All Episodes
July 17, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:09:04
Episode 2172 Scott Adams: The News Is Fake But You Can Listen To It While Sipping Real Coffee

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- Fake News & Real Coffee Politics, Concierge AI App, Meta Threads App, Mark Zuckerberg, Ron Perlman, DEI, ESG, RFK Jr., COVID, The Creator, AI Risk, University Affirmative Action, VP Harris, AI Czar, Joe Manchin, Vivek Ramaswamy, Man-Hating Marriage Counselors, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ta-da!
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer time in your life.
Would you like to take that experience up to levels that nobody's ever seen before?
Sure you do.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamedia of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Now your life is complete.
Yeah.
You know, if you'd like to be called one in a million, has anybody ever said that about you?
You know, you're one in a million.
Well, you could be one in a million if you follow me on Twitter.
Because now I have a million followers.
You could be one.
One in a million.
Sounds better than it is.
Alright, I've got an idea for an app.
But first I'll tell you that there's a Twitter user called Moritz Krem who follows AI and he gave a handy list of which AI models to use for what things.
So for internet tasks, he thinks BARD would be good.
BARD.
For writing tasks, GPT-4, for coding, Code Interpreter, for analyzing long PDFs, CLAWD-2, Hardware Reasoning Tasks, GPT-4, Data Analysis, Code Interpreter, etc.
And I said to myself, you know what we really need?
We need some kind of app that will tell you what the other apps do, because they're all changing all the time.
Let's call it a concierge app.
Concierge app.
You should have one app that you can say, hey, do something for me.
And then that app, like a concierge, would, behind the scenes, go use whichever AI app is the right one.
In other words, The app I would like to control all the AIs?
It's AI.
It's AI.
I mean, it would have to have AI as well, probably.
So give me a concierge app that has an API connection to all the other apps, and set me free.
I feel as if Google will have to be that.
I feel as if somebody's going to have to consolidate the other apps, because I don't think they're just going to open their APIs.
Do you?
Do you think everybody's just going to be able to Use it.
Concierge app.
That's what I need.
Well, there's an update on Threads, the meta Facebook competitor to Twitter.
Now, of course, they got lots of flashy attention during the launch because you could bring over your Instagram follows and that would give you a big head start.
But it turns out that it's not doing so well after the first week.
I saw this in a tweet by Mario Nawfal, that daily active users dropped off pretty hard.
38% lower than the first week.
Time spent per user went from 20 minutes to five.
This was a 75% reduction in four days.
During the same period, Twitter remained virtually unchanged.
Instagram took a little bit of a hit.
Just a little bit.
So, this is not looking so good.
However, if I could make just one contextual point.
We expected, or a lot of people expected, the threads would at least start off with a big solid base and maybe grow from there.
But if you think about it, The design of their system guaranteed that it would fall off right away.
Am I wrong?
By design, it should have fallen off the next week, just like it did.
And the reason is, it never started small and grew.
It started big, and then people looked at it, and some of them said, eh, not for me.
So if you start huge, because you could easily port over your Instagram people, Then you're just asking for a drop the next week.
Because the people they brought off were not really solid users who were going to stick around.
They were just casual tourists.
So if you bring over 100 million casual tourists to your product, what should you logically expect the next week is going to look like?
It's going to look like they were casual tourists and they didn't need to stick around.
So I think the thread's trajectory so far Is exactly what you should expect.
Now, if it's going to succeed, which seems like a pretty big if at this point, what you would expect is that they would have this big launch, it would get a lot of attention, people would say, my friends aren't here, and then they would go away.
But, if Threads is going to work, it will have, by now, created some base of people who want to be there.
And if they want to stay there, then, you know, it could grow from there.
But it pretty much had, the way they launched, largely guaranteed that it would tank the next week.
Would you agree with that analysis?
That the tanking was baked into the way they designed it.
There was no way around it.
I mean, I guess they could be optimistic and say, maybe all these people who used Instagram will love our new thing that always existed and they weren't using it.
If you were on Instagram and not using Twitter, how much interest did you have in a Twitter clone?
If you weren't already satisfied with all your small message tweeting needs, you probably never needed them in the first place.
And I said this before I brought over all of my Instagram followers, only to learn that 90% of the people I follow on Instagram can't talk.
They can't talk.
Man, they can take a great picture.
They can take a picture like nobody's business.
But then they try to do a thread or, you know, like a little message, and they use their language skills.
It's not so good.
It's not so good.
Now, mostly the Instagram people are trying to not offend you.
Do you know what happens when they write text that doesn't offend you?
You don't want to read it.
The world is full of text that doesn't offend me.
Why would I be attracted to it?
I need a little edge.
I need to be offended a little bit.
Somebody pointed out that Zuckerberg is only posted once on threads in a week, and it was a picture of a lake.
Now compare Elon Musk, you know, toilet tweeting on Twitter, some of the funniest tweets you've ever seen in your life.
Or at the very least, they're provocative.
Right.
And the best Zuckerberg could do is one picture of a lake in a week.
So that tells you how excited he is.
But in his defense, Zuckerberg is probably spending all of his time in the virtual reality world.
No, he's not doing that either.
Do you know why he's not spending all of his time in the virtual reality world of meta?
Same reason you're not.
Nobody wants to be there.
Just nobody wants to be there.
I have zero interest.
Does anybody have interest in the virtual world?
Here's how uninterested I am in the virtual world.
I hate to sleep.
I don't even like to be asleep.
Because when I'm asleep, I go to the virtual world.
You know, the dream world that doesn't really count.
And when I wake up, when I wake up, 100% of all the stuff I did in my virtual world isn't worth piss.
Because it wasn't real.
It was just a bunch of shit that happened in my brain while I was trying to rest.
So that's what the virtual reality feels like.
It feels like leaving the real world For something that can never be important and never can be real.
I'm just not drawn to it at all.
I have to admit, there was a point where I was drawn to it, at least mentally.
Well, actually enough to actually buy a system.
I actually had a virtual reality system until recently.
And I thought it was a lot of fun.
And then after I'd played a few things that were fun and they gave me a headache, And I realized that the entire time that I was doing this thing, I wasn't part of the real world.
And then I said, I don't really like that.
I'd rather be in the real world.
I've got stuff to do.
So I don't think the virtual reality thing is going to work.
Honestly, that's my current opinion.
I would have said it would work a while ago, but it looks like it won't.
Now I could be wrong because there could be some point where if you add AI into the virtual world you can just go into this world full of magical characters who talk to you.
You might even have friends.
You might have like a friend in the virtual world who's an AI character who just remembers you.
So I could see a certain number of shut-ins and people in wheelchairs and stuff like that might use it and love it.
I just don't think that healthy People who have full lives in the real world are going to want to spend too much time in it.
Now, I would have said that about gaming as well, and I would have been totally wrong about that.
However, what percent of people are regular gamers, do you think, of the general public?
What percent actually sit down and, you know, on a regular basis, they game?
You say 25%?
25%?
If I had to guess, I think it's in the 10 to 15%?
Somewhere 10%, 15%?
Something like that?
Yeah, I think that's the upside for virtual reality as well.
Somewhere in that category.
All right, however, Threads, despite its traffic, has pulled off one of the greatest successes I don't know, in modern technical world.
And I'm impressed.
So what Threads did was it got Ron Perlman to leave Twitter.
So that's one of the biggest accomplishments of the year.
And I'm very grateful to Zuckerberg for creating a product whose only purpose was to remove Ron Perlman from Twitter.
And it did it very well.
It did it very well.
He'll probably be back.
I saw a tweet from a user named Drain Bamage, who described Threads, after I noted that Ron Perlman left me on Threads, he described Threads as the island of misfit tweeters.
Threads is the island of misfit tweeters.
When you think of Ron Perlman, don't you just think of mental problems?
Somebody told him that holding the camera right up to his face when he does his videos was a good idea.
I think I'm going to hold it right up here.
And then I'm going to growl with my ugly face. .
Take that shit to threads, will you?
Get out of my face with that.
Go to the island of misfit tweeters.
All right, Wall Street Journal says, good news, paychecks and pay is going up higher than inflation.
Paychecks are being raised higher than inflation.
Paychecks are going up higher than inflation.
What is it that causes inflation?
Well, a number of things.
The amount of money you print, of course.
But is it one of the things that causes inflation?
Rising wages.
Am I wrong about that?
Aren't rising wages inflation?
So the good news is that the inflation isn't going up, just all the salaries of the people.
And I don't see how that could be any problem down the road.
It's like none of the news is clean.
It's all, hey, good news!
Yeah, it's all like that.
It's really good news!
Nothing's a clean win anymore.
Well, on the internet I saw there was a whiteness studies professor who said that white people who treat all races equally are dangerous.
I saw this on a tweet by Amuse on Twitter.
That's right, whiteness studies professor says white people who treat all races equally are dangerous.
And here she is.
Now, I had to weigh in and say that I don't judge people by race.
I don't think that's right.
I judge them by their haircuts.
Their haircuts.
I'm going to be a little bit harsh on this white studies professor.
Haircut?
It's not on point.
It's just not on point.
In fact, if you see a professor with his haircut, I wouldn't take the class.
I really wouldn't.
I'd like to sign up for almost anything else.
I'd take statistics before I'd take a class with a haircut.
I'm just saying, think about the whole picture.
The big picture.
Well, as you know, I have announced that I'm no longer going to care about racial groups, or any kind of group.
Don't care.
So, I'm going to see if I can make this stick.
It would be my greatest achievement.
So, you know what I realized today?
You know, Dr. King's, let's say, his advice to society Was to judge people by the content of their character and not by their race.
Now that sounded pretty good, didn't it?
Judge people by the content of their character.
Well, it turns out if you do that, you don't get a good outcome.
So... Turns out that didn't work at all.
It didn't work at all.
Now, the reason we're moving away from it, and when I say we, I mean the political left, the reason they're moving away from looking at the content of people's character, which would include their achievement and what they've done to prepare themselves for a good life, it just didn't work.
It didn't work at all.
So instead they had to use other things like race and gender and sexual preference and stuff like that.
So, we've got this situation where we've completely abandoned the content of the character as a, really as a variable, which is not even a variable anymore.
It's more about what she'll look like.
Now, how many of you are buying into that system?
The system where we talk about people by their category?
See, part of the problem is that we allow ourselves to enter the frame.
Because if one side says, hey, we're going to do this thing with racial preferences or racial consideration, how do you talk about it without entering the frame?
See the problem?
If somebody says, I'm going to do this thing that has a racial quality to it, you can't even have the conversation without first entering their frame that you're on one side and there's somebody on the other side.
Why must I do that?
I reject that now.
I reject that I'm even going to be in that conversation.
So here's my new, and I haven't really modeled this yet, so I don't know if this is going to work yet.
I'm going to try it.
From now on, if the conversation is blah, blah, blah, something about race, I just take a pass.
Okay.
I'm not really in the world where I judge people by their race.
So this is a conversation for you to have with yourself.
If you'd like me to be involved in your conversation, I'd be happy to talk about individuals.
If there are any individuals who feel like they're being held back, I could give them some advice.
How to not be held back.
You know, develop your talent stack and stay out of trouble.
You know, easy stuff.
So, from now on, it's just individuals.
So 100% of all the stories and things about a group is a group and this group is bad and this group, this group, I don't care.
I just don't even care what group you're in.
I'm just not going to be part of that conversation.
But I'm going to cover it in the news just to show you all the idiots who are.
Fair enough.
We're just going to mock them for being race-obsessed.
I'm not going to say they're right or wrong.
They're just silly.
They're just mockery.
They're fodder for mockery and our enjoyment.
So let's use them that way.
Well, how much assault are we getting on ESG and DEI?
There's an opinion piece today in the Wall Street Journal about those two things from Alicia Finley.
And let me read Two criticisms that I'm not sure you would have seen a year ago.
Ask me if somebody would have said this out loud in a major opinion piece one year ago.
So Alicia Finley writes, for years America's political class has lamented that too many college grads are working in low-paying jobs.
Alright, so it's not that DEI and ESG solve problems, they solve problems by creating other ones.
social and governments industries, DEI and ESG, respectively, are solving for this problem while creating many others.
So it's not that DEI and ESG solve problems.
They solve problems by creating other ones.
Now, in this context, the problem solved is that somebody is getting a job not serving food, which is a perfectly respectable job, But rather they also can get jobs now in the DEI and ESG field.
So people who might have been your waiter are now running your company.
Right?
Because if you're the CEO and you don't do what the DEI and ESG people tell you you gotta do, you could have some trouble.
So, we took baristas and servers from restaurants and turned them into T.I.
and S.G.F.
professionals, so now that you're a waiter is running your company.
I'm of course using hyperbole.
But that is actually what this opinion piece is suggesting.
That there's some connection between the service industry and ESG and DEI.
I don't buy that connection.
There's not so many people in DEI and ESG that it's taking a bite out of the service industry.
But it's a funny comparison.
So what is ESG and DEI good for?
For mocking.
For mockery, so this is perfect.
So it doesn't matter that it's real, you know, that that comparison of servers to ESG, that's not like a real comparison, but it's fun mockery.
And that's all it's good for.
That's the only thing ESG and DEI are good for, just our jokes.
Because anybody who's doing it at this point is simply just a racist.
We don't have to, we don't have to, you know, soften our words.
If you're involved in any way in promoting ESG and DEI, you're just a flat-out racist.
And it doesn't matter what group you're in.
Again, it has nothing to do with what group you're in.
As an individual, I would judge you to be a racist.
And I would try to stay away from you if I could, no matter what race you are, because that's not the important part.
The important part is, if the content of your character drove you to be an ESG or DEI professional, Sorry about your character.
Sorry, your character needs a little work.
All right, and as I said, the reasoning is because black people are successful all over the place.
I mean, the question of can you be black and successful, asked and answered, yes.
Yes, that's the end of the conversation.
Right?
Everything else is just an annoyance, or something to mock.
As long as everybody has some path that works for everybody.
I mean, basically everybody who does the same stuff gets a good result.
Almost everybody.
Stay out of jail, stay off drugs, don't get married until you're a little bit more established, get a job, build some skills.
It's worked for 100% of people.
So pretending that doesn't work anymore is just, I'm just not going to pretend anymore.
I can't pretend that doing all the right things doesn't work.
And that's what a lot of the DEI and ESG stuff, it asks you to pretend that doing the obvious, easy, simple, direct, clear things that have worked for every person since the beginning of time just don't work for one group.
What could be more racist than that?
That is the most racist thing you could ever come up with.
You could think all day long to try to come up with something more racist, but you couldn't.
That's like beak.
Anyway, here's a good example of changing the subject a little bit here.
Word salad.
I'd like to give you examples of where I trigger people into word salad, because every time you see one, it makes it a little easier to identify the next one.
Now the word salad can pop up in a variety of places, but my context is that if somebody makes a point in public that you rip apart and show them to be wrong, They don't usually change their mind and say, well, that's a good point.
Sometimes they do, if it's a weakly held opinion.
But if it's a strongly held opinion, they tend to double down and say words that no longer make sense, but they're sure they do.
You want to see an example?
So there was a title in an article that said that RFK Jr.
This is the exact title.
RFK Jr.
suggested COVID is a Chinese bioweapon ethnically targeted to attack Caucasians and black people and to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.
So that was a headline attacking RFK Jr.
and saying that he suggested COVID is a Chinese bioweapon.
I tweeted in response to that, because that was misleading, I said instead of saying that he suggested COVID is a Chinese bioweapon, how about suggested it might be?
Or suggested it looks like it could be?
Would you have any problem if he said, you know, it looks like it could be?
Who would have a problem with that?
Because we know it came from a lab and they weren't putting it in a lab just for fun.
They weren't putting it in a lab to make it safer.
No, they were putting it in a lab to make it a weapon.
And if you had a choice of making a weapon that would kill one ethnicity more than another, well, that would be the height of evil.
It's hard to imagine a more evil thing that you could do.
But in the context of war, yeah, I can imagine it.
I can imagine China coming up with a virus, if they could.
I'm not saying this is it, but if they could, you would imagine that would be a variable they would care about, right?
Because if it gets out there, well, they're relatively protected.
Now, I don't think that the COVID was necessarily demonstrated to target ethnicities.
I believe that black Americans had a tough time with COVID, but they also have low vitamin D.
To me, the correlation that looks pretty obvious is that wherever there was low vitamin D, there were problems with COVID.
That correlation is pretty clear.
But of course, bad health probably gives you bad vitamin D, so there's a causation problem there.
But the correlation is wrong.
All right, so getting back to my word salad.
So the headline says that RFK just suggested COVID is.
I said it would be better to say suggested it might be.
Because everybody would agree with suggested it might be.
Because all you have to do is prove that it looks like it had disparate outcomes.
But if you say suggested it is, then the way you hear it, even though the words are kind of similar in meaning, the way you hear it is he thinks it's true.
That's really different than suggests it might be, right?
So a critic came into my comment and said, so this is before the word's out, disingenuously suggesting a falsehood, talk about RFK, disingenuously suggesting a falsehood for the malicious intent of misleading a particular weak-minded segment of the populace is indeed dangerous.
So then I asked this, are you opposed to all forms of inquiry or only this one?
Now this is the trigger for the cognitive dissonance.
Because my point is, asking questions isn't a problem.
Noticing correlations is not a problem.
Pointing out that there's a correlation and you noticed it is not a problem.
Asking if maybe we should dig into this correlation that you noticed is not a problem.
In fact, it would be basic to the scientific process, right?
Somebody has a question, seems like a good question, there's a correlation, look into it.
Scientific process.
So once I pointed out that asking questions and looking at correlations I said it cleverly, are you opposed to all forms of inquiry?
Or only this one?
Listen to the next response, which I expect it to be word salad.
Now you tell me if this sounds like word salad to you.
No.
Inquiry is the first step in the scientific method.
Okay, so far so good.
We're on the same page.
I'm opposed to suggesting malicious intent over inflammatory rhetoric designed to galvanize smooth brain distrust as a tool.
That's far more effective than unproven genetic targeting espoused by this pseudo-intellectual.
What?
What?
I don't understand any of those words.
I mean, I know what the words mean, but when they're put together, do they make any sense?
Now, of course he defended it and said, I'm dumb, because anybody would understand what he said.
But do you see this as word salad?
How many would agree that that was a cognitive dissonance trigger that clearly created word salad?
You can see it, right?
Once you see a number of examples, it's just really obvious.
You can pick them out.
So I saw Brian Romelli, who I always talk about and tweet about, who's an expert on AI and other technology stuff.
He's just a real smart guy.
And he was saying the other day that something I've been saying, which is that the big aha from AI will not be how cool the AI is and what it does for us.
That's just cool.
But the big aha will be learning What human beings always were.
And this word salad suggestion, this word salad example, this is it.
This is what AI is telling you too.
AI is telling you that your intelligence, your so-called intelligence, is just pattern recognition.
That's all it is.
It's just doing the thing that seems like the next thing that should happen.
And we think we're smart.
We're not.
We're just the AI.
We're just a pattern recognition.
And so this cognitive dissonance thing, what it does is it breaks up your pattern recognition processor in your brain.
So once your pattern recognition processor gets turned off or broken, which is what I do with the triggers, once it's broken, something is still going to come out, but it won't conform to pattern anymore because you broke the pattern.
So what comes out doesn't sound like it makes sense.
Because your brain is looking for a pattern.
But I broke the pattern generator in another brain.
So temporarily it's spouting things that don't conform to a pattern.
You don't even recognize it.
You can't even tell what they're saying.
Because the pattern is broken.
Word salad is just pattern break.
Breaking the pattern.
Because the words individually make sense.
You can even argue that the sentence makes sense.
But somehow together none of it makes sense.
No pattern.
All right.
Canadian wildfires are now affecting Montana to Ohio.
So we're being attacked by poison from the south in the form of fentanyl and now poison from the north in the form of smoke.
You know who feels a little bit safer?
Crimea.
Yeah.
Crimea.
Crimea River.
All right.
We'll talk about Crimea.
I don't have much to say about this, but why is Canada becoming our big problem lately?
We've had more problems with Canada than we have with Taiwan.
All right.
There's a new movie coming out, which, believe it or not, is going to change our reality.
Do you think that's a big claim?
There's a new movie.
I'll tell you which one it is in a moment.
It's going to change reality.
All right.
It's a movie called The Creator.
And I don't know much about it except just I watched the trailer.
Apparently it's a new movie.
And it's a high tech futuristic thing in which AI has taken over the world like the Terminator.
And the spunky humans are trying to fight against the machines.
Now, I've told you before that when a big movie comes out and it gets into your consciousness, it makes everybody just see that pattern, the pattern that was in the movie, whether it was the Matrix or Soil and Green or the Terminator.
The public in general, being mostly NPCs, they use movies To understand reality.
So how many times have you been in this conversation?
Blah, blah, blah.
Oh, you mean like The Matrix?
You turn on Andrew Tate interview.
Blah, blah, blah.
The Matrix is trying to get me.
You talk about the AI danger.
Blah, blah, blah.
You mean like Terminator?
Oh, it's like Skynet, right?
So we understand the world through our movies.
If you make a new movie that's a blockbuster, it looks like it's a big budget.
I mean, let me say for sure, I hate movies.
I'll watch this one.
Because I tend to watch all the sci-fi stuff.
Because when I watch sci-fi, there's one thing that they do well, sci-fi, their violence is usually not that graphic.
I don't mind seeing a spaceship blow up.
Like, I don't want to see somebody tied to a chair and tortured.
That's, like, regular movies.
But, like, somebody hits somebody with a phaser, and they just go, oh!
And there's, like, a little burn mark here, and they seem to be dead.
A nice, clean violence.
The worst thing they do is put people at the airlock, and then all of the silence just looks like this, the floating guy, as they slowly turn into ice.
It's not that bad, right?
But also, sci-fi has such complicated plots that I never understand the plot.
Do you have that problem?
It doesn't matter if it's Star Trek.
I don't even listen to the plot.
I just like the atmospherics.
I like putting on headphones and just feeling I'm in the ship.
That's why I like them.
So I'll watch it.
But I worry that this movie, and I don't yet know if it's got like an overall theme other than battling the machines, but if enough people see it, this movie will become the new operating system for how the ordinary public understands AI and AI risks.
So the risk of AI, one of the biggest questions in human civilization, will largely be determined by a movie.
Probably.
Probably the way we treat maybe the biggest risk ever to human civilization, mostly determined by how the movie was written.
That's the way this is going to go.
Unfortunately, it's a really big risk.
Right?
I mean, I wouldn't ban the movie or anything.
But the risk to civilization is extreme.
I haven't seen the movie, so it could be there's nothing in there that's a risk.
But if it gives us a bad idea, About what we should or should not do with AI.
It would change civilization itself.
That's a hell of a thing.
All right.
I saw Jonathan Torley writing in The Hill that the colleges and universities have vowed to make sure that they stay racist.
Isn't that a weird thing to vow?
Because the affirmative action ruling by the Supreme Court Told them they can't use race directly as a main variable in admissions, but apparently there are lots of workarounds that they can do to massage the system, so they end up with the same outcome, but without running afoul of the law.
And to me, it's just amazing that there are people who are fighting hard to maintain discrimination in 2020.
How proud would you be if you fought hard to maintain discrimination against race?
That's what they're doing.
They're like working hard.
They're having meetings and discussions.
How can we stay as racist as possible?
Yeah, no.
All right, so that's terrible for black Americans, of course, because I was saying that black Americans got promoted.
It's like the best freedom you could ever have, which is to be free to live your life without people imagining that somebody gave you what you earned.
It's a pretty big deal.
You don't want people to think that you didn't work for, or you didn't deserve or earn what you achieved.
But it looks like colleges and universities want to keep us guessing as to whether black Americans achieved what they achieved on merit or some other weird system that the colleges wanted to implement.
Let me say again that I don't care about black people.
I care about black individuals.
That'll get taken out of context.
Watch this.
Now, I love black individuals like I like every individual.
Irrespective of race.
But stop making me care about black people as a group.
Because I also don't care about white people as a group.
I don't care about women as a group, men as a group, gays as a group.
I don't care about them as groups anymore.
Because the scientists maybe should study that and if they learn anything they can tell us.
But if you and I are worried about group equality, we're just working on the wrong stuff.
You and I should be working on individual Individual, one-to-one, hey, you're okay?
Am I okay with you?
Okay, we're good.
You get that right and everything works.
As soon as you let the grifters and the people who make money on this stuff, as soon as they let you imagine that you have a conversation about a group, just excuse yourself.
Excuse yourself.
Say, you know, I'll talk all day about how to handle individuals.
And how to make an individual succeed despite whatever obstacles there are.
But don't tell me that I have to treat a group like it's an entity.
There's no such thing as a group.
The whole idea of a group is like this mental construct.
The group never comes into your room.
What happens to the group just isn't relevant anymore.
Now, this is a newer opinion of mine.
And I would agree that there were times in history, and not very long ago, where looking at the group discrimination made perfect sense.
It made perfect sense.
Because things were so bad.
But at some point, and that point has to be long before everything's equal everywhere, way before that, if you could ever get to that point, you need to stop direct discrimination.
And just work on individual success, and that's where we are.
So the big shift should be that everybody's talking about groups.
They're in the wrong conversation.
They're not right.
They're not wrong.
They're just not in a useful conversation.
It's not anything you should be concerned about or put any time or effort into.
You should put no time or effort into making a group, no matter who they are, better off.
But you should certainly put attention into making yourself better off, and anybody who asks for help.
Any individual.
So you should treat people like kings and queens, and you should treat groups like that's just bullshit.
Groups are bullshit.
People are awesome.
That's the bottom line.
Groups are bullshit.
People are awesome.
So live your life that way, I recommend.
Rasmussen had a poll talking about this affirmative action, and the Supreme Court's striking down of affirmative action was popular with two-thirds of the public.
Two-thirds of the public was against discriminating by race.
What?
Only two-thirds?
Only two-thirds were against racial discrimination?
I would hope that would be higher.
But let me ask the question in a different way.
And we'll just see how smart you are.
And I think you'll probably get it within three points.
You're so smart.
But what percent, according to Rasmussen, disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision and therefore are in favor of continued discrimination by race?
28%.
28%.
Excellent guessing.
You are all very close.
The smartest audience in all of politics.
Impressive.
Kamala Harris, as you know, is sort of taking the lead on AI for the government.
And last week she convened a group of civil rights and labor leaders to discuss the field of artificial intelligence.
Bloomberg is reporting that.
So the person that we put in charge of AI Decided that a good strong place to start the, you know, the protection of humanity was by convening a group of civil rights and labor leaders.
Do you know who I don't care about?
Civil rights and labor leaders.
Here's AI.
Here's AI.
Here's civil rights and labor leaders.
Over here.
Like way over here.
Is she the most incompetent vice president we've ever had?
I mean, Dan Quayle was kind of impressive.
I think she's out-quayled Quayle, and that was pretty hard.
Just to keep it, you know, not Democrat or Republican.
Dan Quayle was not... Do you remember what the problem was with Dan Quayle, or why there was a Dan Quayle?
Here's the problem, and I always say this, but it's funny every time I say it, so I'm going to say it again.
The main requirement of a vice president is to look less capable than the president.
That's like the main thing.
Just stay out of trouble and look clearly less capable than the president.
So you had Ronald Reagan, excellent president, and he had George Bush, who was clearly not as, you know, didn't have the same wattage as Reagan.
But then the second in command, Bush, becomes president largely because Reagan was so popular, really.
It was just an extension of Reagan.
Now Bush has to find somebody who's clearly less capable than he is.
So now we're down two levels from Reagan.
Right?
So, I mean, George Bush Sr.
was a solid president.
In my opinion, he was pretty solid.
But he had to find somebody who was clearly not as solid as him, and it went all the way to Dan Quayle.
Now, if somehow Dan Quayle had become president, who would Dan Quayle have picked for his vice president?
I can only think of one thing.
Young Kamala Harris.
Thank you.
Young Kamala Harris.
She was probably 10 years old or something.
Yeah, that was the only person who would be less capable than Dan Quayle.
All right.
I make fun of Dan Quill, but I don't really know anything about him, so he's probably awesome in his own way.
All right.
And then I saw a compilation clip of how many times Kamala Harris uses, I guess it's a Jesse Jackson quote, where she goes, and we will get this done by looking at what can be Unburdened by what has been.
And apparently she's said this just dozens and dozens of times.
She'll put it in every speech because it's the only thing she says that sounds smart.
Everything else doesn't sound smart.
But when she says, what can be unburdened by what has been?
Unburdened by what has been.
Well, There's yet another video of her looking inebriated in public.
We're still not talking about it, right?
Like, we can only say this on weird little podcasts.
But you can't go on the regular news and say, well, our drunken vice president embarrassed us again.
You can't just say the obvious, that she's clearly on something.
You have to ignore that for now.
So we're all going to pretend that's not happening, right?
We're going to pretend that Biden's brain is just working perfectly and his VP is totally sober.
Yeah, let's pretend that's all true.
She's entertaining anyway.
All right.
Joe Manchin is making some trouble by, I guess he's having an event of these, quote, no labels group.
It's a potential third party group.
So he must be flirting with a third party run.
Which everybody believes would do nothing but make Trump the president.
Am I right?
Is that the way it would go?
If Joe Manchin ran as a third party, he would make Trump president pretty much for sure.
Assuming he gets the nomination.
So why would he do that?
I'm trying to figure out his play.
Now, it totally makes sense that because he's a swing vote sometimes, that he uses his power to get legislation massaged for his benefit.
So that makes sense, because he uses his swing vote power.
But what new power would he gain by being a third party candidate?
I feel like unless he believes he can't win his seat back, does he think he's not going to win his seat back?
Because there's some talk about that, right?
So the real problem is he doesn't think he'll get re-elected to his current position, right?
So he might need an escape path.
Because that would make sense.
Because that would give him something that's not just losing.
You know, he'd be able to go to something.
I can't see him thinking that the country would be better off as he sees it.
Because basically he would just determine who wins the election.
Which is kind of cool.
I love the fact that Joe Manchin is smart enough that he puts himself in these situations where he's the most powerful person.
It's totally free money.
He just keeps picking it up.
So maybe I'll just put this out there.
Imagine Joe Manchin got really, really close to launching a third party.
And then there were a bunch of billionaires, who are Democrats, who know that if that happens, all the money that they've donated to Biden will be wasted.
Total waste of money.
Because Manchin would determine the outcome just by running.
So the billionaires on the left would find out they were wasting all their money.
How much money would they be willing to give Joe Manchin, or promise to give him at some time in the future, to talk him out of being a third party candidate?
A billion dollars?
A hundred million?
You don't think it would make sense for the big billionaires on the left to bribe him out of that job?
Maybe not in a way that you and I can tell is a bribe, but maybe down the road he's running a company that got funded by some big Democrat donor.
And you know, there's no, nobody ever finds there was any documentation connecting them.
It's just the donor thought, you know, this Joe Manchin guy, he could run a business.
I think I'll put some money behind it.
He's 75 years old, so I guess he's not gonna run a business.
But anyway, I'm just trying to figure out how does Joe Manchin win by even flirting with a third party?
It's got to be that he's playing for the being paid not to do it.
What do you think?
Follow the money suggests that he cannot make money by running for as a third party.
So if you follow the money, you'd have to say he's playing to get bought out.
That's what it looks like.
Looks like he's playing to be bought out.
We'll see.
The Babylon Bee, of course the most important media organization in the world, has a headline that says, scientists warn that within six months humanity will run out of things to call racist.
Well, what are we going to do then?
What will we do then?
Justin Trudeau is blaming America's right wing for the fact that Muslims in Canada are opposed to LGBTQ curriculums in schools.
He's blaming right-wing Americans for Canadian Muslims.
Trudeau managed to find a topic that's so outrageously stupid That he made the Muslims in Canada and the right wing in America join hands and sing Kumbaya and say, all right, we're on the same team here.
We are on the same team.
Come on over here.
Ahmad, Ahmad, Ahmad, come over here.
We're on the same team.
Just for now.
Maybe later we'll disagree.
But for now, you and I, same team.
And Trudeau is on the other team.
But I love the fact that Elon Musk weighed in on a tweet about Trudeau, this story, with just a clown emoji.
The richest man in the world, owner of Twitter and Tesla and SpaceX, he responds to the leader of Canada with a clown emoji.
And by the way, there's nothing else you could say.
To imagine that you could have some logical conversation on this point.
There's no logical conversation on that point.
This is just Trudeau being a racist.
It's just Trudeau being a racist.
So you don't enter their frame.
Do not enter the frame.
Do what must it.
Call it out as clown world.
Walk away.
Just don't enter the frame.
How many of you would agree with the statement that Vivek Ramaswamy seems to be rising?
And like something's happening.
You see it, right?
So the TPUSCA event, big conservative event of young people, Vivek came in second in the straw poll, beating out DeSantis.
Now, I guess this event is hugely pro-Trump, so Trump got almost all the votes, but what was left, notably, DeSantis wasn't second.
So, and I think I saw Kanekoa the Great, he ran a poll on Twitter, and also Vivek did well in that.
So, and also Vivek is trending on Twitter.
Did you see which candidates are trending today?
Nobody else.
RFK Jr.
often trends, but lately it's because people are going after him for imagining he's anti-Semitic.
The dumbest thing.
Imagining that RFK Jr.
is anti-Semitic.
That might be the dumbest assumption.
Like, you don't even have to look into it.
You don't have to do any research to find out that it's obviously not true.
You don't have to read the story.
That one's just so obviously not true.
Don't even bother looking into it.
There's nothing to see.
But I think a lot of people are coming around to the thought that Trump plus Vivek, if Vivek doesn't win it outright, which is still possible, because anything can happen with Trump, right?
The most predictable thing about Trump is that he's unpredictable.
So who knows?
Who knows?
Maybe the legal system takes him out.
Maybe he says something that's just too far this time.
So it makes sense for Vivek to be rising and also popular with Trump.
Trump actually says he's doing a great job and he's competing with him.
That's pretty amazing.
So it does seem that they're at least considering what might happen if Trump got the nomination.
I think they're thinking about it.
And in my opinion, and I heard this from somebody else, so I'm stealing this idea, Vivek would be the perfect COO to Trump's CEO.
Wouldn't it be great to have somebody who is just a great operator?
Who would just be the sane, logical, knows how to look at risk and reward, knows how to implement, knows how to execute.
And then you season Vivek For the presidency later.
So I've only had a million users on Twitter now for one day.
But as I told you, I'd be running things once I got to a million.
Because power is really an influence times platform.
Let me say that again.
The amount of power or influence anybody has is how much skill they have in influence multiplied times how many people see it.
You know, the size of your platform or your audience.
So with a million people who are connected to, you know, millions of other people, in theory, my training in persuasion times a million people should allow me to run the world now.
You know, from behind the scenes.
Nobody will even know.
But I've only been in charge in one day and already it looks like you can see the next 12 years pretty clearly.
It looks like Trump's going to get the nomination, Vivek will be vice president, and then Vivek will take over after having a tremendous run for president for eight years after that.
And so, I don't know if you saw this, but it was like looking into this cloudy, foggy forest.
And as soon as Trump said that maybe DeSantis wouldn't be the second place, maybe Vivek, he's doing a great job.
As soon as Trump said that, you could feel the fog just went away.
And the trees just like opened up and you could see 12 years ahead.
Did anybody else have that experience?
Where the moment you heard Trump say something positive about Vivek, you could see 12 years ahead.
That's what it felt like.
I've only had this feeling once.
2015.
That was the only time I thought, oh my god, I'm not predicting the future, I'm actually looking at it.
So when I made my famous call that Trump would win in 2016, internally, it did not feel like a prediction.
And I've never had that experience before.
It felt like I was looking at it.
And that just happened again.
I did not have that experience in the last election.
In the last election, I was making sort of a pundit prediction based on the facts, you know, as best I could.
And it was wrong.
It was wrong.
But I swear, as soon as Trump gave Vivek that little bit of positive words, 12 years, you could see it.
You could see all 12 years.
Now, you say, but unless the elections are rigged.
Maybe.
And of course, this all depends on Trump not getting himself in any new trouble, and that the trouble that's already coming at him doesn't take him out.
So those are big ifs.
Those are really big ifs.
But I'll tell you, it doesn't feel like a prediction anymore.
It feels like I can see it.
That's only happened once before.
So we'll see if it means anything.
Alright, I thought this was funny.
There was a woman who tweeted, name is Chandler Remington.
Chandler.
Chandler Remington.
Which is one of the all-time best names.
Chandler Remington.
Oh my, come on.
You know, you're gonna be something with that name, right?
Like, you never hear the homeless shelter.
Who's in the homeless shelter?
Well, Chandler Remington just came in.
No, Chandler was going to do something.
Anyway, she went to what she calls a feminist therapist and says the feminist therapist did the following.
Described a man I had been in a relationship with as predatory when all of our interactions had been consensual.
Two, blamed the patriarchy for problems in my life which stemmed completely from women.
And three, made general negative statements about men, portraying them as liars or deceptive for no good reason.
So based on all of the above, I'm starting therapy with a new male therapist on Monday.
Wish me luck.
Yeah, I would never go to a marriage therapist if I were you.
Certainly wouldn't go to a female marriage therapist for the same reason.
Basically, this was my same experience.
I had the same experience.
Now, the examples I didn't have, so these are different examples, but my experience was, oh my God, this is somebody who likes women and hates men.
Like right off the bat, I thought I got a man-hater, and it went that way.
It really went that way.
Now, that's my subjective opinion, right?
Subjectively.
But I was told that I couldn't have an objection to how my mate acted, but she could have objections to how I acted.
And that was the rule.
And if you tried to break that rule, then everything stopped.
Only one person could have objections with the other.
That was actually the rule.
Because if I had objections, I was trying to change her.
But if she had objections, it was because I was being an asshole.
That was actually my experience.
And how would that possibly work?
How in what world could that work?
So I agreed with her.
Elon Musk also weighed in on that, and he said, friends are far better than therapy.
The incentive structure is to keep you hooked and never cured.
That's basically the whole problem right there.
Therapists don't want to fix you.
Because I often thought, even when I went to therapy, I thought, this could get fixed in like two sentences.
Right?
This could get fixed in two sentences.
You just find the problem and tell us what to do differently, and we'll go do that.
I'll bet we'll be fine.
Could not find the problem.
Just kept looking.
Except the problem's something about me, I guess.
Yeah, it's follow the money.
You're not going to get any cures from people who charge by the hour.
And then Musk went on, he said, Be especially wary of therapists in expensive neighborhoods.
Their true loyalty is to their landlord, not you.
That's so brutal.
Their loyalty is their landlord.
Completely true.
All right.
There's a report that Tucker Carlson's gonna, you've already heard, might do his show on Twitter exclusively, I guess.
But he's reportedly also got a big sponsor for that called Public Square.
And they're a conservative-friendly shopping app.
So they're a shopping app that shows you products from non-ESG companies.
I think I'm gonna use this.
Good enough.
You had me at non-ESG shopping apps.
Now, I don't think necessarily this one app is going to make a difference, but it's more to the point that ESG is now a dead man walking.
I mean, it's just embarrassing if you're still in favor of it at this point.
China's economy is not bouncing back after the lockdown.
And people are wondering, why?
Why?
Why are they not bouncing back?
Why is the economy lagging?
Well, it's because they pissed me off, obviously.
There might be other reasons, but that's the main one.
All right, in Ukraine there was a main bridge, I guess, to Crimea.
The main bridge that Russia used to supply Crimea.
And apparently there was some submarine drone attack.
So a submarine that was operated remotely.
There were two of them and they went in there and did some stuff and blew up part of the bridge.
But it didn't blow up the railroad part of the bridge.
So the bridge had a car part and a railroad part and it blew up the car part that didn't make much difference and it left the rail part intact.
And here's my question.
How in the world are railroads still operating anywhere near a war zone?
A railroad?
How in the world can you not take out railroads?
I would think that would be the single easiest thing you could do.
I can't even imagine anything easier than taking out a railroad.
Because railroads would have massive lengths of track that nobody's watching.
Can't one person take out a railroad?
Just ruin the tracks a little bit in one area?
Every once in a while I just don't understand.
I also don't understand why Islamic terror attacks have largely stopped in the United States.
How is that even possible?
Unless our government has so much control over our communications that just nobody can put together a scheme.
But how in the world are there still railroads in Ukraine or any part of Russia that's close to Ukraine?
I don't understand it.
Anyway, all those bombs and nobody could take out a railroad.
The main thing that delivers ammunition.
It's the primary thing that delivers ammunition and they're still operating.
What's going on?
All right.
I think that's all I got.
That's all I needed.
Because it was the best live stream you've ever seen today.
And maybe tomorrow will be even better.
So let's go continue being awesome and I think everything's starting to look good.
Maybe the golden age?
Too soon?
Yeah, Andrew Tate's getting some heavy pushback on social media, if you haven't seen it.
So, if you're watching that story, I'd recommend watching both sides.
You should hear what Andrew Tate says, but you should hear what his detractors say.
Because what his detractors say is primarily video and audio of Andrew Tate in his own voice.
So you want to hear him saying he's going to do exactly the lover boy thing, and he's been doing a lot of it, and then defending that he's doing it, saying that he didn't do it.
So he's on video saying that he was doing it massively, and also that all it is is that he was being nice to women, and they like to work webcams.
So you decide.
You be the decision maker.
I don't know if what he did was illegal anywhere except Romania.
So Romania has a specific law where the Romanians can tell you that the women were victims even if the women say they were not.
So that's a weird law.
So if I had to bet, I'm gonna bet he gets out of his legal troubles.
Unless it's rigged.
And it might be.
I mean there's a good 50% chance of that I would think.
But I think he would be able to persuade his way out just because he's a good persuader.
Regardless of whether the law was technically broken or not.
I think he's going to get out of it.
Now, does Romania have the equivalent of a Supreme Court?
Who can tell me?
Do they have the equivalent of an appeals court?
Because if they do, that's probably where it ends up.
I don't imagine the regular court would necessarily make the right decision, but if there's some kind of appeals, I think I would like his chances in appeals.
Scott, do you have rental property?
I do not.
Don't own any rental property.
I own my house.
I have one house, one automobile, and a lot of index funds.
That's about it.
That's pretty much my entire situation.
All right.
That's all we need.
And two electric bikes.
I do have two electric bikes.
So I splurged.
The first one wasn't good.
I bought my first one during the height of the pandemic.
And the pandemic just, you know, all the bikes were purchased.
So I couldn't get what I wanted.
Like I couldn't get one that looked cool, which is half of owning an e-bike is they look cool.
I had to get one that looked really kind of conservative and boring.
So immediately, as soon as the supply went up, I got one that looks cool.
So that's it for me.
Bye YouTube.
Export Selection