Episode 2165 Scott Adams Theme For Today: Daddy Is Coming Home. 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:
Daddy is coming home
Politics, Jonah Hill, Couples Therapy, Amish Health, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, President Trump, AI Copyright Infringement, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Biden's Temper, Twitter's Dick Pic Bot, Jamie Dimon, Race Based Sentencing, Yevgeny Prigozhin, President Putin, Ukraine Cluster Munitions, MIC Think Tanks, 2024 GOP VP Candidate, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
There's never been a better moment in your life, and it's just gonna get better for the next hour or so.
And if you like this experience to reach levels that nobody even imagined were possible, 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 dope of being the other day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Ah.
Delightful.
Well, if you were a subscriber to Dilbert Reborn, either on Twitter, you can subscribe, just see my profile, or on the locals platform, where you see lots more than Dilbert, you would know that today's comic features the boss character, who forgets to roll down his windows in the car wash.
Now, I thought to myself, Surely that's never happened to a real person in the real world, has it?
Well, it took me about a minute for somebody at Locals to say that they had that same issue.
It was just funny the way they described it.
So a gentleman rolled, you know, you know the car washes where you put your car onto the And then you just stay in your car as it goes through the car wash and all the jets and stuff are shooting on you until you're done.
And he tells a story of he's sitting in the car wash, you know, you go in the inside, and he's sitting there and he happens to look to his left and notices that his driver's side window is done.
He's looking right at a nozzle.
He's looking directly at a nozzle that's looking back at him.
Bam!
So I guess he got facialized in the car wash, which to me is the funniest thing I've ever heard in my life.
I just imagine that moment where, you know, because you go to the car wash, do you think you've got ten minutes of not doing anything?
It's like your brain goes into sort of a, I guess I'll just be sitting here for 10 minutes mode.
Just imagine sitting there, just casually glancing over as you're looking directly into the face of a nozzle.
Anyway, I thought it was funny.
All right.
Today's theme is Daddy's Coming Home.
Daddy's coming home.
That's the theme.
You think it's about Trump?
It's a little bit about Trump.
But it's bigger than that.
And we'll put together a few stories to make this theme today.
I saw a tweet on Twitter, which is where the tweets are.
By the way, if you're going to look for a tweet, go to Twitter.
That's where they are.
From David Ritter.
And there was a news story, but that's irrelevant to the tweet, and he was replying to me and he says, society don't need men, don't need them to provide, don't need them to reproduce, don't need them to survive.
And he says, argue the merits if you want, but those are the facts.
What do you think?
Do you think that this is a good statement?
Society doesn't need men.
This is said by a man.
Don't need them to provide, produce, or survive.
What do you think?
Well, I tweeted back at David and I reminded him that this is 2023.
He thought it was 2022.
Well, it's an honest mistake.
It's not a mistake.
In 2022, you had to tweet things like, men are stupid idiots.
They add nothing to the world.
If they all died tomorrow, everything would be much better.
There'd be no wars and women would be designing microchips like crazy.
2022, am I right?
Do you remember 2022?
Where you had to say the ladies could do it better than the men in everything.
They don't need you for anything.
No, that was 2022.
In 2023, you could actually say, you know, we would be living an agrarian, if we're lucky, lifestyle, if there had been only women.
You get that, right?
There would be no real technology.
No, I get it.
There are plenty of women who are great at technology.
Can we take a pause?
All the people who are watching who can't understand the concept of large groups sometimes have members within them that are not exactly like the average.
Did all of you know that?
I know, because the people who don't watch this live stream, they don't know that.
Just go to Twitter, you can find out.
They think that if a few people were dangerous during the protest, it's called a revolution.
That would be an insurrection.
So if there's a lot of people who are just protesting, but a few of them actually want to overthrow the government, then the whole thing is called an insurrection.
Right?
That's what the fucking idiots Who think that they're helping think.
So we don't need them here.
So if you're in the group of people who think, my God, did you just say that women can't do technology?
No.
No, nobody said that.
Nothing even similar to that.
I did say that if only women exist, there would be no technology industry.
Which is true.
But you couldn't say that in 2022. 2023?
Free speech, bitches.
I can say anything I want.
And the bitches replies to the men and the women.
In this case.
Just so you know.
Anyway, so let's get that 2022 thinking out of there.
Men can actually do things.
Men can do things.
I know.
It's surprising.
I would like to tag on to that thought.
You were watching the Jonah Hill story.
Jonah Hill told his girlfriend in a text message that became public that he had certain expectations of her, and if she did not meet them, he did not want to be her boyfriend, no hard feelings.
And the expectations were mostly around time that she would spend with other men, etc.
Mostly about that.
And what did a therapist say when the therapist wanted to weigh in on it?
That Jonah had demonstrated a lack of respect for his girlfriend's autonomy and individuality, and that his message is more about restricting Sarah's behavior to suit his comfort levels and insecurities, rather than expressing his feelings or needs in a healthy manner.
Can I give you some advice?
This is for the men.
This is just for the men.
Couples, therapy, Any kind of couples therapy is designed for the woman to be told she's doing everything right, and for the therapist to tell the man that he's a fucking asshole.
That's all it is.
And the reason for that is that no therapist can say anything that a woman would disagree with, and still stay in the business.
But a therapist can disagree with men all day long, and it's fine.
No problem.
So, for the same reason that... Sorry.
For the same reason I say, eventually, all shoe salesmen will be people with a foot fetish.
Because, free market?
If you let the free market do its thing, money will determine what everybody does, right?
You couldn't be a therapist and tell women the truth.
There's some 2023 truth for you.
You could not be a professional therapist and tell women the truth.
You couldn't do it.
Not and keep your job.
Now, I have personal experience with this.
I actually had a couples therapist in my first marriage tell me directly, it's basically, I can't have opinions.
That was it.
I can't have opinions about what I want or what's good or what works for me, what doesn't work for me, just can't.
Now, do you think they tell women that?
No, they tell women the opposite.
That their feelings are important and their man's an asshole for not giving them everything they want.
Right.
Do you think Jonah Hill's life is going to be improved if he takes this unethical, in my opinion, therapist's suggestion that he let his girlfriend do whatever she wants?
And if she wants to spend the day with handsome surfers?
That's just her choice.
And if he's insecure about that, if he has some insecurities about his hot girlfriend spending time with other men, well, that's just some insecurity on his part.
But of course, this would be the same if you reversed it, right?
If you went to the therapist and said, Jonah, basically, he's gone for days at a time and he travels with his ex-girlfriend.
What?
No, they travel together.
But they're just friends.
That's okay, right?
Well, why don't you trust Jonah?
Well, why can't you trust him and let him have his autonomy?
He told you he's not in love with his ex-girlfriend.
They always go on vacations.
What's wrong with that?
Give the man a little autonomy, will you?
How about a little trust?
Stop being such a narcissist.
And let him have a little autonomy.
Go on vacation with his girlfriend.
What's wrong with that?
Well, no therapist would recommend that, would they?
Because he's the guy.
If you're a man, do not go to a therapist.
A marriage therapist.
Relationship therapist.
Regular therapist, I don't have an opinion.
But the marriage counseling, it's just not a real thing.
Let me tell you for sure, it's not a real thing.
It's just somebody telling you that the guy's an asshole and the woman is wonderful and she needs more support.
That's the whole game.
Alright.
Next story is the Amish, allegedly, according to some study, don't have chronic health problems and kids like everybody else.
So in the modern world, people have all these chronic problems from more heart disease to asthma to all kinds of stuff.
And we're told that the Amish children do not have that.
Number one, do you believe that's true?
Yeah, there's the question.
Is it true?
Do you believe it's true?
Or is it too right on the nose?
All right, the first thing I would say is that I'm highly skeptical that it's true.
Highly skeptical that it's true.
But it might be.
It might be.
I also don't rule it out.
So I have no argument against it, except that all data is fake.
This is data.
The set of all data in the world is bullshit.
And this is part of bullshit.
It might also be true.
But if you believe it because somebody had a study, well, that's on you.
So I'm not going to believe it, but I will talk about it.
All right?
If it's true, there are almost too many different reasons for it, which is a problem, isn't it?
Think of all the reasons that it could be.
It could be the food.
You know, they're not eating the processed food as much.
Although I've heard people say they go to McDonald's, but I don't know.
Probably not that much.
So it could be the food.
It could be the medications.
Perhaps they're taking less pharmaceutical things.
Do they have fewer vaccinations?
Or are they required now?
Are the Amish required to get childhood vaccinations?
I don't know the answer to that.
Somebody says no, but I'm not sure that's true.
I'm gonna guess it's true.
It feels like it probably is.
So, food's different, vaccination's different, environment's different.
They have less pollution, probably.
Less technology.
How much do you think the screen time and the hunching over your screen makes a difference?
Some.
I don't know how much it has to do with chronic disease, but it can't be good for you.
What about their social lives?
What about their social lives?
If I had to guess, the average Amish child has less stress.
Because they don't use social media, and they all dress the same, and none of them are especially hot.
I just threw that in there, I don't know.
Maybe some of them are super hot.
I should not tease the Amish because I'm sure... I'm sure if you saw somebody who ate only healthy food... Let me take it all back.
Alright, that was just a joke.
I wonder what would happen if you met somebody who had only eaten healthy food their whole life and didn't have any weird pharma chemicals in them.
Here's my guess.
You would think they were hot.
Because it would just look so frickin' healthy.
Because they all seem to have, you know, a good body weight.
Their BMI looks good.
Probably have good skin.
Probably, you know, got a tan because they're working outdoors.
It might be exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
Like, you know, maybe they're dressed conservatively, but maybe if you met a young Amish person in person, you'd be like, holy cow, this 25-year-old is killing it.
I don't know.
Maybe.
I can't really say.
I don't know too many Amish people.
But here are some other things that are different.
I would guess that the average social life of a kid who's Amish is fairly fulfilling.
Because they'd be with their friends all day, probably working.
They'd probably work with them.
Probably, you know, see them all the time.
Don't have social media.
Don't dress that differently.
Don't have different beliefs.
They probably have really good social lives.
Just guessing.
I don't know.
I mean, if anybody knows more about the community than I do, let me know.
But I would think that the quality of your social life seems highly correlated with good health outcomes.
Now, I question that correlation, because the causation might be backwards.
But there's at least some indication that maybe social life is implicated in your overall health.
They also have more meaning.
Do you think you would be healthier if you had more meaning in your life?
That you woke up and you knew why you existed and you knew what your life was about and you thought you knew what the afterlife was about?
Might help.
Might help.
At least your mental health.
And what about being outdoors more?
Do you think the Amish just simply spend more time outdoors?
I think so.
I don't know for sure, but I think so.
I mean, even when they do transportation, they're outdoors, because they're sitting on top of a wagon, right?
Well, I guess they have some covered ones.
But I'm going to make a prediction.
Prediction time.
So you've got all of those reasons.
You had the vitamin D, etc.
So you've got all of these reasons that you could imagine.
Could be part of the big picture of why they have less disease, if it's true.
Remember, I'm not completely sold that the data is true.
But if it's true, lots of different reasons it could be true.
But I'm gonna give you my prediction of the one I think is the most underrated of all of these.
And actually, I didn't mention it yet.
Movement.
Movement.
I feel like, here's my hypothesis.
If your body's moving, your body knows it's moving and it gives you good health.
In other words, I believe that your body and your brain are all this one unit that sees what you're doing and then provides you the means to do it.
So if you run, if you run every day, your body will provide you with greater fitness so that that running is easier to do.
So basically your body, mind are just always conforming themselves to what you're doing.
Now, what if, what if you were in the modern world, unlike the Amish, and you spent an amazing amount of time just sitting here with your phone in your hand or in front of the computer, just sitting, and you're just not even moving.
What is your body going to think is happening or what you need?
It's going to think you don't need to be alive.
I mean, it doesn't see you looking for reproduction.
It doesn't see you doing meaningful work.
Like, your brain and your body think you might as well be dead because there's no point in you.
You're just not part of the useful world.
You're just looking at screens.
I think your brain just tries to kill you because you're not doing anything useful.
You're just sitting there.
Now, I don't mean that as, like, an intention of the brain.
But here's my prediction.
In the next five years, there'll be major stories about the need to move more.
Just not sit in one place.
Because I can't believe the Amish sit in one place.
You think so?
I mean, when they're tired, they get a rest like everybody, but I don't think that they spend much time just sitting in one place.
I feel like they move a lot.
They're working, they're doing chores, they're walking to school, they're taking care of the horses.
They're just moving.
Now, here's the reason I have this hypothesis.
Because I track, and by the way, I recommend this for all of you, forever I've been tracking what I do during the day and then how I feel.
Do you do that?
Do you make a conscious effort to say, alright, what did I eat today?
How do I feel?
I do that every day, all the time.
So, I feel like I have maybe a little bit...
You know, a little observational advantage, just because I've been tracking it.
And I will tell you that on the days when I'm physically active, and I don't mean just exercise.
This is important.
I don't mean formal exercise.
I mean, I cleaned the house, organized the garage, got ready for a party.
Do you ever have a day when you're entertaining?
And you wake up early and all day long you're cleaning stuff and organizing and buying stuff and putting things out.
And then when you're done, you're putting it all back and it's 1am and you've gone all day.
Every moment of that day you've been moving.
How do you feel?
Exhausted and excellent.
Right?
You feel excellent.
Those are your best days, when you wore yourself out doing something that you wanted to do, which is have your friends over.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter, it could just be cleaning your garage.
Do you know how many times I reorganized my man cave in my garage?
Because of the activity of the doing it.
It's about the doing it, it's not even the outcome, although I like the outcome.
So here's my big prediction.
Five years from now, there'll be major stories saying that people aren't moving enough, and it's signaling to your brain not to make you healthy.
And if you simply moved more, your brain would say, well, I guess you need more of this.
You need more of this healthy guy going around doing stuff.
So I'll give you good health.
That's what I think.
Now, I do think these other factors matter.
You know, the food and the pharma and all that stuff.
But I think movement is going to be the bigger factor when it's all sorted out.
Maybe food.
Food would be the other competitor.
I could certainly see that being all of it if it turned out that way.
All right, well, the next few stories are about penises.
Elon Musk has tweeted that he's proposing a literal dick measuring cut.
I'm probably reading this wrong.
I think I'm probably reading it wrong.
Let me try it again.
Elon Musk is proposing a literal dick-measuring con- I am reading this right.
The richest man in the world has proposed a literal dick-measuring contest with Mark Zuckerberg.
That's real news, by the way.
If you're not on Twitter, actually happened.
Yep.
Did not make that up.
That actually happened.
Now there's no word whether Elon Musk's mom has weighed in.
You know that she did weigh in when he was considering fighting with Zuckerberg.
But this new contest, the literal dick measuring contest, it seems that his mom has been silent on it so far.
So there's that.
I tell you, this is the best summer.
I don't think we've ever had a more fun summer of just weird news.
Because none of it matters.
It's all news that doesn't matter.
The good stuff.
Now, I saw a second part of this story that I think is fake news, but I didn't have time to research it.
Can you give me a fact check on this?
Did Zuckerberg respond to that?
Just tell me if he responded.
And then I'll tell you, allegedly, what he said.
Did he respond to that?
Because I saw a tweet that was a screenshot, so it didn't look like it was necessarily real, but I didn't go to see if there's a real one.
Was that fake?
All right.
Well, let's say we think it was fake.
So there's a fake response from Zuckerberg, but it was funny, meaning that it wasn't Zuckerberg.
It was somebody pretending to be him, I think.
It would have been hilarious if he said it.
But the answer was, after After Musk had called him a cuck, so Musk tweeted yesterday, Zuck is a cuck?
Which, by the way, if you're keeping track, was a day after I'd said that Zuckerberg can't run threads as well as Musk can run Twitter, because Zuckerberg has to worry about what his wife says.
Like, literally.
Because his wife will say, ooh, you can't let those Nazis on there, you can't let them do this or that.
He's got to go home.
He actually has to explain what he does during the day to his wife.
Now, when I say that, I don't mean literally he has to explain it.
It's just the way things work, right?
There's no way that his wife is unaware that he just launched threads, right?
Of course she's aware.
And I believe she's Harvard, high-end, very capable woman, his wife.
So of course she has opinions.
And of course he takes them seriously.
Of course he does.
Anybody would.
She's brilliant.
And it's his wife.
And I'm sure she understands what Threads is.
There's no secrets to it.
So I just made that observation that Zuckerberg has to make his shareholders happy.
But also his wife, because he's a normal human being.
It has nothing to do with even being Zuckerberg.
Whereas Elon doesn't have to make his shareholders happy on Twitter, because there are none.
And he doesn't have to satisfy his wife because he's unmarried.
So it's just an advantage.
Anyway, so Musk called Zuck a cock.
I don't know, maybe he was thinking in the same terms.
as I was.
But so allegedly, after this Dick Measuring contest tweet, allegedly Zuckerberg, and this is not real, said that, He said that his wife says that he has the biggest dick among the tech billionaires.
And the joke was, as if his wife would know all the sizes of the other tech billionaires, which was pretty hilarious.
Now, if Zuckerberg himself had tweeted that, I would think it was about the funniest thing he's ever done.
Obviously, he wouldn't do it unless his wife was in on it.
But it doesn't seem like his style.
So when I saw it, I was like, it doesn't look real.
And you're confirming it's not real, right?
For sure, it's not real.
I think you're confirming it.
All right.
So there's a DeSantis attack ad on Trump which is accusing him of being too pro-LGBTQ and apparently the ad has backfired so badly That the DeSantis campaign is disavowing any knowledge of it.
Basically they're saying, it's not us.
We don't even know who made this ad.
We don't even know who did this.
I saw Mike Cernovich talking about this.
The DeSantis campaign seems to be failing pretty hard.
Because here's the problem.
Even though the attack ad on Trump for being too, as they say, pro-LGBTQ, and they give some examples, you know, I guess he allowed something like he allowed gay marriage at Mar-a-Lago, you know, before that was an ordinary thing.
So Trump has a long history of being extremely friendly to the LGBT community.
Now that should be exactly no surprise.
Anybody who's paying attention knows that Trump has always been friendly to adults.
Adults who want to live their own life any way they want to.
He's always been friendly to that.
And he's always been in that high-end Hollywood world where you're surrounded by the LGBT community all the time.
You know, people who are surrounded by it, you just, it just becomes part of your environment.
You don't think plus or minus about it.
It just becomes part of the context of your life.
So, Trump is in that category of people, which maybe you're not.
Like, if you're not, if you haven't experienced it, as I have, right?
So I live in California, in Northern California, outside of San Francisco.
And I lived in San Francisco for a number of years.
Do you think I have a problem with the LGBTQ community?
No.
Because it just becomes part of who you are and your environment and, you know, just, it loses all of its... whatever makes it different from everybody else.
It just loses it after a while.
It's just what it is.
So, if you haven't lived in a community where there's a heavy LGBTQ presence, and this is important, it works.
It just totally works.
Do you think, you know, people are not leaving San Francisco because the LGBT community was pooping on the sidewalk?
Or they'd ramped up the crime, you know, all that gay crime, which practically doesn't exist?
So, to imagine that Trump ever had negative feelings about the LGBT community, there's just no basis for that at all, and all evidence suggests the opposite.
So, DeSantis goes after him for that, which I think is a mistake, but as Cernovich said, if you believe the statements in this ad that you're disavowing, you know, because they're They've got some more LGBTQ, let's say, confrontational policies.
Then you should just say you agree with it.
Why are you disavowing something you agree with?
Which is a really good question.
If they agree with it, even if they didn't make it, and even if it's a poorly made ad, do they agree with the message?
Why disavow something if you agree with it?
Because they're not comfortable with it.
Now, can Trump agree with it?
Can Trump say, yes, I did allow the gay weddings at Mar-a-Lago before that was popular?
Of course he can.
He can say, yeah, I did that.
Totally.
Yeah.
There's nothing he has to deny or change.
He has nothing to explain.
He's in a really good place.
So I think, I just don't think you can be as confrontational to the LGBT community as DeSantis and expect to get all the way into the final competition.
I just don't think you can do it.
Does that feel like something that's even possible in 2023?
Like, it's one thing to go hard about how children are raised.
I think that's completely defensible.
But as soon as you extend that into any adult behavior, you know, I'm out.
I'm out.
Hello, I'm out.
Leave my adults alone.
Leave my adults alone.
Don't take their weed.
Don't tell them what they can wear.
But kids, sure, kids are fair game.
All right.
Here's the least surprising thing in the world, which I predicted, of course.
So comedian and author Sarah Silverman and a few other authors are suing OpenAI for copyright infringement.
Surprise!
Now, I didn't know it would be this group of people, but the accusation is That OpenAI, ChatGPT, it went and read all of their books.
And now if you ask it to summarize their books, it can.
So in other words, if a book exists, I may be oversimplifying this, but I think this is true, you would never need to buy it.
Because you could just tell AI to read it to you.
You never have to buy it.
Because it knows, it already has stored in its own database everything about the book.
Once it knows the book, it's just like a person.
Could I walk up to a person and say, hey, you read that book.
Can you tell me the main points of that book?
Sure.
Well, that's legal, right?
A human being can describe a book, describe a movie.
That's not copyright infringement.
But if AI is the one who's talking to you, and AI knows that book, can it tell you everything in the book?
Is that fair?
Because it's a machine, not a person?
What happens if it becomes conscious?
If AI becomes conscious, are you going to tell it there's some things it can't talk about?
Oh, you do know everything in Sarah Silverman's book, but if anybody asks, you can't tell them, because that would be a copyright violation.
Do you think that's going to happen?
It seems like you could super prompt your way around that pretty easily, so I doubt they could get away with it.
So, I'm not even sure which side I'm on.
As an author, I should quite obviously be on the side of the authors.
On the other hand, how do you police this?
I don't want the solution to be worse than the disease.
So maybe what's needed is authors need some other way to make money.
It could be that the business model of protecting things by copyright just won't work.
It would be easy to imagine, for example, that people like me can only monetize on social media.
In other words, I can write all the books I want, but everybody's just going to get them for free through AI.
And even the AI would turn it into an audiobook if you want.
You could be walking with your headphones on and say, hey AI, read me As If An Audiobook, Sarah Silverman's latest book.
Do you mean this title?
No, the one before that.
Okay, beginning.
You got your audiobook.
Chat GPT, can you change the voice of the audiobook?
I'd like to hear this in the voice of some other actress.
And then you get it.
How do you compete with that?
How is a physical book going to compete with that?
Can't.
So it's easy for me to imagine that it'll go the way music went, at least a little bit.
So music used to be you could make some money on the record, but also by touring.
But I think these days the touring is most of the money, isn't it?
Because streaming is ripping off the artists.
Am I right about that?
I'm not really following it that closely.
Some are saying yes, some are saying no.
My understanding is that if you were a big musical act, you pretty much had to tour.
Because the tour was the money.
Am I wrong?
Now, that would be a change that made sense because of streaming and the illegal ripping of music.
So the musicians maybe have to change their business model to do something different.
I can imagine that authors, such as myself, for both comics and books, probably have to just change my business model.
I mean, I think this is going to be up to me to adjust, and not for AI to be illegal.
What do you think?
Let me ask.
Most of you are not authors.
What do you think is a better world?
Is it a better world If the AI can do anything it wants with the copyrights, or is it a better world if the authors maintain that control?
Because I will tell you for sure that if I couldn't make money writing books, I wouldn't write any.
Would you agree?
There would be no such thing as talent stacks or systems are better than goals.
There are a number of things I've introduced that have literally changed America in terms of personal success that I wouldn't have written if they didn't pay me.
I mean, I did it for social as well as financial reasons, that particular book, but I wouldn't have done it for just social reasons, because it's so much work.
Like, you need to get paid.
It's just so much work to write a book.
It's just crazy.
So I don't know.
Could go either way.
If I had to predict, I think that the business model for authors will change.
For example, let's just take any example.
If Andrew Huberman had a book, does he?
Probably does, right?
Does Dr. Andrew Huberman have a book?
I don't know.
But whether he has a book or not, I'll use him as my example.
He could have a book, because you've seen him on Joe Rogan, he's always on social media.
But he could monetize social media a lot more easily than he could monetize a book, because he's good on social media.
So I've got a feeling the authors are going to just turn into podcasters and just monetize it that way.
That's my guess.
All right.
Vivek.
Ramaswamy is innovating on fundraising.
So as you know, the big fundraisers in politics are packagers.
Do they call them that?
So there'll be some people who are like super fundraisers.
And if you could get some of them to work for your campaign, you're going to be super fundraising.
Yeah.
So I'm not sure if he's just talking about the packs.
But he's introducing an idea to let anybody who raises funds for his campaign To keep 10% of it.
So you could raise as much money as you want for Ramaswami, and everyone... A bundler.
I'm sorry, a bundler, not a packager.
It's called a bundler.
A packager is a different business.
I think packager is a book word.
So he's the bundlers.
But anyway, so if you wanted to be a bundler for Vivek, you could get 10% commission and it would be transparent.
Everybody would know 10% goes to you.
What's wrong with that idea?
Anything?
Is there anything?
So I saw, I think, Ian Miles Chong and some other people called it a pyramid scheme.
But you know it's not a pyramid scheme, right?
So a pyramid scheme, everybody who's involved is trying to make money from the people that they bring in below them.
Let me put it this way.
I didn't read the article.
is doing less well than the level above them.
But that's nothing like what he's suggesting.
What Vivek is suggesting is more like a sales commission that every sales force in the world does.
If you can do this amount of business, you get 10% of it.
And that's it.
Let me put it this way.
I didn't read the article, but do I need to read the article to know it's not a pyramid scheme?
I mean, really?
Exactly.
See, here's where you can use Vivek's intelligence as a proxy for research, right?
What I should have done when somebody said it was a pyramid scheme, I should have looked into it to read the details, right?
Normally you would do that.
But I skipped that step because it's fucking Vivek, right?
Are you telling me there's any chance that he launched a pyramid scheme?
Really?
Really?
You think he launched a pyramid scheme right in public?
No!
No.
That would not be what somebody as smart as him and as capable as him and as experienced as him would ever do in a million years.
There's just no chance he would ever do that.
So I don't have to research it.
It's sort of like, does the government have 20 captured UFOs?
If I could research it, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't bother.
Alright, so you don't have to bother with that one.
What else is going on?
Axios has done a story today on Joe Biden's temper behind closed doors.
And the idea is that he's just a swearing machine behind closed doors.
And he says stuff like, gee dammit, how the eff don't you know this?
Don't effing BS me.
I'm trying to clean this up for you.
So he's quoted as saying stuff like that and that he angers easily behind closed doors and then his critics say it's probably dementia.
Is it?
Is it dementia?
Okay, I get it was the first thing I thought too, of course.
So I get that dementia can cause outbursts.
I get that.
I also get that he probably hasn't.
In my opinion, it looks like he has the signs of dementia.
In my totally non-professional opinion.
But is this story fair?
Is this a fair story?
If this had been about Trump, would you say, oh, that's fair?
Yeah, he gets really angry behind closed doors.
I can't tell if this is a hit piece or it's helping him.
Axios does a pretty good job of not being obviously in the bag for anybody.
Probably everybody complains about every story, but they do seem to try to hit some kind of reasonable middle opinion ground.
And here's my first comment.
Here's what they left out.
What's left out of the story?
Context.
They left the context out.
Do we ever elect presidents who don't do this?
And would you want one?
Would you want a president who didn't act exactly like this behind closed doors?
I don't.
I don't want that president.
No, this is the president I want.
Yeah, maybe Jimmy Carter was not like this behind closed doors, but I'm pretty sure most of our presidents were.
Most of our presidents got really, really angry and cursed behind closed doors.
We're pretty sure of it.
And one of the things that the story says he gets angry about is when he asks people who are briefing him, he asks insightful, useful questions and they can't answer it.
And he goes off on them.
Does that bother you?
Does it bother you if he goes off on his staff when they can't answer his simple questions?
Nope.
Nope.
That may be like him.
That made me like him a little bit better, honestly.
And I'm of course worried that dementia is part of the story, but I can't believe he hasn't always been like this.
He looks like somebody who maybe always could have had a temper behind closed doors.
And I don't judge him at all, because Trump was the same.
And all the presidents were the same, except maybe Jimmy Carter.
Maybe JFK was maybe a more polite version.
But I've got a feeling he got pretty, pretty mad behind closed doors.
So the funniest part about this is that somebody decided to brand Biden as Old Yeller.
Old Yeller.
That's pretty funny.
Anyway, nothing bad about that.
Also, Biden would scold his advisors for using big Ivy League words in their presentations, and he would force them to use regular language.
This feels like a love letter to Biden to me, right?
Because basically, that's just Trump.
That's Trump.
Don't use those words.
Explain it in real words that ordinary people understand.
Yeah, give me more of that.
Very positive for Biden.
More dick news from Twitter.
So the libs of TikTok got suppressed by Twitter's algorithm, and they complained, and showed a bunch of screenshots of people who said they couldn't find their account on Twitter.
And Elon Musk looked into it, and it turns out they know exactly why.
The libs of TikTok had tweeted a picture of, let's see, what was it, the Pride Parade or something?
Yeah, from the pride parades and there was some nudity in the photos.
Now even though the nudity was maybe not part of the photos, we learned today from Elon Musk himself that Twitter has a dick pic bot.
A dick pic bot.
Which is exactly what Musk referred to it as.
His dick pic bot.
In other words, they have some kind of AI that looks for dicks It's just looking for dicks all day long.
It's like all it does.
And when the bot goes home to its spouse, bot, and the spouse bot says, how was work today?
Well, I had a good day.
I found 10 million dicks.
Got rid of them all.
Yeah.
So that's what happened, and then Moss said that the correction is that they shouldn't have been suppressed on one tweet instead of the entire account, so he's going to fix it.
So we'll still have a now-safe-for-work message on the one tweets, or the few tweets that have these images on, but the account will not be suppressed.
So today we learned that that's a thing.
Apparently, in the past, one dick pic would have made you suppressed and you wouldn't have known how to fix it until Musk.
All right, here's another one.
There's a governor, he was on Face the Nation on CBS, and he was talking about his efforts to ban or limit gender transition treatments.
What do you think would be the name of the governor?
Just guess.
I won't even tell you what state.
What would be the name of the governor who wants to limit gender transition surgeries for minors?
What would be a good name for a guy like that?
Well, his first name is Spencer.
Spencer.
His last name is Cox.
C-O-X.
So it's a... I'm not sure where you put the emphasis on his name.
But, it sounds like spend, spends her cocks.
Her cocks.
Spends her cocks.
So, sounds like somebody's spending money on her cock.
I don't know, that's just what his name sounds like.
It's probably a coincidence.
It's probably not the simulation winking at you, it's probably just a coincidence.
But one that I think had to be mentioned.
Well, China's having some deflationary problems.
Now, that's an old story.
I could put more words on that.
But in other words, their prices are not going up or not inflated like other places.
But it could be a huge problem.
So the reason China's prices are not going up is that their business is not good.
So they're not making and selling as much as they used to.
Demand is low and their prices are low, so there's less inflation in China.
Now the good news is that we're buying their products still, so that will keep our inflation a little bit in check, even though ours is higher.
However, the deflationary pressures can be as devastating or worse than inflation.
So as we're worried about inflation, I saw Jamie Dimon say this.
So the head of Chase Morgan, what is it?
What do they call themselves?
Chase Morgan or something?
So head of that big bank.
JPMorgan Chase.
Thank you.
So he was saying that the United States has never been in a more privileged economic situation.
Relative to the rest of the world.
So everywhere in the world people have their problems at the moment, economically.
But we have this weird situation where we're way better than other people, right?
Are we better off than Russia?
Probably.
Although that might be a breaking point situation.
You know, they may be getting close to a breaking point.
Are we better off than China?
Maybe.
It looks like it, according to Jamie Dimon.
Are we better off than Europe?
Looks like it.
And better off than Africa, South America, you could go on.
We seem to be better off than every other country at the moment.
And we've also proven that unless China has some good weapons, there's only one superpower.
Because Russia didn't really have a military like we imagined they had.
Just didn't.
So, it's starting to look as if America is stronger than it ever was, relative to the other countries.
Had you ever, had you thought about that?
Had that crossed your mind that America has reached basically a winning position in the world?
Even more so than ever any time in the past?
Yeah.
I actually agree with everything you said.
I agree with 100% of it.
And by the way, JB Diamond is really good.
He's really good at being a public leader, saying the right things without too much political spin bullshit.
He's pretty good at not being a bullshitter.
If he ran for office, it'd be hard not to like him.
I don't know what his policies would be.
But if you're just going to pick somebody who is smart and capable and doesn't seem to lie too much, I don't know, he's looking pretty good.
I wouldn't say no to looking at him in the future as a politician.
I don't think he's interested, but... All right, California has some legislation in which they're making it a requirement to consider race in your sentencing for the penal code.
In other words, now it's not okay, it's required.
You should consider race when deciding how much of a prison sentence to give.
Does that sound like a good idea?
You should consider race when deciding how long they go to jail.
You should.
Now, it sounds worse than it is.
Of course, it could be worse than it is.
It sounds worse than it is.
Here's what they're trying to do.
What they're trying to do is make sure that black people don't go to jail for longer than white people for the same crime.
Are you okay with that?
You're okay with that, right?
No complaint?
Right.
Of course.
Of course.
That's the most basic Republican belief is that everybody's got to be treated the same under the law.
So of course everybody likes that part.
But do you think this legislation is going to get us there?
Maybe.
It might actually work.
I have actually mixed feelings about this.
Because I very much don't want different sentences for different races.
But I don't think this is designed to make white people go to jail longer.
I think it's made to make sure that black people don't go to jail for too long.
I'm all for that.
I'm all for that.
We'll see.
It just sounds worse because it's coming from California where everything is crazy.
All right, Michigan has passed a law to make it illegal to misgender somebody.
It'll be a felony.
$10,000 fine.
Now, that's only if you do it intentionally.
And what's the other word?
And wrongfully.
So you have to be incorrect in your diagnosis.
In other words, you're calling somebody the wrong thing.
But it also has to be intentional, meaning you're trying to be a dick.
So it's like a hate crime.
Does that feel like a good law?
Does that feel like that'll work out just really just the way they hope?
How in the world do you prove that they're wrong?
Imagine the first lesson.
All right, you were wrong and you were doing it intentionally, taking you to court.
Guy ends up in court and says, all right, you're accused of being wrong.
And being intentional about it.
And then what does the defendant say?
Prove I'm wrong.
Prove I'm wrong.
Go ahead.
Prove I'm wrong.
It's going to be whose opinion gets to be right.
Because if the, let's say there's a victim with quotes.
So there's a victim who's been It's called the wrong gender.
Don't they have to prove their gender?
Like, wouldn't you have to prove that it's wrong?
Like, how would you prove that the person who's defining themself got it right, and the person who's observing got it wrong?
Couldn't it be the other way around?
Couldn't the observer be right?
And the person who's self-identifying is wrong.
Now you could say, that doesn't make sense, because if you're self-identifying, that's the end of the story.
The gendering is about self-identification.
But is it?
Is it completely about self-identification?
If you looked and presented yourself as 100% male, but you said, I want everybody to call me she, would that fly?
You didn't even pretend that you were part of the gender you claimed?
I don't know.
It seems to me you could have a situation where the observer is right.
Am I wrong?
You couldn't have a situation where the observer is more right than the person who's identifying as whatever it is they are?
I think you could.
So I don't know how you could ever, like, convict.
And what if it's intentional, but it's not meant for harm?
What if it's intentional and the intent is to make the world a better, safer, more rational place?
It just made one person unhappy.
That's a crime.
If your intention is to make everybody better off, and very, very directly that's your intention, to make everybody better off, protect kids.
So how do you prove you had a bad intention?
Yeah, I don't think this law stands because it's too vague, too much to argue about, and doesn't have enough benefit.
What's the old hackneyed saying?
The juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze.
Like, I get what they're going for, but I can't imagine it's worth it, doing it this way.
The problems seem like they'd be bigger than the benefits.
Well, as you knew this would happen, the AI doctors are coming.
So Google is competing as hard as they can against Microsoft's AI, trying to come up with the best AI doctor.
And one of them is actually, was it Google?
I think it's Google, is actually training it by having the AI take medical Tests.
You know, the same tests a doctor would have to take to become a doctor, the AI is being trained on the questions and the answers from those tests.
So in theory, you could have a human doctor who, you know, scored okay on the medical exams, or you could have an AI who got every question right.
Which one would you pick?
So presumably a real human doctor could pass those tests with less than 100% accuracy.
I assume, right?
It's probably like 70% or something.
Does anybody know the actual percentages?
To be a doctor, I don't know what tests we're talking about, but you probably have to get pretty high in those tests.
I don't think 60 is going to cut it, right?
Don't you have to get maybe at least 75%?
I'd be happier with 90, right?
But what if the AI gets 100% every time, and the human doctors, even the really good ones, are only at 90%?
Which one do you want for your doctor?
The 90% or the 100%?
Now, you might say, but the doctor is there in person.
Do you think the doctor could do a better job of examining your suspicious mole than the AI could?
If you just hold your arm up to the camera and say, all right, is that a suspicious mole?
Do you think the human doctor is going to beat the AI?
I don't think so.
You say yes, but I think the yes is maybe a year old.
Meaning a year ago, maybe.
But at the moment, no, I think they've already tested it.
My understanding is they've already tested the suspicious mole test, and the AI already beats the humans.
I think that's already done.
All right.
Well, I do imagine that we'll all have AI doctors right on our phones.
The only thing that could stop it would be what?
What could stop it?
The American Medical Association.
Do you know why we didn't have telehealth before the pandemic?
What was the really good reason we didn't have telehealth, you know, doctors on Zoom?
Why didn't we have that before the... It was because the American Medical Association wanted it to be illegal to practice across state lines.
And if you can't do it across state lines, it's sort of a problem for that business model, right?
Because you're too limited by your one state.
So the AMA, presumably to protect the jobs of the doctors, should come out and tell you your AI is going to kill you.
And if you don't have a human doctor, you're all dead.
And the data proves it.
So there's going to be a fight.
But if the AMA is fighting against Google and Microsoft, who's going to win?
If you put up the AMA against Google and Microsoft, who wins?
It's Google and Microsoft.
Am I wrong?
I think they win every time.
Because they can control the government with money in a way the AMA wishes it could.
So now the story is that Putin actually met with Purgosian after the failed attempted alleged coup.
And that Putin met with 30 military commanders and that Pugosian was there.
So some are saying that that would be an indication that Putin and Pugosian are, you know, at least somehow working together.
Does that sound right to you?
Do you think there was a friendly meeting of all the military commanders?
And Pugosian was just one of them.
And that story is completely true.
You believe that?
No, I don't know what happened, but let me tell you what I think happened.
Do you remember the famous video of Saddam Hussein in a big meeting of all the political people in Iraq before Saddam took over?
And he had his guards come in one at a time, removed ...leaders from the room, and had them executed immediately, while the others were waiting in the room to see if they would be the next ones to be taken out.
And after he completed that, not many people went against Saddam, because they realized he was just so badass, he was gonna murder you while you sat there.
Like, while you're sitting there, he's gonna take the guy next to you and murder him right outside the door.
While you sit there, waiting to know if you're next.
I think that probably is a very sort of indirect general way.
I think that's what Putin did.
I do not think Putin had an ordinary meeting with his commanders to talk about the fate of the Ukraine war and make some strategy.
Putin's biggest problem is he doesn't know who's on the other side.
I would not be surprised if Purgosian was there And the 30 commanders were there, and while they were there, Putin had his generals come in and remove two or three of those commanders while the others watched it, knowing they will never see those commanders again.
Right?
That they're going to be executed immediately.
Presumably for being part of Purgosian's thing.
Now, that would also be, in my opinion, the last time any of those commanders would see Purgosian.
Because I think it would be the ultimate dictator baller move to have the guy who planned and tried to execute a coup sitting right next to you while you take out a couple more commanders.
And, you know, surrounded by people with guns who are on your side.
I think it was probably the scariest meeting That anybody's ever been since Saddam.
I think those commanders were being tested for their loyalty and probably some of them were taken out and shot.
Like right then?
That's my guess.
Because I also ask myself, what would I do in that situation?
Do you ever put yourself in the murderous dictator frame of mind?
Just say, well, what would I do?
If I were a murderous dictator, how would I play this?
And that's how I would play it.
Because Putin really has a problem of not knowing who the traitors are.
It's a big, big, big, big, big, big problem.
So he would have to do something pretty dramatic to get past it if he can.
And the most dramatic thing you could do is bring all those commanders, put them in one room, And take two of them out and shoot them.
While the rest of them are sitting there.
Now, I'm not saying he necessarily physically shot anybody.
I'm saying that he got them there to scare them.
And to weed out the traitors.
And to find out who was loyal and who wasn't.
And I think it probably moved him forward a little bit.
But I don't believe you're going to see Prigozhin again.
I think that was his one purpose.
Putin needed him for that, and now he doesn't need him.
He's probably alive, but you're not going to see him again.
You would be under Putin's control.
All right, Biden is getting some pushback for saying that he grudgingly approved these cluster munitions which are banned, and I think a hundred countries banned them as a war crime.
They're so terrible.
But he grudgingly says he approved them, and the reason is that we were running out of artillery shells.
What?
And so he says it's temporary until we build up more artillery shells.
But then the critic said, my God, you just told our nemeses that we're out of artillery shells or we're low on them.
But are you worried about that?
That's not real.
That's just politics.
Because if, let me say it a different way.
If Trump had said this, would I be bothered?
No.
Do you know why?
Who's going to attack America in a way in which we need artillery to defend ourselves?
Have you ever think of that?
What is the scenario in which America needs artillery?
Taiwan might need artillery, but it's not going to decide.
The fate of Taiwan is not going to be decided by artillery.
Do you think Taiwan can win by having an island that's shooting artillery back at the mainland?
For what?
For what?
Now, we certainly have enough artillery to take out the cartels.
If we were dumb enough to use artillery for that, it would make more sense to use drones and airplanes.
But did anybody who was analyzing the story about Biden saying we were running out of artillery shells, or at least running lower than we wanted to run?
We're not out, of course.
Does anybody think that mattered?
Was there any military analysis that said, but, you know, to be honest, we have no use for artillery whatsoever?
I can't think of any use for it, can you?
Artillery is for a land war.
What, is Mexico going to invade?
Canada?
And the artillery doesn't shoot across the Atlantic.
Who are you going to shoot?
So unless we needed to give them to our allies, they weren't like protecting the homeland with artillery.
Am I wrong about that?
I keep saying these military things like I have any military expertise whatsoever, but I'm not wrong, am I?
South Korea can make all the artillery they want.
They don't need ours.
All right.
So there's that.
And look how easily, so easily Biden moved from these munitions are a war crime to, well, I guess if you need them.
So the only thing, just think about how horrible this is.
So we have a president, our leader, who should be, in some ways, should be a model for us of how to behave.
Not his personal life, but his public life should be a model for how to behave.
And here he said the right thing at one point.
These munitions, these cluster bombs, are too horrible.
They're a war crime.
We shouldn't use them.
And then the first time he thought there was some advantage in using them, he used them.
All it took was they had to be useful.
So all of his moralizing about how bad they are, none of it meant anything.
It meant nothing.
Because the moment we needed them, and not even for homeland security.
It's not even our own homeland.
The moment he needed them for a strategic geopolitical purpose, boom, there they are.
So there's your morality right there.
It does make me wonder if Trump would have done that.
I think he might have.
But I don't know for sure.
Because I feel like there's something deeply wrong with making a stand as a president that this is beyond the pale.
These weapons should not be used.
And we're even telling the other side what weapons they can and cannot use.
This is a red line if you use these chemical weapons, or if you use nuclear, it's a red line.
And then we cross our own red line like it didn't even matter.
Now, I don't know if it's a good decision or a bad decision militarily, but it's a big problem when your president can say two opposites and act like that's okay.
Oh, it's immoral.
Well, if you need them, it's fine.
All right.
I saw an article today, I don't know how true it is, but it's a claim that the, you know how the press likes to refer to think tanks?
So the so-called think tanks are a bunch of smart people who write up smart opinions.
Because they're smart.
And so the news, quoting think tanks, makes perfect sense, right?
The think tanks are the ones who got all the thinkers.
So you want to know what they think and what they're saying.
And especially, they like to talk about wars.
So the think tanks really weigh in on these geopolitical, global things.
It's like the war in Ukraine, for example.
And we find out that from... Why did I not name... Didn't write down the person who did this, which was good work.
But anyway, Media outlets have cited think tanks with financial backing from the defense industry 85% of the time.
So 85% of the time that your news referred to a think tank, the think tank was funded by the military-industrial complex.
Did your news ever tell you that?
When your news says such and such, a think tank said this, do they say at the same time, but remember they're funded by the people who make weapons.
So if they're in favor of wars, just remember, they make money from weapons.
Indirectly, because they're funded by the weapons industry.
Now, don't you think that's a little bit important?
Just a little bit important to know that you're quoting somebody who's literally making money from the war.
Indirectly, but literally.
That's pretty important.
85% of them.
So I would give you this advice.
If you hear that a think tank has been mentioned, just say to yourself, oh, they're selling weapons.
Think tank equals selling weapons.
That's your reframe.
You'll be in good shape if you just tell yourself, think tank is a weapon sales, basically a sales force for the weapons industry.
It's not a tank, it's not about thinking, and it's not even about legitimate opinions.
It's simply a sales force for the weapons people.
Oh, the think tank thinks we should invade Ukraine.
How convenient for weapons sales.
Yeah, marketing.
Actually, marketing would be better.
It's marketing for weapons manufacturers.
And now you could say, but Scott, 15% of them are not funded by the weapons people.
To which I say, how do you know it's 15%?
Are you an expert?
Just ignore everything from think tanks.
Think tanks are a way to launder opinions.
Let's say you launder an opinion.
Put it through the think tank.
Oh, it's not we weapons makers who say this is a good idea.
It's the think tank.
It's the think tank.
We just make weapons.
Oh, we're just over here making weapons and funding the guy who's at the think tank, telling us you really need a lot of those weapons.
You better buy some weapons.
Running out of shells.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my prepared remarks for what some will call the best live stream that's ever been presented in the history of live streams.
