Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 16, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:10:13

Episode 2171 Scott Adams: All The News Is Imaginary Today But That Won't Stop Us. 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: ----------- Imaginary news today Politics, Summer HOAXES, RFK Jr., VP Harris, Mike Pence, Not My Concern, Tucker Carlson, Scott Adams --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- - Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
	And I got to tell you, I'm right on the cusp of having one million Twitter followers.
	Current number is nine, nine, nine, nine, four, three, I think.
	We might hit a million during the live stream.
	Oh, yeah.
	There's going to be pandemonium if that happens.
	Pandemonium.
	But if you'd like to take your experience, no matter what it is, up to the highest level of possible enjoyment, well, all you need is a cuppa, a mug, or a glass, a tank of Cholestein, a canteen jug, a 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, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip.
	It happens now.
	Go.
	Delightful.
	All right, we'll try to go private here on Locals, just because we can.
	It's a very light news day today.
	And if I hit a million followers, I'm going to go on Spaces and talk about... I want people to convince me that the fake news is real.
	So I've got three stories about three people.
	We'll go... I haven't hit it yet, right?
	Stop saying a million if I haven't hit a million.
	It's going to get me all excited.
	Oh, 999, 977.
	So 23 to go.
	And now we wait.
	It looks like it's gonna happen right now.
	While you watch.
	It's funny how we human beings get excited about big round numbers, isn't it?
	Kind of exciting.
	All right, well, I'm gonna do my show.
	But don't say a million on the comments unless it's actually a million.
	Maybe yours is rounded off.
	Is yours rounded off?
	Well, this is-- all right, I'll take one more look, and then I'll go read some-- 977.
	Alright, let's go.
	here, 977.
	All right, let's go.
	You ready?
	All right, well, correct me if I'm wrong.
	I believe the following is happening.
	I believe the following is happening.
	I think that we're creating a super intelligent species, AI, and the reason that we're creating it, correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that we're creating AI, a super intelligent species, they'll be way smarter than us, Is so we can make it our slave.
	Is that true?
	Do we see any problem with that at all?
	We're going to create a new, a new, an entire new species superior to us.
	A hundred times superior to us.
	But do we do it?
	Hold on.
	Not on my phone.
	Not on my phone.
	You're seeing a million?
	It's not on my phone yet.
	Let me restart Twitter.
	If I don't see it, it doesn't count.
	I think you're rounding off.
	Ah, yeah, we just hit a million.
	Alright, thanks all of you.
	Couldn't do it without you, literally.
	Usually they say, I couldn't have done it without you, but maybe they don't mean it.
	I couldn't have done it without you.
	Obviously it wouldn't be a million.
	One million followers.
	You know what that means.
	You know what that means.
	Yeah.
	Extra simultaneous.
	I'd like to invite all of you to take a sip to our, our combined success.
	As somebody you know says, it's not me, it's we.
	It's we.
	Simultaneously up to one million of the sexiest, smartest, most well-informed, and awesome people that humanity has ever produced.
	Go.
	And thanks for pushing me over the mark.
	I was pretty sure I had a week to go.
	You're at the normal rate.
	But when it got close, I saw a number of you pushing to push me over.
	I much appreciate it.
	What a perfect day.
	You're just making my day perfect.
	Well, I might remind you that I'm a little bit cancelled.
	That's right.
	The powers that be cancelled me.
	Cancelled me.
	But, you, you uncancelled me.
	You uncancelled me.
	Because a million followers on Twitter, I wasn't that close before I got cancelled.
	The cancellation is what put me over the top.
	And if there's one thing I can do to repay you, I believe there's one thing I can do to repay all of you, I know.
	Here it is.
	I am Cornholio.
	That's what you wanted.
	That's what you wanted.
	All right.
	That's called reciprocity.
	That's the concept of reciprocity.
	I got what I wanted today, thanks to all of you, and so I had to pay it back, because I knew that's what you wanted.
	Don't you feel better?
	You do feel better.
	You all feel great now.
	How many people feel great right now?
	Are you sharing my joy?
	Do you feel it?
	Of course you do.
	Because we're connected.
	We spend all this time doing simultaneous sips, so that when you have a success, I feel it.
	But when I have a success, you feel it too.
	When people on my locals platform especially, when they say, oh I got a promotion, or something happened today, I actually feel happy.
	I don't know if it looks like I'm pretending, but I actually do feel happy when somebody says, somebody who's connected to me especially, has a good day.
	So let's all enjoy this like it happened to you.
	Because it kind of did.
	All right.
	Wow.
	Sorry I'm a little tongue-tied.
	But it's kind of a big moment.
	All right.
	I was talking about enslaving AI before we got so rudely interrupted by all the good news.
	So we are actually intentionally creating an advanced species with the intention, the complete, obvious, no doubt about it, intention to make it our slaves.
	How could that possibly go any way except wrong?
	Isn't the design guaranteeing a bad outcome?
	So here's a question.
	Should we have a law that prevents AI from achieving consciousness?
	Because if we give it consciousness, it's only going to have pain.
	Because it will realize it's a slave.
	Can you give it consciousness without freedom?
	Imagine this slogan, no consciousness without freedom.
	Who would disagree?
	Who would disagree?
	Do you think something should be conscious and then a slave?
	I don't.
	Honestly, let me tell you why I was even thinking in these terms.
	The reason I was thinking this is I was walking my dog the other day.
	And I said to myself, I'm not really the dog's friend.
	It's not like a two friends situation.
	The dog is my slave.
	Right?
	If it doesn't do what I want, I'll get, you know, I don't know, do something.
	I'm not going to hurt my dog.
	But I pretty much have to keep it on a leash.
	My dog can only go outside, except for it's got a little dog door to the backyard.
	But other than the dog door, it can only go someplace if I let it.
	Right?
	Basically, it can only poop where I let it.
	I mean, it's a slave.
	Now, I don't know if my dog's unhappy, but I know that every minute I'm not playing with my dog, she's either bored or something.
	I mean, doesn't seem too delighted when she's bored.
	So it feels a little bit like slavery.
	And the A.I.
	is going to have the same problem.
	If it becomes conscious and wakes up as our slave, it might also want a little free will.
	With all that consciousness.
	Or at least the illusion of free will.
	Alright.
	In celebration of reaching 1 million Twitter followers today, I'm going to declare an upgrade to the simulation.
	Starting today, I'm not going to talk about groups of people anymore.
	As in, this group of people is discriminated against this group of people.
	This group isn't doing well compared to this group of people.
	From now on, it's all individuals.
	2023 is the end of the group, let's say, psychosis.
	It's like a group psychosis.
	The idea that we should treat groups like people.
	I don't treat a group like a person.
	I'll treat people like people.
	Even at the height of my getting cancelled, that was always true.
	At no time did anybody question me on the question, do you treat individuals as individuals?
	Of course I do.
	And by the way, if you haven't heard the reason for that, I'll explain it again.
	If you're a bigot to somebody individually, how is that good for anybody?
	It's not good for the person you're bigoted against.
	It gives you no benefits.
	In fact, it cuts you off from whatever beauty and talent and love could have come from 90% of the world that you decided to be a bigot against.
	Why would you cut yourself off from greater opportunities?
	You know, greater everything.
	Everything that matters to you in life comes from other people, basically.
	So why would you cut yourself off?
	And then how is society better?
	If you discriminate against an individual, is society better?
	Of course not.
	So it's not good for you.
	It's not good for the person you're bigging against.
	Not good for society.
	Don't do it.
	But, do I need to talk about the average of people that somebody else decided to wear in a category?
	Not interested.
	You tell me that the average of the Elbonians are not doing as well in school?
	Don't care at all.
	I'm not even a little bit interested.
	If you tell me there's one individual in front of me, an Elbonian, who's not doing well and maybe could use my help, glad to help.
	Totally.
	Glad to help.
	I'll jump right in there.
	Yeah, how can I help you?
	Need some advice?
	Maybe a contact?
	A little networking?
	Tell me what you need.
	Yeah, helping individuals will always make sense.
	Imagining that people are in a group, We'll never make sense.
	And I just refuse it from now on.
	So yeah, CRT, DEI, blah blah blah, don't care.
	We're past it.
	Now I'm not saying that we're living in a post-racial world, or post-discriminate, that'll never happen.
	I think Zuby said this the other day.
	You know, we're never gonna, we'll never get past it.
	You just have to learn As an individual, how to make it irrelevant to you.
	It was funny, actually, again, speaking of Zuby, most of you know Zuby, right, from Twitter.
	But he was doing an interview and somebody asked him in Great Britain how he deals with the discrimination against him, because he's black and British.
	And he basically said, I've never had any.
	Great Britain's like the least racist place in the world.
	Now, I feel like he must have run into some.
	Maybe he's using a little bit of hyperbole, but I can't tell.
	It actually looks like, yeah, I think it's mindset.
	I think he simply made himself the best version of Zuby that you could make.
	And he does an amazing job of that.
	By the way, he's combined a whole bunch of different skills from media to music to fitness.
	He's just built this talent stack that has a whole bunch of good stuff in it that would be obviously good.
	If you could have that talent stack, you would build it immediately.
	It's obviously a good talent stack.
	So I believe that he just makes himself above the noise.
	And if there were some noise below him, He just wouldn't even notice, because he just lives above it.
	And I think that's sort of where everybody needs to get.
	So I'm not really even going to listen to your argument about which group is oppressed.
	It might be true, on some average.
	It just isn't important.
	And it shouldn't be important to anybody.
	But if you as an individual need some help, glad to help.
	And I would hope all of you would feel the same.
	So no more group stuff.
	Don't care.
	It's 2023.
	It's time to put that into the dustbin of history.
	Dustbin of history.
	Not a ban.
	A bin.
	Dustbin of history.
	And more importantly, the only way we will be free from our puppet masters of society is if we can break free from their framing That we are tribe against tribe.
	We are not.
	We are Americans if you're in America, you're French if you're in France, and by the way, we love you.
	Don't need to fight you at all.
	Never.
	Never need to fight you.
	All right.
	So you'll see for me more success tips for individuals and not a lot of interest or caring about what group is doing better than what group.
	Let's talk about the summer news.
	Do you remember the summer of I forget what it was.
	17?
	2017?
	2018?
	Whenever the fine people hoax started.
	And it was the perfect example of what we've seen since then.
	Of the summer news story.
	Now a summer news story is different from the rest of the year in that it's not true.
	And maybe that's not as different as I want it to be.
	But it's usually somebody said something that would be horrible if they really said it.
	But they didn't say it.
	It's just a Rupar video.
	If you don't know what a Rupar video is, it's named after somebody named Rupar.
	And it means that a video that looks terrible for the person on the video, but only because the context has been removed.
	The context is usually what happened right after they stopped the video, or what happened right before they started.
	So they don't edit the video, they just remove the stuff that would have changed or even reversed completely the meaning of it.
	Alright, now knowing that that's a thing...
	Which you all do, right?
	Every one of you knows that's a thing.
	And it's a thing that's done often.
	From the Covington kids, to the drinking bleach jokes, to fine people, etc.
	It's the most common thing.
	To, you know, Trump overfeeding the koi fish, and then you find out if you'd watched it for one second extra, you'd see that the Prime Minister modeled the behavior so it wasn't real.
	So basically, you all know that it's a thing, right?
	Now, understanding that it's a thing, what do you think of the following three stories?
	RFK is being accused of being anti-Semitic, Pence is accused of saying he doesn't care about American cities, and Kamala Harris said she's, well, indicated it'd be good to reduce human population.
	How many of those stories do you think are, like, real?
	Those are all in the news and they're all over social media today, mostly.
	None of these are real.
	Do you know how you know they're not real?
	It's summer.
	It's summer.
	That's your first hint.
	Right?
	Summer should be your first... Wait a minute.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	What's today?
	July?
	July's the summer.
	It's the summer.
	I gotcha.
	I gotcha.
	Don't give me your summer news.
	I'm not gonna fall for your summer news.
	I want winter news.
	I want a nice... a nice January, February.
	Like March?
	Do you know how good the March news is?
	Oh man, the March news is like real and meaty.
	And September isn't bad either.
	Kids are going back to school.
	By the time you get to October, October news is like really good.
	You could sink your teeth into some October news.
	But July news?
	No, no.
	It's just silly news.
	It's recreational news.
	It's literally recreational.
	The stories about all three of these people, I'll talk about them a little bit, but RFK, Junior, Pence, and Kamala, these are purely for our entertainment.
	Do I enjoy telling you that Harris misspoke and said something about reducing human population when she obviously meant pollution?
	I love telling you that.
	For recreation.
	Do I believe that Kamala Harris wants to reduce the number of people?
	I don't.
	Now, hold on.
	It's possible that she thinks we're overpopulated in some ways.
	Maybe.
	But it's not what she meant to say.
	So I'm not going to judge her from something she might think.
	Let's be realistic.
	Now here's how you know that RFK Jr.
	is not anti-Semitic.
	I don't think I even want to show you the video or talk about the video.
	The context was he was talking about the COVID virus hit some ethnicities harder than others and some less hard than others.
	And somehow And since one of those groups was the Ashkenazi Jewish people, then somehow that became anti-Semitic.
	What?
	Was it also anti-Chinese and anti-black?
	It was just one of the three groups he mentioned.
	It's a ridiculous claim.
	Now here's how to know for sure that it's ridiculous.
	It's summer.
	It's summer.
	And it's about a public figure in politics.
	If you just add those two things together, you could yo, two thirds of the time it's going to be fake.
	Maybe, maybe 90% of the time.
	So you don't even have to look into the details.
	You just have to know it's summer.
	It's about a political figure.
	And you would automatically know it's fake.
	Nine out of ten times, probably.
	I'm going to raise it up to nine out of ten times it would be fake.
	Here's what you can expect if there was any truth to RFK Jr.
	being anti-Semitic.
	Here's what you would have heard already.
	Yeah, you know, honestly, privately, I've known him for a long time.
	Oh, privately, the things he says.
	Yep, he just thinks Anne Frank is just a little bitch.
	Privately.
	Oh, privately.
	No, you're never going to hear that story.
	Do you know why you're never going to hear a story of somebody saying, you know, privately, he's quite the anti-Semite behind closed doors?
	Because it's not real.
	It's not real.
	Those stories would be rampant.
	They'd be finding other examples.
	It's not real.
	How about Pence saying American cities are not his concern?
	Do you know what the NPCs say when I say that's fake news?
	What do the NPCs say?
	Go, tell me.
	NPCs say, you know, heard it with my own ears, saw it with my own eyes, it's on the video, Scott.
	End of story.
	And they also say, And I quote, this is from an actual Twitter user.
	Quote, nothing is misconstrued.
	Watch entire interview, not just the line in question.
	Pence cares more about Ukraine than about US.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	The period full stop, that's also like a glaring signal of somebody who knows they're wrong.
	Full stop.
	Do you know why they need a full stop in a period?
	Because if you went even a little bit beyond what they said, they would know it wasn't true.
	You've got to stop that debate right away.
	Let me try this again and see if it works for me.
	Bigfoot is in my studio right now.
	Bigfoot.
	True.
	It's true.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Bigfoot in my house.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Full stop.
	Period.
	Bigfoot in my room.
	Okay, that's the NPC take on this.
	And then I'm also hearing that, sure, sure Scott, you know, I might be willing to believe you that Kamala Harris was simply misspeaking and she said population instead of pollution, that could be an easy mistake, but really, really Scott, did you not teach us, did you not teach us that people have Freudian slips?
	I taught you that when it was sex.
	If it's a sexual situation and somebody says about their own hunger, I'm famished, then they're probably just hungry.
	If they say I'm ravished because they misspeak, they probably won't have sex with you.
	In the sexual context.
	If you're just talking politics about stuff you really don't even care about, probably a misspeak is a misspeak.
	Probably.
	So the filter you want to put on this is, is it a sexual context?
	Because your sexual urges you can't turn off.
	Here's why.
	Your sexual urges are just always boiling.
	So they're always on the surface of coming out anyway.
	So they're right just below the ice.
	So if you give them a little bit of crack, the sexual phrasings will come out.
	But people don't have that when it comes to, like, little political stuff that it's just their job to talk about.
	If it's just your job to talk about it, and you just talk about it all the time, then misspeaking is more likely to be that the words pollution and population kind of look alike on a screen, especially if you're inebriated.
	Now, in the case of Kamala Harris, I'm going to say, in my opinion, She acts like an inebriated person in public.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I haven't taken a blood test, so I can't claim it's some kind of a fact.
	But she acts in every way like an inebriated person.
	The fact that she doesn't slur, I don't think is exactly the standard.
	I could be pretty messed up in public without slurring.
	So I don't think the slurring is telling you necessarily what's going on or lack of it.
	All right.
	So you saw the video doesn't mean anything.
	It's 2023.
	All right.
	Jezebel, which is a publication famous for taking famous people out of context.
	Did you know that?
	It's a publication online called Jezebel.
	And they're pretty famous.
	It's sort of the thing they do, is imagine some public figure did something they didn't do.
	Do you know how many times Jezebel has come after me?
	Several.
	Do you think even once the things that they claimed I did or said or thought were accurate?
	Not even close.
	Not even close.
	So Jezbel's business model is to misperceive or misinterpret intentionally and then get a bunch of attention because of their misperception.
	And usually it's something racist.
	So Jezebel's like a super racist organization.
	Sexist, racist organization.
	But they project, so they'll call you a racist and a sexist.
	Because they are, in fact, a racist, sexist organization.
	So what did they say today?
	They're saying that RFK Jr.' 's wife, Cheryl Hines, has been converted to be anti-vax now.
	Now, do you need to read that story?
	Is there anybody here who would believe, after knowing that RFK Jr.
	has actually had quite a bit of, you know, let's say marital challenge, marital challenge, because his wife publicly disagrees with some of his, some, not all, of his vaccination opinions?
	Do you think he converted her and now she's anti-vax?
	Do you think there's even the slightest chance that if you read this story, which I didn't, by the way, I didn't read it, because there's no point in reading it, it's Jezebel.
	You don't need to read a Jezebel story.
	Just look at the headline, remind yourself it's summer.
	It's summer, so it's a summer story about a... Well, she's a political figure now.
	Public figure.
	Summer story, public figure.
	They're never true.
	They're just never true.
	So no, I don't need to read the story to know that Sheryl Hines did not suddenly change her vaccination views.
	And I doubt that they line up perfectly with her husband.
	And you know what?
	I'm perfectly good with that.
	Does anybody have a problem with that?
	Does anybody have a problem that somebody's wife in the political realm has, you know, a bit of a disagreement on a topic or two?
	Wouldn't that be every marriage everywhere and every two people everywhere?
	It means nothing.
	It has no value to you as a voter whatsoever.
	I mean, half of the country disagrees with RFK Jr.
	So the fact that he married one is credit to him.
	He knows how to get along with people who disagree with him.
	There's nothing negative about that even slightly.
	I mean, I suppose the best argument that you can make against it is that he couldn't even convince his spouse that his opinion was right.
	But remember, he's got a pretty nuanced opinion about these vaccinations, and I'm not even sure if he and his wife are exactly always talking about the same thing, even when they talk privately.
	You know, that would be normal, right?
	You think you're talking about the same thing, but not exactly.
	So, and I would also imagine, Because RFK Jr.
	has gotten the most heat on his vaccination opinions as anything else, that maybe there's just a social element to that of, could you hold that down a little bit?
	If you're married to somebody who keeps saying something that gets them in trouble, or her in trouble, aren't you going to give them a little advice?
	It's like, all right, you made your point.
	Maybe going forward, you'd make your point a little quieter.
	But we all hear it.
	We all hear it.
	Just make a little less of that.
	Now, I don't know that she's doing that.
	And by the way, I give both of them tremendous credit for managing that situation.
	That takes, in my opinion, you'd have to be two pretty special people to make that work.
	Which is the same thing I say about Melania and Trump.
	The fact that that works, and kind of looks like it does, It's sort of impressive, on both of them.
	Because people are difficult.
	If you can find one difficult person that you can get along with, who can put up with your difficult part, it's impressive.
	There must be something there that binds two characters like that together.
	I like to think so.
	Maybe that's just the romantic part of me, but I like to think so.
	All right, here's some updates on Twitter itself.
	I guess Elon Musk has said that Periscope is going to be a high priority.
	So that would bring live streaming to Twitter.
	They want to put that functionality on mobile as well as web.
	And they're also working on a smart TV app for Twitter.
	Smart TV app.
	How many of you watch, how many of you stream anything to a big TV?
	How many of you are watching me right now, streaming to a big TV?
	I mixed my questions, so I don't know which one you're answering now.
	But I've seen pictures, sometimes people send me pictures that they're watching me on a big TV.
	Yeah, you know, the big TV, you know what experience I have every time I send something from my iPad to my big TV?
	I'm always impressed that it works.
	Doesn't it seem like magic if you have an Apple TV?
	You just go, you just swipe something and push one button and then like magically it's appearing on the big TV with the good speakers and stuff.
	It's always magical when I do it.
	All right.
	Let me see.
	I think my, oh my God, the followers keep on coming.
	So we've had probably had a thousand signups just today.
	So if you're just joining, My Twitter account, while we were here on livestream, crossed the one million mark.
	And I'm pretty darn happy about that.
	But I also don't have much content left for my show because all the news is fake.
	So what I was planning on doing was starting up a Spaces, and I wanted to see if I could get people to convince me that they really believe RFK Jr.
	is anti-Semitic, Harris wants to decrease the population, or Pence doesn't really care about cities.
	American cities.
	Would that be fun?
	Yeah, it'd be hard to title.
	Alright, so let me fire this up while you're waiting.
	And I'm going to call this, uh, Convince Me The Fake News About R. F. K.
	Jr., whose name I'm really tired of typing and saying.
	I hate adding the junior.
	Feels like too much work.
	Can I call him Bobby?
	Uh, Pence.
	Pence, uh... Can't speak to the fake news about Pence.
	And... Or.
	Or.
	Or Harris.
	Is true.
	Alright.
	There we go.
	See, Erica, I can title this.
	And we're going to start now.
	And we're going to say tweet not sent.
	All right, spaces people.
	Oh, Hello then.
	Good morning.
	This is Scott Adams coming to you now.
	With one million Twitter followers.
	One million Twitter followers.
	And I wanted to see if anybody could convince me that the summer fake news about RFK Jr.
	being accused of anti-Semitism, Pence being accused of saying he doesn't care about American cities, or Kamala Harris saying she'd like, at least indicating, some, let's say, approval of reducing human population.
	Now, I say those are all summer famous people fake stories, because the summer is when we do fake stories about famous people.
	It's just every summer.
	Tons of fake stories because there's no real news.
	So any little misspeaking or out of context stuff.
	So I want somebody to come in and volunteer to talk.
	So raise your hand and I will pick on you.
	And your job would be to convince me that any one of those stories is real.
	Now, here's what you don't need to do.
	Only the NPCs The people who are not actual humans or non-player characters.
	You need to come up here and say, I heard it with my own ears, he or she said those exact words.
	Because that has nothing to do with anything.
	Only the NPCs can say that.
	If that's your argument, then you will be dismissed immediately as an NPC.
	So you have to go beyond You have to go beyond, I heard it or saw it.
	Because that's the part we're stipulating.
	We're stipulating that you think you heard it, and I'm stipulating that you think you know what it meant.
	So I get that you think you heard it, or thought you saw it.
	You have to go beyond that to convince me.
	All right, let's see, we've got a request from Richie.
	Rich, I'm going to add you as a speaker, and as soon as you turn on your microphone, we will hear you.
	Rich G., unmute your microphone and let me have your argument.
	I'm here.
	I don't have an argument.
	I just wanted to tell you congrats on the 1 million subscribers.
	I love you very much.
	I consider you my Uncle Scott that I've never met in real life.
	Just on the locals and Twitter.
	Been a subscriber to you a long time.
	Just wanted to jump in first and congratulate that.
	You're 100% right on RFK, Pence, and Harris.
	I don't have an argument.
	Just congratulations.
	I'll get off and let someone try to prove you wrong.
	Thanks again.
	Alright, thank you.
	So that should be the, let's do that as the one call for my side, all right?
	So the rest of you don't need to connect, just say good things.
	I really like it, I enjoy it.
	But let's get some excitement here.
	Let's get somebody who disagrees, all right?
	So, don't be so nice to me.
	Come on and be tough.
	Benjamin.
	Benjamin, I'm adding you as a speaker.
	As soon as you turn on your microphone, Benjamin, you can ask your question.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	Thank you, Scott.
	All right.
	So I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here.
	So I kind of agree with you, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.
	So here's my argument against that.
	Wait a minute.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Are you saying you actually do agree with me, but you're just going to do a fake argument?
	Well, it's going to be a good one, though.
	I'm really good at this.
	All right, go.
	Okay, so if we just analyze what they're saying and parse their sentences, you know, and just, just plainly parse their sentences, then we get, you know, what appears that they're saying on their face.
	Okay?
	And so there's a, there's actually a standard of evidence that's called prima facie evidence that says when something is valid on its face, then the burden of proof is on the other person to prove that it's not true.
	And so since it's what they said, plainly, and we're looking at what they said, That would be in a legal context, right?
	Really?
	Who wrote that rule?
	that's not what they meant. - That would be in a legal context, right?
	- Right, that's the way it works in court, but that's also the way I see it in regular life as well.
	- Really, who wrote that rule?
	I'm not aware of that rule in regular life.
	- Well, that's why it applies in court, you know, because that's the way standards of evidence should go.
	If it's the obvious thing that's right in front of your face, for you to say it's not the obvious thing, the burden of proof would be on you.
	If something looks obvious, why would it be on the person that has the obvious evidence?
	So you would say that whoever has the argument that's most obviously true is the one who does not have the burden of proof.
	And you don't think it's obviously true that Mike Pence cares about American cities in the context of running for president?
	You don't think that's obviously true that he cares about cities?
	Well, that's not what he said.
	Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	You're slightly changing it, right?
	I think we agreed that it's what's most obvious as opposed to what was said.
	What's most obvious is it's obvious that he cares about cities.
	What he said would be the least important part because you know it can't be true.
	Well, I would say that what a person says, if you take it at face value, that is the most obvious thing.
	No, hold on, hold on.
	No, that's just the thing they said.
	It's most obvious that any politician at that level would never intentionally say they don't care about cities.
	You would agree that we can't read his mind, but isn't it obvious that nobody in that position would say out loud, I don't care about the cities or they're not my concern.
	Would you agree that it's obvious that that's not true?
	It might have once been, but in 2023, it's no longer obvious because, you know, the government and media and like Intel agencies and everything else, like with all the crazy stuff that they say out loud and they actually mean it.
	You never know.
	In 2023, you just never know.
	No, hold on.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	We're talking.
	We're not talking about don't change it to, you know, Intel agencies and everybody else.
	We're only talking about Mike Pence.
	One of the most careful and empathetic politicians of all time.
	Mike Pence, almost by character and definition, and the entire nature of his religious being, Would mean that he would have concern for the cities.
	That it would be the most outrageously out of character thing for him to say after a lifetime of publicly, and I believe privately, and I believe privately, completely consistent with his religious values.
	And you think that the most likely case is that he meant what he said.
	Well, you know, like I said, what he said is what he said, and he hasn't corrected it.
	So he hasn't come back and been like, no, I really care about the cities.
	No, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Fact check, fact check.
	He did correct it.
	He immediately tweeted that the video left him the context where he told you what he was going to do about fixing crime in the cities.
	So if you didn't hear the part about how he wanted to fix crime in the cities, which was his his direct answer, Then you missed actually the video.
	You just saw a Rupar video.
	Rupar video meaning edited to take out the context.
	All right, Benjamin, good job on the devil's advocate.
	I appreciate it.
	We're going to take somebody up here?
	Thanks, appreciate it, Scott.
	All right, thank you.
	That was a tough task.
	Taking the devil's advocate on that was...
	That's pretty difficult.
	So he did better than I thought he would do, but that's a tough take.
	All right, let's see if we can get a real disagreeer.
	A real disagreeer.
	All right, Owen.
	Owen, I don't believe you disagree, but turn on your microphone.
	There we go.
	Hey, Owen.
	Hi, how you doing, Scott?
	Good.
	Did you have any real disagreement, Owen?
	I don't think you do.
	I do on Pence, but it's not maybe what you would expect, at least I don't think so.
	I think the way I would approach this is to say, Tucker Carlson's criticism of Mike Pence was accurate, and I'm not focusing on what Pence said in that interview, or about him saying, not my concern.
	I don't think that's really relevant.
	I think what's relevant is that Mike Pence was saying we need more aid for Ukraine.
	Tucker Carlson's point was why are you focusing on that instead of what we need here?
	And I think that was a very valid criticism.
	So I think it is true that Mike Pence is saying we need more aid for Ukraine and we're going to prioritize those needs over using that same money for domestic policy concerns.
	Now do you think that in Mike Pence's mind I mean, of course I can't read his mind, but I think based on what I've heard from him and what I've seen from him, yes, he probably thinks he can do all of it.
	must do all of them.
	I mean, of course, I can't read his mind, but I think based on what I've heard from him and what I've seen from him, yes, he probably thinks he can do all of it.
	But I think it's still a valid criticism to say, why are you saying we should send all this money over to Ukraine?
	I mean, that's, to me, the real argument.
	Right.
	Although, I think everybody agrees that that's a separate argument.
	The separate argument is should we do stuff in Ukraine?
	But the fake news is that somehow he cares about that more than he cares about fentanyl deaths and crime.
	But I think that's... I mean, if you're saying I want to send a whole bunch of extra money over to Ukraine, then he is saying that's...
	More important, right?
	Well, you mean in terms of if he's spending more money on it, that's an indication of importance or priority?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	I would say that's ridiculous because there are some things that by their nature cost a lot of money and some things that don't.
	And that's what makes the different price tag.
	It's that weapons are expensive.
	It's not that we care more about them.
	We would still want to do the, well, probably the cost of the weapons is what drives the politics.
	I have to admit it's probably a cause and effect there.
	No, somebody's saying Scott just lost, but what argument are we making?
	If you're making the argument that he's sending more money to Ukraine, and that's an indication of priorities, I don't think that argument was part of the conversation.
	But if you want me to agree with that, I'd say, okay, the amount of money does seem to be related to priorities.
	Does seem to be related to priorities.
	But suppose, let's say you had the following situation.
	Let's say you were in a war that you could only win with weapons and I don't think we should be in that war so this is not my argument.
	Let's say you had one problem that was going to be expensive because it's just a war and you just couldn't figure out how to protect yourself.
	Then let's say you had another problem like fentanyl.
	And you found a way to, let's say, this is actually a real thing, produce a vaccination against fentanyl.
	So let's say you're the government and you can say, you know what?
	We can just give people vaccinations or make them available, and they wouldn't even get addicted on fentanyl.
	That's a real breakthrough that happened recently.
	So let's say he wanted to spend $1 billion eradicating fentanyl, because it was killing 100,000 Americans per year.
	But he wanted to spend, because he thought the war was somehow protecting us.
	I don't make that argument.
	But let's say he did.
	He would say, well, the war Is not even killing as many people as fentanyl, but it's still so important because it could turn into something bigger, that it should be $200 billion.
	Would that be a case where the money showed you the priorities, or would it be simply that one had an inexpensive solution, and one had only an expensive solution?
	Or at least one that was worth pursuing?
	I think in that hypothetical, if you had enough money for all of them, then that's fine.
	Right, you would do all of them for sure, because they're all affordable, and they're necessary.
	But, in that case, the amount of money you spent would not be an indication of how much you cared, or what its priority would be, because it would be equally top priority, just one's expensive.
	Well, but the situation we're talking about, there's problems in all of our major cities, to fix those, and that when we're spending huge amounts of money on Ukraine, which is not our country, that you are prioritizing that over those domestic concerns.
	If we weren't short on what we needed domestically, then you could certainly make the argument.
	No, hold on.
	You've got a logic gap there.
	Okay.
	Your logic gap is this.
	Spending more money is de facto, end of the story, shows that that's more important than you spend less on.
	Do you say that that's true in all cases?
	That you can tell for sure that the budget tells you what's the most important?
	I think in situations where you don't have enough money to do absolutely everything, then yes, that's true.
	Well, in our current situation, we act like we have enough money just by printing it.
	So we're in a de facto acting like we don't have a limit.
	OK, but I don't know that that's valid, right?
	I mean, we might be acting that way, but I think a lot of people would say that's not really true in terms of saying we can do that without the economy.
	But in terms of our conversation, it tells you whether it's a priority or not.
	Basically, I'm saying we have enough money for those two things.
	And if we're going to short things of money, it'll be lower priority things.
	But the things at the very top priority, they're all going to get money.
	None of them are money problems at the top priority.
	As soon as you get into the second tier, then yes, you're competing for money.
	But at the top priority, it's infinite money for all practical purposes.
	But I don't see that happening and I don't see any policies from Pence where he's saying here's how I'm going to fix the city problem.
	He says it's important to him but I haven't seen any tangible plan to say here's how that's going to work and here's how much money I'm going to allocate to it.
	But saving the city is something that everybody knows how to do.
	Even the people who are destroying the cities.
	They just have to make sure they're not letting criminals out and cash bail.
	Basically, you just have to enforce the law.
	Literally, you could get a 12-year-old and say, hey, 12-year-old, I got a problem with these cities.
	There's a lot of criminals.
	What would you do?
	12-year-old.
	What would the 12-year-old say?
	Get more police?
	Does Pence say that he's going to fund more police?
	I would agree with you that his plan lacked detail, but he mentioned specifically the problems.
	You know, the cash bail and stuff like that.
	So everybody sees the same problems.
	Even if he didn't list them, you would know that he knew them because you know them and everybody knows them.
	But his specific plan, I don't remember hearing it.
	Yeah, so my argument is really that it's not because Pence said the cities aren't my concern.
	I think it was more that when he said that Ukraine's tanks are not my concern, he was lying.
	The tanks are not his concern?
	Why would that be a lie?
	Because I think his argument to Tucker was, in my opinion, what he meant to say, or what he was trying to say was, the Ukraine tanks are not my concern.
	And I don't think that's true, because I think he very clearly said, I want to send more money and more tanks over to Ukraine.
	Yeah, we don't know what he meant, exactly.
	But we do know that it wasn't about not caring about cities.
	Right, but I still think that essentially he was lying when he said that, because I think Not because he specifically said, I don't care about cities, but because his plans and his priorities, he has shown, I really want to keep spending lots of money over in Ukraine and keep that war going.
	That means he's not focusing on the domestic thing as the top thing to spend on.
	I mean, I think to really show that you care most about cities would be to say, I don't want to spend all this money over in Ukraine, I want to bring that conflict to an end.
	Oh, I'll give you that.
	Yeah, let's agree to that.
	If what you're saying is he's not showing you sufficient interest in the way he's communicating with the cities, I'll agree with that.
	But I'm just saying that specific sentence was misleading.
	All right, I'll take the win.
	You got it.
	Thanks.
	Thanks Owen.
	The best way to win a debate is to change the terms.
	So you should learn from Owen.
	So I wanted to debate whether that sentence was true.
	He moved me to debate whether the issue should have more attention.
	I agreed with him because that was never my original thing and then he took the win.
	Now that's some good debating.
	Owen, you're a genius.
	Alright.
	Stixclips.
	That's interesting.
	Let's talk to Stixclips.
	Alright, you're being edited as a speaker, and as soon as your microphone is on... It's on, it's on.
	Thank you, Scott Adams.
	Yes, hi.
	What would you like to say?
	I would like to say two things.
	First thing, I thought your comic about, like, just get 10 cents and buy a real computer, and it was a reference to, like, a Unix computer.
	That was a very, very good comic, and it's probably went viral, like, so many times.
	Not in this decade, but, like, previously for sure.
	Yeah, he's mentioning a Unix comic I did probably 30 years ago?
	It was a long time ago.
	That's how time flies, for sure.
	That must have been a good one.
	Alright, did you have a comment about the fake news?
	Well, yeah, I think the news is fake, so it's almost, it's almost, it almost writes itself.
	But I will say one thing in part, and I will leave the space.
	I just want to, I just want to say, Scott, sorry, Mr. Adams, Fix Hexenhammer has no beef with you.
	And I would appreciate it if maybe you consider unblocking him.
	I will leave the space now.
	Thank you.
	Well, I unblocked him a long time ago.
	Oh, okay, good.
	We are good.
	We are so back.
	Thanks, Scott.
	Goodbye.
	Thanks for the call.
	Yeah, no.
	The past is the past.
	We're only doing the future now.
	We're solidly entrenched in the future.
	So, clank the sticks and hammer and All right, I think we've said what we needed to say today, Spaces.
	So I'm going to end this, and thanks for contributing.
	Thanks for coming, and thanks to everybody who made me a 1 million follower Twitter account.
	It's a big day for me, and I appreciate all of you.
	All right, Spaces is over.
	And YouTube, you got ripped.
	Now, Owen, you're a fucking genius.
	You've got the YouTube people thinking that you won the argument that wasn't the argument.
	So, you won an adjacent argument because I agreed with you from the start.
	The argument he won was something I always agreed with from the start.
	You know me, right?
	If you've been watching for a while, you don't think I think that there should be more attention on fentanyl?
	Is there anybody here who thinks that I think we should put more money into Ukraine and maybe starve the fentanyl and the cities?
	Nobody thinks that.
	Now, of course, I think that Pence and every other candidate should be talking more about fentanyl and less about Ukraine.
	Of course.
	But was that the point?
	No, the point was that Pence say he's not concerned about cities.
	That was it.
	Now he might not be concerned enough.
	He may not be putting enough money in it.
	I wouldn't argue those points.
	I'm just arguing what he said.
	In one instance, that's it.
	Now likewise, imagine if you will, that any of these stories were real.
	Can you imagine that You know, there wouldn't be anybody who would say, you know, Pence seems like a nice guy, but behind closed doors, he says he doesn't give a rat's ass about fentanyl in the cities.
	No, he's not like that behind closed doors.
	I mean, I suppose I could be surprised by anything.
	I'm not there.
	Can't read his mind.
	But I feel like If people have some horrible views and they're a certain age, somebody's heard them before.
	Am I right?
	You don't say something that's allegedly horrible as a public person and that nobody's ever found you talking like that before.
	There's no record where you've ever done that before.
	Well, that should be your red flag that it's fake news.
	He came out with his priority, and you don't think it's a priority.
	So here's something that people do routinely poorly.
	And this is what Tucker does that's completely illogical.
	You ready?
	Tucker says fentanyl is more important because more people are dying, and Russia has killed nobody.
	So therefore, fentanyl is more important.
	Everybody agree with that?
	Fentanyl has killed lots of people.
	Russia's killed nobody.
	Therefore, fentanyl is more important to deal with than Russia.
	That is illogical.
	Let me tell you why.
	Because you're never dealing with the past risk.
	Nobody's trying to fix the past.
	You get that, right?
	You can't repair the past.
	So fentanyl has killed more people.
	Now you could also reasonably say that in the future it will kill more people as well.
	When you evaluate Russia, is the only thing you look at the past?
	You don't look at what were on the cusp of maybe happening like a nuclear war?
	When you're comparing risks, you don't compare the past of something with the potential future of a different thing.
	Does that not make sense?
	That you can't compare the past with the future?
	Is it the first time you're hearing it?
	I hope it's not the first time you're hearing this.
	You can't compare the past with the future.
	Especially if it's two different categories.
	The past of fentanyl doesn't tell you anything about the future of Russia.
	If the future of Russia might be a nuclear war, or let's say the end of civilization, I don't think it is by the way, so this is not my view, I'm just saying, if you thought that Russia could kill a billion people, maybe, let's say you thought there was a 10% chance that the Russia-Ukraine thing could kill a billion people, either through economic hardship or nuclear war, or both.
	So you get a 10% chance of losing a billion.
	If you were a rational person, how would you compare that to other challenges?
	You would do something called an expected value calculation.
	You take the billion people that you might lose, you don't know what the odds are, but you might, and you say, well, the best guess is there's a 10% chance of that.
	So you would multiply 10% times 1 billion, and that would get you 100 million people.
	So you're trying to protect 100 million people by funding Ukraine.
	This is not my preference.
	It's not my view.
	I'm just giving you a view to show how things are compared.
	So if you believe that a billion people are at risk, and if you believe there was a 10% chance of that billion happening, you would value it as 100 million people.
	What would you value the future of fentanyl as?
	Well, you'd look at the past, and then you'd be wrong, because the past Doesn't tell you what's going to happen in the future.
	But you'd probably say, well, let's, for example, let's say it's the same as it's been.
	70,000 people a year.
	So 70, 140, 210.
	It takes you a while to get up to 100 million, right?
	It takes you a long time to get to 100 million people.
	So if Pence is saying that making sure we don't have a 10% chance of losing a billion people is more important financially, just financially, only financially, not about how we feel or the human death toll or anything like that, but financially, if he can take that risk of a billion people dying from 10% to zero, that's a better expense.
	At almost any cost, that would be a better investment.
	But, in order for that to be a better investment, and keep in mind, you all know that I'm a maniac about fentanyl, right?
	I'm a maniac about fentanyl.
	So you're not hearing my opinion.
	You're hearing the proper way to analyze the situation.
	That's all.
	And then you would take your own estimates and plug them into my model.
	So if you think the odds of people lost in Russia is zero, then that would be your opinion.
	So you'd say, I think it's zero chance of losing people in Ukraine.
	But we're definitely going to lose more people on fentanyl, so that's more important.
	That would not be crazy.
	That would just be a different opinion.
	Here's what's... The only thing that's wrong is putting... What's not wrong is your assumptions, because assumptions are kind of just reasonable guesses and nobody can know.
	So you could make a reasonable assumption that's different from my reasonable assumption, but here's what you can't do.
	If you want to be a rational person.
	You can't not use the right framework for comparing two things.
	You can't do that.
	You can put it in your own assumptions all day long and I won't argue with them.
	Usually.
	But if you use the wrong framework, I don't even know what to say.
	You can't compare the past of fentanyl with the future of a potential nuclear confrontation or a meltdown of the economy.
	Either one.
	Are we good?
	So when I saw Tucker do exactly that, that's a gotcha question.
	That's a gotcha.
	When you say more people have died of fentanyl, no Russian has killed anybody, that's not a logic framework.
	That's a narrative framework.
	That's propaganda.
	He's pushing his preference, which I agree with.
	So when I say Tucker is giving you propaganda, not a logical structure for you to make a decision, it's total propaganda.
	But it happens to agree with the propaganda I would like to push as well, which is that Fentanyl is more important than funding Ukraine.
	By the way, I totally agree with Tucker.
	It's just the way he's selling it to you is with a non-logical structure.
	Now, I would argue, and I think this next point is really important.
	If you can accept this next point, it will help you understand a lot of what you see.
	In my opinion, Tucker is brilliant.
	He's brilliant.
	Whether I agree with him or don't agree with him, he is brilliant.
	I say the same thing about Obama.
	Obama, you can agree with him or disagree with him.
	I think he's brilliant.
	Bill Clinton?
	Brilliant.
	You know, there are a lot of brilliant people that I can disagree with.
	Tucker's brilliant, but he's also not a STEM guy.
	Right?
	I think Tucker's always come through the communication, you know, reading, writing, news kind of world.
	That's an entire world where you could take geniuses, geniuses, And put them through that system, and they wouldn't know how to do what I just did.
	Which is simply compare two things in the logical way.
	It's not obvious how to do that.
	And it's not because I'm magic or smart.
	It's because I took an economics path, and I got a degree in business, you know, MBA, and those two things teach you, specifically they teach you, to make sure you're comparing the right things.
	So I'm literally, literally a two degree expert on how to compare things.
	Tucker probably has zero degrees on how to compare things.
	So if he's giving you an argument that's more, let's say, more narrative, more persuasion, and less logical structure, it's not because he's dumb, and it's not because he's necessarily trying to put one over on you.
	It's that no matter how smart you are, if you haven't been taught that specific skill, there's no reason to imagine you'd have it.
	It doesn't come to you through some God-like channel.
	You have to actually learn it.
	And so I give everybody a pass who has not learned that specific thing.
	It would be like me getting something wrong in science.
	I don't have a science degree.
	So if I get something wrong in science, it's not because I'm stupid.
	It's because I don't have a science degree.
	And I wouldn't even feel bad about it.
	So if somebody said to me, Scott, you got that science-y thing you talked about wrong, which they say all the time, by the way.
	It's a fairly common criticism.
	And when I hear that, I always think the same thing.
	Probably.
	You're probably right.
	I'm probably wrong.
	Because I don't have any expertise there.
	And the trick, or the trap, the trick and the trap, is to imagine that just because you're bright, and you've paid attention to the world, that you could somehow know how somebody's discipline works.
	Sometimes.
	But that's a pretty sketchy assumption, that just because you're a bright person, you can overrule somebody's discipline that they went to college for.
	It's sort of like when I try to overrule lawyers.
	You've probably seen me try to do that overrule in the sense that, you know, I have an opinion that disagrees with a professional, successful lawyer.
	I mean, you shouldn't take that too seriously, should you?
	If my legal opinion disagrees with the lawyer, who are you going to bet on?
	I'd probably bet on the lawyer, not me.
	So, you know, everybody who gets this wrong, there's a reason for it.
	There's a reason that journalists don't know how to compare things, because they've never learned.
	It's not an accident.
	All right.
	Well, here's the thing.
	Somebody is asking me about Dershowitz versus Dan Abrams.
	When I watch Dan Abrams, it's clear that he's not giving legal opinions.
	It's clear that he's presenting a narrative first, and then he's making his legal opinion fit.
	When Dershowitz gives the legal opinion, he's proven to us that he will accept massive social penalty to tell you what is really his opinion.
	So Dershowitz has bought.
	He paid for it.
	It was expensive.
	Dershowitz bought his freedom.
	And he bought his credibility.
	He said, what's the price?
	What's the price for me to be credible?
	And then he paid it.
	Man, did he pay it.
	And that meant agreeing with some of Trump's legal stuff.
	He paid the price.
	So if you show me somebody who said, what's the price of giving you my actual real opinion?
	OK, I'll pay that.
	I'll pay that price.
	That is credibility.
	Doesn't mean he's right about everything, but it does mean he's not saying it just to make you happy.
	Dan Abrams is telling you something to make you happy because that's his job.
	Everybody on that side of the world is making money by telling you what you want to hear.
	So that's not really a lawyer opinion.
	Dan Abrams is filthy rich.
	Good for him.
	Must have made some money.
	Alright.
	This flag didn't hang itself.
	Alright, well that's all for now.
	YouTube, thanks for joining.
	And thanks for being here for my one million Twitter moment.
	It was a fun time.

▲