or do you think he got put at the top of the consideration list?
I'm not saying he's not qualified.
I'm just saying, you don't think he got bumped to the top of the list?
And by the way, I'm not saying that that was wrong.
I would have no disagreement with it whatsoever.
I do think the Supreme Court is one place where you put a little, you ought to put a little thumb on the scales, make sure that there's somebody there that looks a little bit like the rest of America.
I don't think it would be a credible court if it was all a bunch of white men.
So there are places where it's just necessary to have the group look a little bit like the nature of the country.
It just helps your credibility.
But we don't have to pretend we're not doing that.
So you have to pretend you're not doing that to have this weird conversation where the two black members of the court, one is arguing against affirmative action and one is arguing for it.
The absurdity of that is just through the roof.
Because does Jackson believe that she would have been picked to the Supreme Court if not a woman and also black?
Does she think there's any chance she would be on the Supreme Court?
But I don't think that the Supreme Court had affirmative action, did it?
I don't think so.
The president was not bound by affirmative action.
To pick a member of the court that increased its diversity, but wanted to do it anyway for political reasons, which are pretty solid.
Pretty solid political reasons.
So, the absurdity is just fun to watch.
However, just a clarification, the dropping of affirmative action in universities won't have any effect on television, advertising, or the movies.
Those will still be entirely based on race.
Like now.
All right.
Let's see, what else?
Berkeley.
So there's a video of a Berkeley Law School Dean explaining somebody had their phone out.
And even as he's explaining this in front of the group, he says, if I'm ever deposed, I'm going to deny this to you.
I said this to you.
So he actually says, you know, I'm going to deny I ever said this.
In front of a group, every one of them who had a phone with a camera.
He's a law professor.
The dean.
You know, Berkeley is my alma mater for my business degree, but I've got a feeling this isn't their best work.
But anyway, he describes how they can simply discriminate the way they always have.
They just won't call it affirmative action.
They'll just do it anyway.
What do you think?
Do you think anything changed?
Who thinks something changed yesterday?
I don't.
I saw Gavin Newsom tweeted against the decision.
And then this is the most fun part.
Michael Shermer, who is a very well-known Let's say, I don't know what I want to say.
He's a well-known writer, public figure, and very much associated with the left, I think.
Although he's more of a free thinker.
That's unfair.
I think it's unfair to characterize him that way.
But he said, he mocked Gavin Newsom for thinking anything would change.
And he said, who do you think is running a university?
That's going to start acting differently.
Name names.
Name one person in any university in California who will act differently because of this.
And it was a really good, now the one thing Michael Shermer is famous for is being a rational skeptic, right?
So he does stick to the facts.
He's a very fact-based opinion person.
And he just says, he just looked at it and said, tell me what fact changes anything.
Give me a fact.
Give me the name of the person who's now going to change their policies, or at least the way they act.
Nobody.
Nobody can come up even with an example of one thing that will be different.
Nothing.
Not a person who will act differently.
Not a outcome that will be different.
Nothing.
But everybody's all worked up about it.
My favorite story about this was a tweet yesterday from somebody named Erica Marsh.
That some people thought was a parody.
And other people thought it was real.
Now, I'm going to read it to you, and I want you to use all of your powers to discern if it's a parody or it's real.
Now, if it's real, you have the second possibility that it doesn't mean what it looks like it means, because there's already been a clarification.
Now, I'll tell you the clarification after I tell you the tweet.
So just know that the tweet is going to sound really, really bad.
Really bad.
But we'll see if you think it's real, or maybe something else was intended by it.
So here's the tweet from somebody named Erica Marsh.
It says, Today's Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on black people.
No black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system.
Wait, what?
What?
Wait, what?
So this is from somebody who is identified online as an ex-Biden staffer.
I don't know if that's true, but somebody, I'll just say somebody credible, identified the account as an ex-Biden staffer.
Now there's more to the sentence.
But the first part that got everybody excited was this part.
She said, no black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system.
Then she goes on.
The next part is important, which is exactly why affirmative action-based programs were needed.
Today's decision is a travesty, in all caps.
Do you believe that a Democrat who tweets a lot Said in public that if black people had to compete on an equal basis, they could not do it.
Do you think that happened?
In the real world, do you think that happened?
Because the internet is acting like it did.
Like that's actually what happened.
It's a real person with a real opinion.
All right, tell me here, how many think that that was a real person giving a real opinion, and the way it was read is exactly what was meant.
Exactly what was meant.
A lot of yeses, a lot of nos.
Those who say no, what would be the tell for it being fake?
What are you looking at to decide that this is not real?
What's the giveaway?
Boom.
Two on the nos.
If this were real, it would be exactly, exactly the worst thing The Republicans think about Democrats.
Because privately, well even publicly, Republicans will say all the time, the Democrats are the real racists and the reason they want affirmative action is because they believe that black people can't compete on an even playing field.
So the Republican belief is that the Democrats are the real racists because they won't admit that they think they need an extra help because they think there's something wrong.
Some problem there.
Whereas the Republicans are saying, why can't you just let people be individuals?
There are plenty of individuals who will do fine, just like in every group.
Individuals find a way.
Maybe the group as a whole doesn't do so well, some group as a whole does better.
Do I hate Asian Americans?
Because they're really good at school.
No.
I'm just really, really, really happy that I live in a country where there are so many people who are good at school.
I feel like that's going to come in handy.
Build us some technology, solve some problems maybe, start some internet startups.
How could I be mad at that?
All right, so later, after the internet went crazy, I saw people like Matt Walsh apparently buying into this being a real opinion, which surprised me.
But here was the so-called clarification.
Now, the clarification is not so clear, which is more evidence that this is not a good tweeter.
And maybe that's all that's going on.
It's just somebody who's not a good writer.
So here's the clarification.
Allow me to clarify this tweet, which is being manipulated for propaganda and misinformation by, all caps, UltraMAGA.
The intention of my tweet is to highlight that prior to affirmative action, there existed a supposedly merit-based system for black individuals to gain admission to colleges.
However, these institutions employed racial profiling to prevent black individuals from individuals-- why would you say individuals twice in one tweet?
Anyway, to prevent black individuals I think she made her point pretty well.
the guise of this merit system.
I want to emphasize that my statement in no way suggests that black individuals, that's three individuals in one tweet, are less intelligent than people of other races.
Well, I think she made her point.
I think she made her point pretty well because she identifies as white and she just said something that's so dumb I can't imagine any black person ever saying it.
So, her point that black people are smarter than her.
I think she made that pretty well.
However, let's look at her clarification.
So what she meant to say is that before affirmative action, it was allegedly, and here's the part that got missing, we allegedly had a merit-based system before, and it just didn't work.
So she's saying if you go back to the system that didn't work, what are you gonna expect?
It's just not going to work again.
Now, she's wrong, of course, because all of the institutions have institutionalized a point of view which will perpetuate more affirmative action.
So she's completely stupid and bad writer and not a bright individual.
But there isn't the slightest chance that she meant to tweet that black people can't compete because there's something wrong with them.
There's no way she meant to say that.
Does anybody really, after you've heard the explanation, do you really still think that?
Really?
Because I don't think you do.
I think if you say you believe it, that she meant that, you are LARPing.
You are pretending to have opinions.
You're just pretending that you're mad.
You're pretending that this represents Democrats.
And now you're going to channel the feelings you've always had.
You know, nothing changed.
It's your existing feelings.
You'll just channel it through this poor motherfucker who said some dumb shit things online.
I would like to defend her.
Because at the very least, I would like my audience to understand And here's the thing to remember.
Whenever there's a public figure, or in this case, somebody who's been turned into a public figure, whenever there's an individual in the news that's getting heat like this, it's never about them.
It's simply a vehicle that people are using to shove their existing views further into the news cycle.
It has nothing to do with her.
She did not say anything wrong.
She said something unclear that caused the problem, but nothing wrong.
She was dumb.
I mean, her point, as I understand it, with the clarification, still lacks context.
The context being that everything's changed since then.
We don't need the extra legal push, or whatever it was, to make us want to have a diverse place.
You put me in a college, make me the dean of the college, I'm gonna push for diversity.
I hate to say it.
I mean, because you might not like to hear it, but it's necessary.
You just don't want to be crazy about it, right?
You just don't want to give up merit to do it.
So do everything you can, but I wouldn't prevent white people from getting jobs.
That's too far.
But if you could do maybe a stronger job of outreach, maybe a better job of being a good place to work for all kinds of people, you know, you could attack the situation a number of ways without discriminating against white people.
You wouldn't have to.
It just could be one thing that could happen.
Now, so I told you that Michael Shermer, surprisingly, Didn't have a problem with the ruling.
But here's one that might surprise you.
And I'm just going to give some props to this individual.
You know Cenk Oygur from the Young Turks?
A political pundit type person, quite prominent.
He's heavily left oriented.
You would expect him to hate this decision, wouldn't you?
He did not.
He agrees with the decision completely.
And I give him credit for that.
It is not easy to piss in the face of your entire audience, which he just did.
He just took a big ol' piss right in the face of his entire audience, because you know they don't agree with that.
But he gives his reasons, and he sticks by it, and he's clear, and I've got immense respect for that.
You know, he has other opinions that I don't like so much.
But this, he is deeply improving his credibility, in my opinion.
I want to read what he said.
Because the way he said it was actually my exact opinion.
So if you want to know my exact opinion, it comes from Cenk, of all things.
Like, who saw that coming today?
That he and I would be agreeing completely.
So here's what he says.
He says, I think Supreme Court got the affirmative action case right.
I'm sick of the stereotypes that attach to all minorities because of this policy.
That's what I think.
It was necessary in the beginning, that's what I think, but it has become counterproductive, that's what I think.
But legacy admissions, which is more unfair, meaning you get in because you're Parents went to the college.
Must be banned and I guess he's working on getting that banned.
Now I don't have a strong opinion about legacy admissions.
Not really.
I mean they do it to do fundraising and it can't be that many people is it?
Like what percentage of Harvard are legacies?
Is it just a really high number?
I mean, if it's over, do you think 25?
25%.
It's funny, I was just going to say 25%.
If it's over 25%, it's way too much.
Because I do think that would be too much, right?
Does anybody know what the actual number is?
If it's 5%, why does anybody care?
Yeah, I don't know.
So I'll just go with, if it's 5%, I don't care.
If it's 25%, it's worth the discussion.
You think it's over 25?
If it's over 25%, but they were also massively favoring minority applicants, that would leave basically no unrelated white people any spots whatsoever, right?
Once you got rid of all the legacies, and then you packed it with all the minorities that you're trying to attract, what's left?
There's probably no space left.
So I'm hearing people say it is a 36%, somebody's saying.
Close to 40.
Okay, then I agree.
Then I guess Cenk and I have 100% agreement on this.
Who in the world saw that coming?
This is the craziest day.
It's just a crazy day.
Who would have seen me unabashedly defending Biden's staffer?
That happened today.
This is weirdly bringing us together.
Have you noticed that?
This decision is weirdly causing us to unite in all the strangest ways.
I know that we're going to talk about where we're disagreeing, like all the discussion will be where we disagree.
But I feel like just under the hood, there's something else happening.
There's sort of a, I'd say, a more sophisticated view of it.
Because I think that no matter what side you're on, you could see the current situation as unproductive.
That's what Cenk is saying.
That's what I think.
So I like diversity.
I like wokeness a little bit.
I just don't like too much of it.
You know, when it goes too far.
So this is a good adjustment.
And I think that the... I've been telling you for a while that the wokeness peak has been reached.
And you can tell by the absurdity.
You know, the level of absurdity.
You know, the whole Dylan Mulvaney thing.
So this is not just people disagreeing about stuff.
This is just flat-out absurdity.
And once you reach the point where all of the stories in this domain are just absurd.
They're not even really things you should even bother talking about.
They're just crazy shit.
Once it reaches that, then people start to see it as crazy shit.
And then they can start moderating.
You know, you want to keep the stuff that was good.
I don't think the wokeness thing was bad.
I think it just went too far.
And now we're going to adjust back and keep the stuff that was good.
I like the part where we treat each other with respect.
Let's keep that part.
Because I don't think we had enough respect for each other.
So if what we get out of this is more respect for people who are different from us, good.
But you've got to bring it back a little bit.
All right.
I loved watching Cornel West react to this with Dana Bash.
And I'm going to tell you some behind-the-scenes stuff, and you can't ask me how I know.
So Dana Bash, if you didn't know, is white.
Cornel West, a very interesting character, is black, or identifies as black.
I guess I'm going to say that, because I was watching him yesterday, and I thought, it's weird that he doesn't look black.
But he identifies as black, and I'm not going to question that.
So he was very upset about the Supreme Court ruling, and quite visibly upset.
And who was it who said this?
Oh, Jesse.
Jesse Waters said this.
Jesse Waters said this yesterday, and maybe it surprises you coming from him, but also maybe he's trying to grow into his new job.
His prominence at Fox News is higher because he's taken the Tucker spot.
So maybe he's just trying to modify his game.
So he started on his commentary about this.
The very first comment was, we should all understand that this is devastating to black Americans.
Not all of them.
A lot.
And I actually appreciated that.
I respected that a lot.
Because he started with, there's a victim here.
Now whether you think affirmative action was right or wrong, unrelated to the thing, there are people who are having an experience, a lived experience, which is very negative, and I care about that.
Because they're Americans, they're humans, they're people.
They're just people I disagree with on some political details, but I don't want to see them suffering.
I don't want to see anybody waking up to a bad day.
That's not on my list.
So I will also give some respect to Jesse Waters, who often is more the joker.
But in this case, I think he hit the target exactly.
Start with the fact, and I should have done it too.
I regret that I didn't do that.
So I thought that was a good model for behavior, which is to acknowledge that somebody's suffering.
And it's going to have an impact.
And that might blow back on you too.
You're not independent from the suffering of other Americans.
So, having said that, Dana Bash talking to Cornel West.
So Cornel West was a good example of a black American having a tough time with it.
But I think this is just speculation because I can't read minds.
I suspect that a lot of what is bothering them, the black Americans in particular, is the feeling that what's behind it is racism.
And I don't think it is.
I really don't think it is.
But you can imagine why they would think that.
Like if you were a certain age and born in a certain time and you'd gone through a lot of the real, real racism, you would naturally suspect that maybe that's behind this.
It's just people don't say it that way.
Maybe that's what it is.
So he was quite upset.
But what was fascinating about it was Dana Bash asked him this question, which caused him to melt down into total word salad.
And she said, What would you say to Asian Americans?
That's it.
What would you say to Asian Americans?
How do you tell them they can't go to college because they're not black?
She didn't say that, but that's built into the question.
Now, would you expect CNN to ask that question?
Because that completely turned him into an idiot, right in front of you.
He couldn't answer it because answering it would reveal that he was a racist.
Which apparently he is.
I mean, overtly.
I mean, his reaction to this... I don't know how you can... I don't know any way to paint it other than overtly racist.
He overtly, directly, and unambiguously prefers fewer Asian Americans getting into these colleges so that a greater percentage of black people can.
I don't know what to call that.
That is racist by definition.
Now you could argue that affirmative action is racist because it is by design.
So one of the things I would love to add to our conversation to fix everything and I've never heard anybody say this before directly but again this is one of the things I can say because I'm cancelled.
So let me say what only a cancelled person can say.
Not all racism is bad.
There you go.
Did you like hearing that?
Not all racism is bad.
The problem is we act like it all is.
But affirmative action, as I just said, I thought had an important role in American history.
It was very racist.
But it was good.
See the point?
It was racist.
But it's good.
I'm in favor of funding the historically black colleges.
Completely racist.
But I think more good than bad.
I'm in favor of it.
I'm in favor of TV and movies and commercials and even colleges considering race when they make their decisions.
I'm in favor of that.
I do think all of those things should have some effort to be like the American character.
But it's totally racist.
Isn't it?
How can it not be?
It is by design, overtly, we're trying to change the mix of race in this situation.
That's overtly racist.
But it's the good kind.
Right?
So I think part of the problem is we keep arguing with each other as if all racism is bad, when in fact there's a whole category of racism that we intentionally pursue, Because we generally think, oh, that's actually pretty good.
Not 100% good, right?
Because even trying to add diversity to your organization, a perfectly good objective, will end up accidentally discriminating against white people.
Of course.
That's not the intention.
But of course it would happen.
Of course it would happen.
So there are complicated things where you have to look at the societal benefit.
But you also have to look at the fact that there are going to be some people, you know, getting a knife in the back.
And maybe you balance those and say, well, for a little while, we'll let a few people get knifed for the greater good.
You know, these are complicated things.
But anyway, here's what I wanted to say.
Do you believe that the white correspondents at CNN are opposed or in favor of college admissions being determined by racial identity?
What do you think?
The white CNN hosts, do you believe that they are opposed to this decision today?
Well, let me give you some background.
The white CNN hosts Have, in some cases, children who are trying to get into college and having troubles.
But in all cases, they have friends who are white, whose kids can't get into the colleges that they want to get into.
So that's your behind the scenes.
Now, I'm not guessing about that.
I can't say any more about it.
I'm just telling you, I'm not guessing.
Right?
The white correspondents on CNN were not in favor.
of affirmative action in college because their own children were impacted.
Their own children, or the children of their best friends, their sisters' children, that sort of thing.
But all of the liberals who grew up thinking this was a good idea just found out it's screwing their children and their friends' childrens.
When Dana Bash asked that question, what would you say to the Asian Americans?
That was a kill shot.
That was a no fucking around question.
That's not what they do.
That's not how CNN normally acts.
Normally they take a side.
Normally they do.
Unless it's just a news story.
Like if a president murdered somebody, they'd tell you that.
Even if it was their guy.
Because it's just a fact.
But when they ask a question a certain way, when they elicit answers in a certain way, that's all narrative.
So this was clearly in the domain of narrative.
And Dana Bash of CNN determined that the narrative was that this screws Asian-Americans.
And she made a black guy try to answer that question and he couldn't.
He had to change the subject.
Now, that's the question everybody should be asked.
Because if you're still in favor of affirmative action knowing it's screwing Asian-Americans, explain it.
You tell me why they should have less access after all their good works and staying out of jail and staying off drugs.
We're going to penalize them for doing everything right.
Explain it.
Give me your rationalization for penalizing a racial group in America who did everything right.
Good luck.
Good luck explaining that.
All right.
So that'll be fun.
I expect a lot more people to get that question.
I also wonder if there's any infighting at CNN and MSNBC, because I feel like this divided them, you know, much like Pugosian and Putin.
So I think everybody's Russia today, like all the left-leaning organizations that they just turned into Russia, where, you know, don't you think Joy Reid is trying to find the traitors?
I'm laughing at my own joke.
It's just like Putin.
Joy Reid is probably looking at MSNBC saying, wait a minute, I said it was a terrible, worst decision ever, but that guy, he's a little quiet.
He said he's just talking about it factually.
I don't feel like he's as sad as he should be.
I'm not sure he's on my side.
So CNN and MSNBC just turned into Russia with Putin looking for the traitors.
That's fun.
I mean, I assume that's what's happening.
All right.
Let's see if I covered all those points.
So here's the next question.
So people are asking, will Biden react to this by packing the court?
So for those two or three people who don't know, apparently the Constitution does not specify how many members of the Supreme Court there are.
So a president could just say, I think there should be a hundred, and then appoint a hundred justices, and then just appoint a hundred Democrats, and then the Democrats would just win every Supreme Court.
Completely doable.
Apparently there's no constitutional obstacle to doing that.
However, what would be the obvious thing that would happen?
The obvious thing that would happen is that it would encourage a Republican to win.
It would probably help their chances, because it would seem so ridiculously unfair.
It would be the end of the Republic.
Because Republicans would then say, well, now I think the Supreme Court is 200 people.
I'm gonna add another 100 Republicans and we'll win every time.
Well, as soon as you get that cycle going, of we'll make sure the Supreme Court is packed as soon as we get in, the moment you start that, that's the end of the republic.
Cuz it takes away the independence of the judiciary.
And the only thing that makes our system work, Is the famous checks and balances.
You know, the executive can't order the courts, can't order the Congress, Congress can't order the executive.
The fact that they don't have power over each other is the only thing that makes it work.
You take that out and the whole thing falls apart in a day.
I mean, I'm not talking about something that would fall apart eventually.
The whole thing's gone.
The moment you do that, the whole republic is fucking gone.
Now, do you think Biden knows that?
Well, he used to.
I mean, we don't know what his mental capacity is, but he used to say it directly, that it was the dumbest idea.
Because everybody who's smart and experienced knows it's the dumbest idea.
So given that everybody smart knows that packing the court, even though it might feel good temporarily, would be the worst idea for everyone.
So I'm predicting it'll happen.
I'm just joking.
I'm just joking.
No, I'm predicting it won't happen.
But if we really go ahead and do the worst dumb fuck thing that a country could ever do to itself, we deserve to not be a country anymore.
If we can't cross this bar, like the bar to remain a country is really low.
Seal the borders, collect some taxes, and don't pack the court.
That's it.
That's it.
You just, you know, a little border security, pay some taxes.
That's it.
It's kind of easy, but we might not be able to clear the bar.
That's where we are, 2023.
All right, let's talk about RFK Jr.
Boy, it's hard to have an opinion in 2023, isn't it?
Because you put your opinion out there and then it just gets smashed to smithereens before the end of the day's news cycle.
So for a full day, I was thinking that RFK Jr.
had all the right arguments and he was doing exactly what I'd want someone to do if their intention was to bring the country together.
And I thought he was doing a great job of it.
However, yesterday afternoon happened.
A lot can change in an afternoon.
So one of the things that changed was RFK Jr.
came out solidly against the ending of affirmative action.
So he's solidly for it.
That lost him a hundred percent of the right.
A hundred percent.
There won't be a single person who he's been actively courting for months who is still on his side.
He lost them all.
And they're not coming back.
That is game over.
That is game fucking over.
Because this is an opinion that even Cenk disagrees with.
Even Michael Shermer.
Disagrees with and they're just you know two who are brave enough to say it in public You don't think there are a whole bunch of other people on that who are Democrats who also disagreed with affirmative action Really?
Really?
You don't you don't think there's a good clump of Democrats who were maybe silently But secretly pretty happy because now their kids can get into college Well, I think there is a big group of that so So RFK just traded away 100% of the right-leaning independents and Republicans.
And what did he buy back?
What did he get in return?
Nothing.
Kind of nothing.
Because being against affirmative action is sort of the minimum buy-in to be a Democrat.
And I believe, can you give me a fact check on this?
Did he come out against ownership of what he would call assault rifles, or some people would call assault rifles, the ARs?
Did he come out against those?
So if he came out against the ARs, gun ownership, he's not anti-Second Amendment, but that would be a red line.
He gave away everything he had.
He gave away all of it.
Now, on one hand, I kind of respect that he's willing to do that.
I kind of respect it.
But I feel like any effort to bring us together is now gone.
So I think he traded that away.
And I don't know what he got for it.
Now, maybe he thought he would get some Democrat credibility.
Because he's running as a Democrat.
And let me give him this much defense.
If you're running as a Democrat, you can't be against affirmative action, and you can't be in favor of, you know, ARs.
So he's probably just, you know, he may actually believe these things as well.
I haven't seen no indication he's a liar.
But it just turned him into, as Mike Cernovich said, a typical shitlib.
Sertovich was reminding us that he's been saying this for a while, that he's not special, and that the right was getting enamored by him, but he's not special.
In the end, he's just run-of-the-mill, take-your-guns-and-discriminate-against-white-people kind of guy.
I'm exaggerating that.
That's not what either of them said.
So, it'll be fun to watch.
I did a little bit of thinking How in the world, there's nothing we can, there's no way to help RFK Jr.
on guns, would you agree?
There's no argument he can make.
It's just sort of over.
Anybody who wants Second Amendment's not going to vote for him.
He's just given that away completely.
But yeah, and what it does is make Vivek look better every day, right?
Because Vivek is pretty pure in terms of his opinions.
They match the right pretty well.
But then on top of that, he's the smartest guy in the game.
So the smartest guy in the game with the best communication skills is just crazy.
He can sell a version that conservatives like and sell it better than they even think it.
This is what I say about a good writer.
A good writer tells you what you were already thinking.
But writes it better than you thought it.
You ever heard me say that?
Because what you want is not somebody to change your mind.
You want somebody who says exactly what you're thinking, but the way they say it is, wow, that's better than I was thinking it.
I could not have explained it as well as that guy did.
And that's what Vivek does, consistently.
He can bring the argument, nail it down, You know, and just nail everything.
He leaves nothing.
He doesn't leave any loose edges.
Like, you can't pull on the thread and get at his argument.
There's no thread.
He locks it up, and it's probably the best you're going to see.
Joe Schmoe says, still brown though.
I can't tell if you're serious.
Are you serious?
I just can't tell.
In 2023, you really can't tell.
The trolls and the parody from the reality, I just can't tell.
I don't know.
So what else is going on?
I almost don't want to bring this up because it's too fun, but I'm going to do it anyway.
I've mentioned this influencer before, H. Pearl Davis.
So I think she goes by Pearl.
And she did another whiteboard video in which she suggested that women should not have the right to vote and they should repeal the 19th Amendment.
Now, I tweeted it, or you could just go look for it on Twitter.
Just look for Pearl Davis, it'll probably pop right up.
Now, I've been following her content mostly on Instagram for a while, and it is endlessly entertaining.
I want to say clearly that I don't agree with her views.
I want you to hear that clearly.
So we're not here to argue whether she's right or wrong.
I'm not going to have that argument.
I'm saying that watching her navigate that sharp edge between going too far, or being a parody, or being serious, it's really hard to tell.
And because it's hard to tell, it's brilliant.
Because you can't look away.
You're not sure what you're seeing.
You're wondering if at the end she's going to say, just kidding, you know, and like walk it back, but she doesn't.
And then you think, well, she's never going to be able to make this argument.
Now, again, I'll remind you, I do think women should be voting.
But when you listen to her argument and the fact that it comes from a woman, which makes it funnier, her argument is suspiciously good.
It's not, it doesn't sell me.
It's like right up to the edge of something that would make sense.
It's like so close.
It's so close to something that does make sense that your brain gets a little turgid just trying to figure it out.
Is that real?
Is that real or is she just kidding?
I can't tell.
And so I highly recommend her content, but I'll say a hundred times, don't assume I'm agreeing with her content.
It's just brilliant content.
Because it makes you think.
I'll give you my own summary of it, which I think is unfair, because the details that she puts into it, of her argument, are all hilarious.
Because you keep thinking it makes sense, but not exactly.
That's what makes humor work.
But I would summarize her entire thing, and she would not summarize it this way, this is just my summarization, as the problem is that men can't say no to women.
And there are a lot of women voting for stuff, and a lot of men saying, all right, that's what you want.
But if you took women out of the mix from voting, and men voted for what they thought was a good idea, you'd get a different outcome.
Maybe.
You know, my observation is men and women seem to vote about the same.
I mean, the polls say otherwise, but... Yeah, actually, no, I take that back.
They don't vote about the same anymore.
They used to, right?
I think I'm out of date.
They used to vote similar, but now women are more likely to be Democrat.
Is that true?
So it would be women who would be more likely to be pushing, let's say, affirmative action.
If you did a poll of men versus women on affirmative action, would it come out the same?
I think more women would be in favor of it, but I'm not positive.
So there are some things that are different because women are voters.
And then Pearl's Serious or not serious, I can't tell.
The opinion is that that changes things and it might be a bad way.
I don't know.
The reason I disagree with her is not in her argument that things worked out poorly, because she makes a pretty good argument that things worked out poorly.
It's just that you can't have full citizens of the United States who can't vote.
It's just there's no way to get there.
So it's sort of a funny point.
not really a serious plan.
That is the most sexist comment I've ever seen there on YouTube.
Thank you.
I was going to read it because it's funny, but it might be a little over the line.
Switzerland regrets allowing it.
All right.
Let's talk about Purgosian.
I might end up being wrong about this.
I might.
So I've said that you'll never see him again.
And that when his airplane flew to Belarus, it was just the airplane.
And that you'll never see him again.
And the reason you'll never see him again is that Putin needs to know he's found all the traitors.
And the only way to know it is to get her from Prigozhin.
Because he's the only one Who would know everybody he's talked to and what agreements they made, etc.
So there's a hundred percent chance, in my opinion, that Putin got a hold of him and he's being interrogated.
And when I say interrogated, I mean he's having a bad day.
So today there were pictures of him in St.
Petersburg.
Oh, okay, well I guess I was wrong.
There are pictures of him getting in a helicopter, and they're new pictures.
And he's there with his bodyguard, and there's no doubt about it.
He was cleaning out his stuff in St.
Petersburg, getting on a helicopter.
And then somebody did a close-up of his hand, and he's got five fingers on his hand.
The real Purgosian does not.
So the guy that everybody thought was Purgosian was wearing a COVID mask, And he was with his real bodyguard.
And they were allowed to be photographed.
Oh, what a coincidence.
How interesting.
There just happened to be a photographer there.
Just happened to get the picture of Prigozhin getting out of the helicopter in St.
Petersburg.
So I guess he's not only free, but he's helicoptering around with his bodyguard.
No Russians watching him.
He's just sort of doing his thing and then totally voluntarily, he'll go back to Belarus, of course, where he'll live a happy life on the farm with your dead dog.
And then they showed the picture of the real Pogrosian.
Part of one finger is missing.
But the guy who got in the helicopter, who is, with his actual bodyguard.
Because the bodyguard didn't have a mask on.
So you could tell the bodyguard was definitely the bodyguard.
But it was a body double.
It was a body double.
Do you still believe there was an insurrection?
Yes.
I believe it was a Conditional insurrection.
It was a conditional insurrection.
Meaning that I don't know that Purgosian knew what was possible to happen.
I think that at a minimum he wanted to get rid of those generals.
But I do think there's no chance he wasn't thinking in his mind that if he got rid of the generals, or actually he said capture them, it looked like he was trying to take over the military.
So I believe that when Pugosian says, no, I love Putin, I'm never, no, you think this is a coup against Putin?
Are you kidding me?
No, no, no.
No, I'm only mad at the military.
So I'm going to try to take over the head of the military and replace the head of the military with myself or one of my puppets.
So I don't want to take over the country.
That's crazy.
I'm only trying to take over the entire military complex.
And then, of course, once I owned all of the military, I would, because I like Putin, I would let him run the country.
Of course.
Of course Putin can run the country.
I just want to own all the guns.
Do you think he was going to take over the military and then let Putin run the country?
Do you think that was his plan?
I don't think so.
If it was, it was the worst plan I've ever heard.
At the very least, he was trying to control the military.
If you control the military, well, you kinda control the country.
And by the way, has anybody said that?
I keep watching the news for somebody, I keep waiting for somebody to say, well, you know, whether it was a coup or not a coup, he was trying to control the military.
If you control the military, you effectively control the country.
I'm the first person to say that out loud, aren't I?
Which is weird because it's the most obvious explanation of what was happening.
All right.
Here's my real question.
Much like CNN and MSNBC after the affirmative action decision, Putin really, really doesn't know who to trust.
And the magnitude of that problem now is hard to predict.
But there are people, you know, since the beginning of the Prigozhin thing have said, oh, it's the end of Russia.
Now, I didn't think so.
I didn't think it was the end of Russia.
But who knows how bad it could be?
Because don't you think that by now, Putin is probably jailing or killing people who are largely innocent?
Don't you think that's happened?
Because he's probably dealing with a bunch of people.
And if you're a dictator, you jail or you kill all the people you're sure were part of the coup.
But also, and here's the important part, also anybody who knew those people.
Anybody who was a good friend with a coup plotter, probably dead or in jail.
So the problem is not the ones you know are the coup plotters, The problem is how much of the cancer you have to cut out by getting rid of people who really had nothing to do with anything.
They just happen to know the guy.
And those people are going to become now radicalized, as are all their relatives and friends, because they're going to say, all right, you just got rid of 100 people that had nothing to do with anything.
And we have all the guns.
How long do you put up with it?
How long does the military put up with The military being abused by a civilian.
Putin.
I don't know.
Could get dicey.
Could get dicey.
It also means that Putin probably can't go out in public very much, unless it's a really controlled situation, for now.
Because he probably thinks they're... Let me say it directly.
There's no way that Purgosian doesn't have a assassination squad looking to kill Putin.
Would you agree?
No matter whether Pogorzhin is alive or dead, there's somebody he's already operating, you know, he's probably paid or something, who is looking to put the decapitation strike on Putin.
So I feel like there could be another play here.
I mean, don't be surprised if something blows up near Putin, like really soon.
Now remember, the Wagner Group has military assets.
In theory, They could drop a loitering munition right on top of Putin if they knew where he was.
Now, presumably Putin always travels with, you know, even, I imagine, even anti-aircraft.
If Putin is just driving from one part of the city to another, he's probably got all kinds of military assets, you know, the whole way, at least now.
But would they be able to shoot things out of the air?
If he's driving down a city street in Moscow, and a loitering munition appears from over top of a building, like it was invisible until it came over the street, looks down, has, let's say, 15 seconds to lock on and drop the munitions.
In 15 seconds, can his defensive people knock that down?
Would there be helicopters above any Putin movement?
So they could get anything in the air?
I don't know.
I just don't think the anti-drone technology is so good that they could get them all.
Yeah.
I mean, Soleimani got whacked and he was obviously looking for trouble.
I mean, he was looking for potential attacks.
All right.
Right.
So, Wall Street Journal is reporting that China changed their, one of the laws about what espionage is.
So if you're a foreign entity, let's say a company operating in China, you could get arrested for espionage based on the new vague standards.
U.S.
counterintelligence officials are warning that American executives could get arrested over there on charges that would not necessarily be related to anything bad they did.
They would just use the new ambiguous law to say, well, you're some kind of a spy.
So I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but has anybody ever heard me say that China is unsafe for business?
And it just keeps getting more unsafe.
I don't know how anybody would start business over there.
I do understand how somebody like Elon Musk might be a little bit trapped.
You know, he's got to do business there.
He doesn't have too many options.
But why would you open a business there?
What American would say, I'd like to open a business in China and I'll be visiting that a lot.
With my laptop that will be hacked in 10 seconds.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had planned to talk about, because I was having so much fun reading about everybody's reaction to the news.
Was there a story I missed?
I didn't really get to check the news news, I just was looking at the headlines.
Yeah, we talked about Pregrosian's body double, just did that.
Supreme Court just threw out Biden's student loan debt relief.
Good.
So it's looking bad for them.
Now, do you think the Democrats will use affirmative action and the turning down of the student loan stuff as campaign fodder?
What do you think?
You think they will use these as campaign fodder?
I'm going to go contrarian.
I think they might, so I agree with you that they'll give it a shot, but I don't think that's going to work the way they want.
I think that if the, let's say if Biden, if Biden really makes a thing about affirmative action, he's going to lose a lot of white Democrats.
Who have kids who are trying to get into college.
And he's going to lose all of the Asian Americans, or 80% of them.
So I think it's really dangerous for him to push that button.
Timing isn't right.
20 years ago, yes.
Now, not so much.
How will they do an end run on the court packing?
I'd think that Biden is smart enough not to do it, believe it or not.
I think he's smart enough not to do it.
But if they don't do it, it's going to be, you know, a lot of years of Republican victories in the courts.
He already did.
Did what?
Oh, Biden already used it?
Yeah, of course Biden's already going to use it.
But we'll see if he stays with it.
You know, it's a headline, so of course he has to address it.
But does he make it like a key part of his ongoing campaign?
And I think maybe not.
I think they're going to poll it.
Because I saw a poll today that said that getting rid of affirmative action was hugely popular in the country.
Is that your understanding?
Is your understanding that affirmative action was not popular and that most people, I think two-thirds, are happy that it went away?
Yeah.
So he'd be arguing on the side of one third of the public against two thirds of the public.
That's like a bad campaign approach.
You should be picking things that at least 100% of Democrats like.
And there's plenty of that.
All right.
Well, you know, honestly, what I felt like is that black Americans got a promotion yesterday.
Did anybody have that feeling?
It felt like black Americans got promoted to full citizenship.
That's what it felt like.
And what I mean by that is, as long as affirmative action existed, then the system was treating black Americans like second-class citizens.
That's how I saw it.
I saw them being treated as second-class citizens.
Like, oh, oh, you need a little help.
Oh, poor little guy.
Yeah, you need a little help.
I thought it was condescending and counterproductive the same way Cenk thinks so.
It was a good idea for a long time, but it became counterproductive because it succeeded.
Its own success made it unnecessary, and I think it was time to go.
But yeah, to me, wait five years.
In five years, if you see a new new, let's say, young black college graduate, maybe you start saying to yourself, wow, if you could be a young black person who came, let's say, from a, you know, poor situation, and you still made it through an Ivy League school, I definitely want that person on my team.
Right?
So somebody who could plow through, you know, every obstacle and still make it work without any help.
Oh, yeah.
Oh yeah, I'm hiring that person.
But right now you're thinking, all right, I don't know, how'd you get into college?
Somebody help you?
So to me it looks like a gigantic victory for black Americans to be, finally, no longer considered second-class citizens.
At least in this minor context.
So, I don't know, always good with the bad.
Anything else?
Yeah, somebody said a lot of the black students in Harvard were actually immigrants and had no slavery legacy whatsoever.
Although I suppose they might have from other countries.
All right.
And it also puts all the pressure on the school unions, teachers unions.
So the Randy Weingartens of the world have some explaining to do.
You know, why can't you prepare everybody so that by the time they're applying for college, affirmative action is like a ridiculous idea because everybody's doing fine.
But at the moment, black people are getting terrible educations.
