Episode 2175 Scott Adams: Come Find Out What's Funny About The News Today. Bring A Beverage
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Today's funny news,
Politics, Jason Aldean, Angry Drunk Tweets, Fake News, Google AI News Tool, Narrative Promoting Entities, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, President Trump Indictments, Vivek Ramaswamy's Persuasion, Urban Mass Shootings, Jonathan Turley, Rep. Dan Goldman, IRS Whistleblower Gary Shapley, Apple AI, Meta Threads App, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because there's coffee and there's me.
And if you'd like your experience to go up to the levels that nobody's ever heard of, everybody's talking about how great that It would be if you did.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of doping.
Here's a day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the sedentary sip.
Go.
Ah, ah.
Ah.
I saw a comment here.
Let me go back there.
I was in the mid-set when I saw it.
Something about Vivek?
Yeah, I can't find it now.
There we go.
Well, let's talk about all the news, shall we?
Let's talk.
So I saw a headline without reading the story, but have you noticed that the headline is as good as the story?
Usually the headline tells you everything you need to know.
The headline was that fracking could lead to big advances in geothermal power.
And so the idea is that the whole point of fracking is they drill a hole and they shoot water down there.
And when they shoot the water down there, somehow they get a better, bigger hole or something.
So they use it for producing oil and gas, I guess.
But They could maybe use it to get deep into the Earth and get some energy out of the heat from the Earth.
I have long been saying that the greatest technology the Earth needs is holes.
Does anybody remember me saying that?
That if we could ever learn to build really good holes, we would solve basically everything.
Because if you could build big holes, like Elon Musk's boring company that just makes tunnels, That's the beginning.
But fracking and boring might open up the interior of the planet for unlimited energy.
Because if you could inexpensively dig a really deep hole anytime you wanted, free energy.
After the expense of creating it, it's free.
And then I also thought that farming inevitably has to go underground.
Or at least indoors.
Because you want your farming to have no pests and no problems from nature.
So I think inevitably that's, you know, holes.
Holes is where the future is.
Space and holes.
I don't believe I talked about that Jason Aldean song in the detail that I wanted to.
So, you know, there's a big controversy.
Country star Jason Aldean has this small town song.
Where he's saying that the riots and the urban unrest, if it came to a small town, those small towners would take care of it.
Meaning that they would at least use the threat of violence to stop people from doing bad things.
Now, the first thing I'd say about it is, having now listened to the entire song, the first time I mentioned it, I had not heard it, it's actually a really good song.
So if I could just recommend it on a purely musical basis, really good.
Really good.
I was actually surprised.
Because country music is not my preferred genre.
So when something in that genre totally lights me up, it's pretty notable.
If you can get somebody from the wrong genre to appreciate what you're doing, that's some good stuff.
So talent-wise, A+.
But the controversy is that some people are listening to his song and they think it's racist and promoting lynching.
Other people listen to the same song, and it's not so much the lyrics as the video, the video imagery, and they look at the imagery and they say, where is any of that?
I don't see any video that's highlighting any racial group.
In fact, it looked like it was shot to decrease that perception.
There's a lot of vague images and you can't really tell who it is.
It looked to me intentional that they didn't want it to be about race.
It was about behavior.
And then what about the question of lynching?
Well, that's not there either.
There's just the suggestion that if violence came to a small town, the small town people would react in some forceful way to stop it.
Nothing about lynching.
Alright, so now I've told you that I saw zero imagery, zero words, To suggest either racism or lynching.
Now let me tell you what I felt when I heard the song.
Totally racist and it looks like it's encouraging lynching.
Are those two things out of whack?
There's no evidence in the song.
The song does not have racist imagery.
It does not have racist words.
It doesn't.
It's just not there.
But I felt it.
Why did I feel it?
Why did I feel it so strongly?
So much so that I had to go back and look at it a second time to look for those things that triggered me, and guess what?
There weren't any.
There was nothing there that would have given me the impression that I got.
So let me ask you this.
I legitimately felt the same thing that the Democrats, presumably, and the people on the left are criticizing.
I felt it too.
But it wasn't there.
I mean, I can guarantee you it's not there.
I looked very closely, and it wasn't there.
So what do you blame?
Do you blame the artist for making a song about the point the artist wanted to make about violence in small towns?
Was that a problem?
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say you have to blame... Well, do you blame me?
Do you blame the people who interpreted it the same way I did the first time I heard it?
No, I think you blame the media.
The media has primed us all that violence equals black.
Did I come up with that on my own?
No, I turn on the TV and there's violence, and then I look at the statistics, and it seems to be highly correlated with news reports about BLM or urban areas where there's some violence.
And without any statement of what's true or what's not true statistically, that's not my point.
My point is that I'm inundated with things that conflate black people and violence, In the news.
It's all over the place.
So when I see something that sees this vague urban violence, what do you think of when you think of urban violence?
We've all been so triggered into seeing it that you just assume you're seeing something you're not actually seeing.
So I think this, the Jason Aldean thing is in some ways has nothing to do with racism whatsoever.
But it has everything to do with explaining your current situation.
It explains how you've been brainwashed, because you can't avoid it.
When I say you, this is no insult to you, not specifically.
I'm saying that you and I and everybody, we're getting the same forces from the outside, and they've primed us to see something that wasn't there.
And it's really freaky to see something clearly that you can confirm doesn't exist.
It's quite shocking.
So I had that experience.
But I recommend the song.
It's just good music.
And I do not think that the creator of the song should have any blowback.
But I get it.
I mean, I understand how it happened.
It just wasn't his fault.
Definitely the media.
All right.
Let's see.
I've said this before, but this is the most useful thing you'll hear.
It's good to reinforce it.
If you use Twitter, you have to understand that a fairly shocking percentage of the trolls on Twitter are literally actually drunk.
Or inebriated in some way.
And until you understand that, it's a very, like, maddening place.
Because you'll end up doing things like, why can't you understand my point?
Are you intentionally missing my point?
You just go crazy because of these triggering tweets.
But the moment you tell yourself they're probably drunk, it all goes away.
All of your stress or anxiety about somebody tweeting evil things at you, it just completely goes away when you tell yourself they're probably drunk.
Try it.
It's just a reframe for your mental health.
Now, with reframes in general, here's something you'll hear a lot from me, a reframe doesn't have to be accurate.
It doesn't have to be true.
It doesn't have to be true some of the time or all the time.
It doesn't have to have any semblance of reality to it.
A reframe works because it works.
You just try it and you see what happens.
It's free.
So just try telling yourself they're probably drunk and watch what happens.
It just changes your experience totally.
I also wonder how many of the celebrities that you think just have opinions you don't like are literally drunks.
When you see a Ron Perlman, his angry video tweets, Do you think he's always sober?
I don't know.
But he looks like an angry drunk to me.
So if you tell yourself Ron Perlman is an angry drunk, even if he isn't, I have no evidence one way or the other, it completely explains how he's acting.
Look at Keith Olbermann.
Is he drunk when he does these screens?
Well, I doubt he's drunk all of the time.
I'm sure he's not always drunk, but does he look like he might be drunk when he doesn't?
And the answer is yes.
Yes, he does.
Which doesn't mean he's drunk.
I want to make a clear distinction between people who act drunk and people who are.
I can't tell if they are, but you can tell if they act drunk.
And Rob Reiner was the next one I was going to bring up.
You don't think Rob Reiner has a little wine with dinner?
I'm just wondering.
Rob Reiner.
Any chance at all he has a drink of wine with dinner?
Maybe.
Do you think he does any tweeting after a couple glasses of wine?
Ever?
Even once?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe?
So, but even if you don't know anything about the people who are tweeting that are making you mad, just tell yourself they're drunk and then look at the tweet.
You'll be amazed at how as soon as you tell yourself they might be drunk, the tweet looks like it came from a drunk.
It will look like it immediately and make you feel better.
All right.
I'm loving the The folks on Twitter who are finding all the Democrats who had been pushing back on the 2016 election.
And if you haven't seen the cringy video of all the very sincere Democrat celebrities saying that the electors, after Trump had been elected, at least by the vote, but the Electoral College had not done its thing, that they were actually producing
You know, major pieces to say that the electors would be more patriotic if they did not follow, you know, the specific path that they had been, let's say, chartered to take by the voters.
Now, how do you watch that if you're a Democrat and you're going crazy about January 6th and Trump?
Do they just not remember that?
I'm actually curious.
I don't know.
Because I don't think they do.
And then the other question is, was either of them illegal?
Was it illegal for a bunch of actors to give you their opinion of what electors should do?
Not really.
It wasn't illegal.
It was all transparent.
It was free speech.
But what did Trump do that was that different?
Was he plotting?
Is that different?
And what if you're plotting to do something that you have an expert tells you is probably legal?
Is it an insurrection if the only plans you have have to have some legal backing or you're not willing to consider them?
Because I'm pretty sure that Trump didn't do anything without at least one lawyer who may or may not have been right.
But I don't think he did anything Without anything that was, you know, in question.
Without a lawyer saying that there was an argument for it.
Doesn't mean it was a good argument, but, you know, that's how it works.
So, to me it looks like, in both cases, the Democrats and the Republicans were exercising free speech, and they were trying to use the law as they understood it.
Is it illegal to try to use the law as you understand it?
Well, you could end up running afoul of the law that way.
But certainly, there's no intention.
There's no intention of breaking the law.
There's an intention of using the law as it exists.
Yeah, maybe in a creative way, but using the existing law.
So, I don't know.
I'd be amazed if Trump goes to jail for any of that stuff.
But we're no longer in a world where the actual facts will matter.
And it wasn't a real problem in both cases that people believed the media.
Do you think that you would have had the 2016 people trying to overthrow Trump?
Now remember, their argument for why the electors should pick somebody else, this is the part that's the most mind-blowing.
The argument they made in 2016 for why the electors should pick somebody other than the one who got the most votes, or at least most votes in the right places, was That he was obviously unqualified.
It's just obvious.
I mean, just look at him.
Obviously.
And that was their whole argument.
Their argument is that any reasonable person, an elector, could just look at Trump and they could tell that he was not the right person to be a president.
Now, how in the world do they still think that?
After four years of him being president, what did he do?
Now, let's hold aside January 6th itself for a moment.
If you take January 6th out of the equation, we'll talk about it separately, what did he do that wasn't ordinary presidenting?
The only things were things they made up, like the fine people hoax and the drinking bleak jokes.
100% of what they thought about Trump was just made up by their own news people.
So much so that they thought he couldn't even be president.
But in fact, he was such a reasonable president that his own side, by an overwhelming majority, wants him to try it again.
I'm pretty sure if he had done any of the things the Democrats accused him of, you know, the big stuff, that even the Republicans would be looking hard for another choice.
Reality is quite weird.
I would also argue that January 6th was because people looking at certain news sources got riled up in a way that people looking at different news sources did not.
For example, I was only vaguely aware that there was going to be some kind of protest.
It wasn't even on my radar.
So whatever I was watching on social media, it did not include calls to show up at the... I mean, I just thought it was another one of those, everybody protests everything, that's the end of it.
But I was never activated.
There was nothing I saw in my news reading that made me want to drive to Washington and try to change everything.
So both sides got their opinions from the news sources that they consumed, although there's a cause and effect thing there.
You tend to consume the things you know you're going to believe, but there's a two-way effect there.
And then we don't know the effect of the FBI, etc.
on January 6th.
That's true.
All right.
So I'm going to tell you a story that seems like it's on a different topic and then it's going to weave right back here.
Watch this.
So according to the New York Times, Google is pitching to the big news entities like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times, a new tool, an AI tool for making news, or reporting news.
Now, is that the funniest story you've ever heard?
If you don't know why this is funny, I'll explain it to you.
Google hires the smartest people Around, wouldn't you agree?
Google hires really smart people.
You know, other companies do too.
But Google is sort of famous for hiring extra smart people.
So imagine these extra smart people, they build some kind of an AI tool for news, and then they took it to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, and asked them if they'd like to use it, and maybe buy it.
Do you see anything wrong with this story?
The smartest people in the world who work at Google were unaware that these are not real news entities, in the case of two of them anyway.
They're not even real news entities.
They think the Washington Post reports news.
In 2023, Or the New York Times.
They don't know that those are narrative entities.
Now the Washington, I would say the Washington, the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal was the third one mentioned.
I think they're in their own category.
I think the Wall Street Journal is, plays it a little bit closer to the middle of the road.
But although they're opinion pieces, you could make a case that they're opinion pieces lean right.
But they're very clear about what's opinion, and I always appreciate that, right?
They say opinion, opinion piece, so it's really clear.
But I would say that the New York Times and the Washington Post are narrative promoting entities that use the news to launder their opinions.
So wouldn't AI ruin their entire business model?
Their business model is telling their base what they want to hear, which is very compatible with what the advertisers want to pay them to be associated with, which is very compatible with what Democrats want.
None of that has anything to do with the news.
So AI is trying to solve a problem that's totally not a problem.
In fact, it's a feature.
The ability to shape the news and manage the news is the main thing that those entities do.
They're not telling you full transparent bullsides of stories.
We know that.
There's no debate on that.
So I just think it's hilarious that some of the smartest technology people in the world, because their own news sources lie to them, And they believe it.
They thought that those news sources might benefit from an objective tool for figuring out what the news is.
Just think about that.
They actually believed that the news is real and developed a tool to help develop this real news a little faster.
Or, I don't know the details, what if the Google tool allowed them to insert the narrative?
What if it's the opposite of what I said?
What if instead of, you know, being AI so it's totally objective about what the news is, shows both sides, what if it has a feature where you can just push a button and it gets rid of all one side of the argument?
How hard would that be?
It wouldn't be hard to build it.
I mean, you could design that quite easily.
So it'd be the easiest thing in the world.
Now, how hard would it be for Google to sell a tool to the news industry And then they get addicted to it, and they say, you know, we don't even need reporters anymore.
This AI tool is just killing it.
Getting all our news, organizing it, putting it into stories.
Do you think that that tool would exist only on the desktops of the people using it?
Or, just putting this out there, it would actually be an application that ran in the cloud, And you were just attached to it, and Google had full control of what that AI did and which narratives it surfaced.
Which one of those do you think Google was selling?
The one that was totally objective?
Or were they selling something where they, Google, could control what AI decided was news you should see?
Do you think they would leave themselves no option for managing it on their end, secretly?
You think there would be no way for them to do that, huh?
No way to tweak that code?
Just a little bit.
A little bit.
It would be the easiest thing in the world.
If they could get the biggest entities to accept their tool for news, they own the whole world.
They would own the world.
Now that assumes that the entities used it as it was provided, and they would over time if the tool was really, really good and saved them money.
If they were really, really good and it saved them money, They would move to the Google tool, and then Google would own all the news.
They would have any narrative they wanted.
They could just pump it through their system, and people would think it was the news.
So that's pretty weird and scary.
All right, so how would it cover a story about Trump?
How would Google's AI compile a story about Trump?
Would it look like Let's say you might read in Breitbart.
Would it look like something you might read in the Washington Post?
Because they're not the same.
They don't even look similar.
So what would it do?
How would it cover the news?
Well, let's look at the question of the possible indictments against Trump.
All of these topics are going to be related.
So if it seems like I'm changing topics, Just understand it's all related.
We'll tie it all together at the end.
So Trump is being indicted, the newest set of indictments, on three statutes, reportedly.
All right?
So here, so the charges would pertain to these things, reportedly.
We could be wrong at this point.
But something pertaining to deprivation of rights.
So you all know exactly what that is, right?
We're all aware of exactly what Trump did.
That would be illegally depriving people of rights, right?
I don't, I have no idea what that is.
No idea.
But there's more.
It's not just that.
It's also a conspiracy to commit an offense against or defraud the United States.
Now is that what I said was him getting a legal opinion that what he was doing was legal?
So getting a legal opinion and following your legal opinion that what you're doing is legally okay, is that what they're going to say is some kind of conspiracy?
Doing what your lawyer says would be legal?
Might be.
I don't know.
Too soon to know.
Still fog of war.
How about, let's see, what else?
And tampering with a witness.
Tampering with a witness.
Does anybody know what witness we're talking about with the tampering?
All right, so at the moment it makes sense that we don't understand the story, right?
Because it's new, and it's complicated, and it's legal stuff.
So we don't know the story.
Let me ask you this.
At the end of it all, let's say Trump gets convicted, and let's say he's taken out of the race.
Right?
Do you think the public would understand the charges?
Would they be able to repeat them back and tell you why it was illegal and what happened?
No.
Do you think that lawyers watching this case, even lawyers who get to hear all of the evidence, let's say the case is public, for example, do you think if a bunch of lawyers Watch the trial and all the evidence just the way the jury did, the same way the jury did.
Do you think all the lawyers watching it on TV, seeing all the evidence, would all have the same opinion?
Oh yeah, he violated the law, gotta go to jail.
Probably not, right?
Too early to say, but probably not.
So what happens if you take the major Competitor in the race, one whose polls look pretty promising at the moment.
You take him out of the race based on crimes that the public doesn't understand and lawyers observing it don't agree even what happened and what's illegal.
Is that a safe situation for the country?
That's where we're headed.
That's the current trajectory, is that Trump will be taken out by charges that the public doesn't understand, too complicated, and lawyers disagree whether justice was served.
That's where we're headed.
It's almost unbelievable that we could do it willingly.
We're just sleepwalking right into the woodchipper, and we know it's happening.
Well, there's the woodchipper.
Walking right toward it.
Let's walk into that wood chipper.
What do you mean it's a bad idea?
Well, I know it's a bad idea, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Walking into the wood chipper.
Or as the public is so beaten down and discouraged and demoralized that the Democrats can literally do whatever they want at this point because they've already told you you'll go to jail if you even protest.
That's what January 6th was about, in my opinion.
In my opinion, January 6th was about stopping the next protest.
I don't think it was about the last one, because nobody cares about the last one.
It looked like a one-off, right?
Didn't January 6th look like a one-off by patriots who maybe were misled about what information was true and what wasn't?
Or maybe they were right and we don't know it.
That's also a possibility.
I think that the January 6th hammer is to make sure that the same people don't complain when things get worse, and it's more obvious that they're being abused.
Now, I don't know that people actually have that conscious thought.
This would be a case of people just, who are on the same side, would just naturally know what's good for their team, so the collective actions look like a plot, but it doesn't need to be a plot.
It's just everybody knows what's good for their team.
And what's good for their team is that anytime the other side complains, they go to jail.
That's pretty good for your team.
Do you think your team is stronger if the other team complains about you cheating?
That the team complaining about the cheating goes to jail.
Not the cheaters, or potential cheaters, because we don't have proof of cheating.
But no, the people who complained about it, they go to jail.
Because the way they complained would be the argument, right?
And of course, nobody's arguing about the ones who were actually violent.
For the NPCs, I'd like to once again bring Dale in to just sum this up.
There were some people who were violent on January 6th.
We know.
Dale, we know.
We know.
We're not talking about them.
We know, Dale.
But did you know that there were some that were violent?
No, Dale!
Dale, stop it.
Soil and greed is people.
Just like the Matrix.
Alright, Dale, go back to your hiding place.
Alright.
Now here's the interesting part.
Vivek Ramaswamy, who's, again, doing amazing in his job of campaigning.
Is there anyone who would disagree with the statement that Vivek Ramaswamy is showing Republicans how to campaign?
Would everybody agree with that?
Or is this just my own, am I biased?
Because even if you don't pick him, you know, even if he's not your first choice, which I get, I get that.
Even if he's not your first choice, he's running a campaign like I've never seen.
To me, to me, this looks like the best, so far, best campaign I've ever seen, I would say.
No mistakes, no mistakes.
He gets in the news every day by being provocative, but he's provocative within bounds.
Like, he can see the line, and he walks right up to the line, and instead of what Trump does, which he'll stick his foot over the line, like, repeatedly, Vivek goes up to the line, he may try to move the line, but he stays very clearly on the side of the line that keeps him out of trouble and allows him to be a credible president, should it come to that.
So, I can't say enough about how smart he is.
In just pushing his campaign.
And I would say that others are copying him.
I think he's already setting a standard that others have to look to to figure out what to do.
But here's something he said that I thought captured it perfectly.
So he's making the argument why he should be president instead of Trump when it's obvious that more people like Trump.
It's a tough argument, right?
Why would you vote for him if you clearly prefer Trump?
You know, according to the polls.
And his argument is this.
That about 30% of the country becomes quote, psychiatrically ill in response to whatever Trump champions.
And they will take a new outsider, somebody like Vivek, to further the agenda.
What do you think of that argument?
I like the same things Trump does, but because he makes 30% of the country psychiatrically ill, he's simply no longer practical.
You need the practical alternative that gets you Trump-like results, but without the Trump-like psychological damage.
It's very good.
It's not good, it's perfect.
It's exactly the right argument.
Because it's not insulting Trump.
Because he's not saying that people go crazy because of Trump.
He's simply noting a fact that we all see.
You all see the same thing.
We all see the 30% of the public goes absolutely psychologically nuts.
Now would you agree that Trump makes it easy?
He gives them the material that they can do it, because he stays provocative all the time.
Vivek is a little bit more nimble, so he's not going into provocative territory just to be provocative.
Like, he goes everywhere he has the better argument, and then he wins it, and then he finds another place where he has the best argument, and then he goes and wins that.
But he's basically winning arguments.
He's not just making your hair catch on fire.
It's a very different strategy.
So I would say that he perfectly framed it.
I can give you similar results to Trump, who you liked, but I'll do it without making the other side mentally ill.
That's a really strong, that's a really strong case.
Because he knows, and you know, that the only problem with Trump, in my opinion, not the only problem, that's too much, that's too far.
The main problem with Trump is that the other side goes crazy.
And that causes trouble for you and me and everybody else who might think that his policies are good.
So it's a strong play.
Strong play.
And he's also being completely respectful to Trump and his accomplishments and how he's changed the country.
So he could not be more on point on that.
And he says, I think it is unproductive for a country to blame Trump for January 6th.
Because it exonerates everyone else from introspection on what actually led to the frustrations of America that boiled over that day.
Is that perfect?
I mean, that is just so perfect.
Communication skills are just off the fucking chart.
All right, to say it's unproductive is exactly the right frame.
Don't say it's wrong.
Don't say it's true.
Don't say it's untrue.
Say it's not useful.
It's unproductive.
Boom.
Exactly, exactly the right place.
Like, he's finding the exhaust pipe on the Death Star like three times a day.
Like, I don't know if you're catching that.
Let me say it again.
Vivek is finding the exhaust pipe of the Death Star three times a day.
Right in front of you.
If you don't start noticing the pattern after a while, like that's got to be on you.
Because there's a very clear pattern developing which is extreme skill.
Extreme skill.
Like we've never seen, honestly.
You know, Trump's in a category of his own.
He's a one-of-a-kind.
So there's nobody who's more Trump than Trump.
He's the best Trump.
But if you want something else that gives you maybe some similar outcomes, That's a hell of an option.
And I think it's becoming obvious to all observers, too, which is interesting.
Are you watching this slow realization that, oh yeah, his polling numbers are not through the roof, Vivek, but they're solid.
It does show that people are paying attention.
And why is it that every time we want to do a hit piece on him, we can't?
Have you noticed that?
Have you noticed?
Dog not barking, people.
Here's the biggest dog that's not barking.
Nobody's run a big hit piece on Vivek yet.
Nobody.
Do you know why?
They got nothing.
They got nothing.
It's the same reason you haven't seen a big hit piece on me.
Right?
I got fully cancelled globally.
I got cancelled all over the planet.
What's the next thing that always happens after you get cancelled?
Always.
There are large articles showing that the recent thing you did is not unusual because you have a whole history of bad things.
Did you see that with me?
No.
Do you think nobody looked into it?
Do you think nobody scoured all of my old tweets?
Of course they did.
Do you think they didn't look at every blog post I ever read, wrote, every book I ever wrote?
You don't think they looked at all of it, looking for the supporting data to their theory?
Of course they did.
They looked through 30 years of my life and didn't find a fucking thing.
That's the only reason.
And would you agree, would you agree that if anything was there, there would have been a major story about it.
Because my cancellation was a major story.
It's the obvious follow-up.
Oh my God, he was always like this, and we just didn't know.
And then it turns out there was nothing there, because the story was, you know, 90% bullshit the way it was framed.
Now, there are still people who believe the news, so I feel sorry for you, but if you believe the news about public figures, then I'm doubly sorry for you, because that shit's never true.
Now, back to Vivek.
Vivek is way too strong already, and he does have a path, by the way.
If you think he doesn't have a path, the Democrats are making the path for him.
The Democrats are trying to take out the only thing that stands between Vivek and the White House, because it's not DeSantis, in my opinion.
In my opinion, a straight-up contest between DeSantis and Vivek would go Vivek's way.
And it would be just because if you put the two of them on the stage together, one's a nuclear power plant and the other's a lighter.
They're not really on the same, I don't think they're on the same plane.
The same way you'd expect, you know, Trump would destroy, you know, let's say Pence in a debate.
You can't imagine that DeSantis would be able to beat Vivek in a debate.
Because he would have nothing to go after.
You can't go after Vivek's, right, Vivek doesn't have a history to go after, a political history.
So that entire area of attack just doesn't exist.
Nor does he have what Trump had, which were some businesses that had some, you know, sketchy elements to them.
He doesn't have anything.
There's just nothing to attack.
So you would have to attack with Vivek his current opinions.
Which match Republicans well.
So DeSantis has no policy or historical advantage over Vivek's argument.
Nothing.
So he would have to go against them as a smart, capable person, which he is.
DeSantis is very smart, very capable, and has a track record of proving that he is both smart and capable and does things you like.
It's a very strong package.
Vivek's oratory and his communication skills, his framing, are a whole different level.
They are not verbally equal.
You all get that?
Everybody gets that Vivek's on his own level.
If you put him in a contest where talking is the game, it's no contest.
If you put him in a contest where they both govern, maybe DeSantis is better.
I have absolutely nothing negative about DeSantis.
Nothing.
He would be just a solid, solid president, in my opinion.
But I just think he would disappear on the stage next to Vivek's firepower.
I think he'd just blow him away.
It wouldn't be instant.
I think what you would see if you saw those two debate, I think you'd see, you know, DeSantis going from a commanding lead to half of that lead with one debate.
And then the stories would be about momentum, and then it would be over.
If he could pull ahead before the actual primary stuff.
Anyway, so if you don't think Vivek has a path, the Democrats are trying as hard as possible to make that path.
Here's my payoff for listening to all this.
Whether Vivek says it directly or not, and he probably wouldn't, if Trump gets taken down, You're gonna want revenge.
Am I right?
Even if you didn't like Trump, even let's say you're a conservative Republican and you didn't like Trump, you legitimately didn't want him to be the next candidate.
But if he got taken out by dirty tricks, in your opinion, they were dirty tricks, wouldn't you want revenge?
Even if he's not your guy, right?
Just the fact that somebody on your team got taken out by the other side, You're going to want revenge.
Who's going to give it to you?
Pence?
Do you think DeSantis cares about what happens to Trump?
At the moment, probably not, right?
Now, it's not just a question of who cares about what.
It's also a question of protecting the base and making sure that one side is not a victim to the other.
I think Vivek would rip them apart.
I think Vivek would take out the evil from their roots.
Because that's what he's talking about.
I mean, he's talking about going after the root system.
Nobody's ever talked about that.
The whole draining the swamp thing wasn't even Trump.
I think the crowd said it and he just embraced it.
But Vivek is talking very detailed about which entities are going to go completely away.
Yeah.
Pulling it up by its roots is a pretty strong statement, and it would look like revenge to Republicans.
All right.
Well, how about your department doesn't exist anymore?
That's how much we love you.
So here's the situation I see developing.
The Democrats are going to try to take Trump out, or at least they'll damage him so much that he looks less like he could take on Biden.
If Trump goes down, and so far I'm predicting against it, I think it's more likely Trump survives all the legal challenges.
But if he doesn't, it's certainly not guaranteed.
If he doesn't, Vivek is going to be the sword of the Republicans.
Vivek will be the sword of the Republicans.
Because I don't think Trump supporters would trust DeSantis to do what needs to be done.
Is that fair?
You might even like DeSantis.
You might even think he'd be a great president.
I think he'd be solid.
But you don't think he would necessarily get you the vengeance that you feel you need.
And I don't recommend vengeance as a policy preference.
I'm not saying you should be vengeful.
I'm saying you're going to feel it.
It's just going to be there, whether you like it or not.
I'd feel it.
I would definitely want revenge, even while I'm telling myself, don't be like that, Scott.
Don't be that guy.
Don't be that guy who wants revenge.
But I'd want it.
And I'd be happy if he got it.
So CNN is reporting about They're talking about a study from the JAMA Surgery Journal.
Did some kind of a study or report or something that said that mass shootings in major metropolitan areas in the United States disproportionately affect black people.
And structural racism may play a role according to this study.
That's right.
Mass shootings disproportionately affect black people.
Now there was no There's no prescription given about what to do about it, but I'd say move away.
I mean, that's just my first thought.
I would, if I were black, I would want to get away from any place that had a high likelihood of mass shooting.
So shouldn't you just get away from those places?
Now I don't believe that the problem is that white people are coming into the black neighborhoods and shooting a bunch of black people.
The study doesn't seem to say that.
It would seem like it's black people shooting other black people.
And that my guess is that that doesn't happen in every town.
I would think that might statistically be more likely in places where there's greater density.
So if you wanted to get away from this, You should go get away from Densley.
Of any kind.
Any kind of Densley.
So that's my advice to black people who are at risk of mass shootings because they're in areas where they're more likely to happen.
You should get away from there.
Am I double canceled yet?
Do I get in trouble for giving reasonable advice that literally everybody agrees with?
You all agree with that.
Of course you do.
But it's okay, because I said I'm helping black people.
Let me give you my current opinion on things that are good or bad for black people, things that are good or bad for LGBTQ, things that are good or bad for other groups.
I don't care.
I think it's stupid to look at group performance in 2023.
I'm all about the individual.
So if there's any individual Who's at risk of mass shootings and wishes they could find a solution?
I'd be happy to help.
I can advise.
Maybe if it's somebody I like, I can help them out more directly.
So helping individuals succeed, I'm all about that.
And I'll talk a lot more about that as the year goes by.
But I'm kind of retiring from this group is doing better than this group, and therefore, I don't care.
Let me say it directly.
I don't care if Albanians do worse in school than Albanians.
I don't care.
I don't care at all.
Not even a little bit.
I care about every one of those individuals, though.
And I'm pretty sure that they can all succeed, despite racism, if they all do the same things that everybody does.
So here's the thing I can't get past.
No matter who you are, if you do the right things in America, you get a good outcome.
Stay out of jail.
Stay off drugs.
Don't get married too early.
You know, don't have a kid on a wedlock.
Easy stuff.
Develop some skills.
Become useful.
Right?
There's nobody who does it a different way.
It's all the same way.
And everybody has access to it.
So if you tell me that black Americans are doing poorly, I don't care.
Let me say it again.
If you tell me black Americans are doing poorly, I don't care.
I used to, because I used to think that was the right way to approach the issue.
Now I can see that that fails every time, because you end up just arguing about statistics and it's just bullshit after a while.
Because you can make any argument with data, and when you're talking about a group of people, it's always a data argument, right?
All data arguments are false in 2023.
So if there were a way to know the data was accurate, Then maybe I'd say, OK, maybe you should look at groups because that data is accurate.
And if you have accurate data, you might actually be able to figure out things that make things better.
But if you know you don't have accurate data and never will.
And you know that the way society is organized is that helping classes of people just creates more problems, which it does in 2023.
Then it only makes sense to shift your frame from how to help people who have something weird in common.
Largely, yeah, it's largely a conceptual thing they have in common.
You move from that frame to, do I have a neighbor who needs a hand?
Is there somebody I know who's a victim of racism?
Could I do something about it?
Could I teach them how to be immune?
Could I hire them and make sure that they had a job and then they don't care so much?
There are probably a million ways you can help an individual and I'm all about that.
So if you're a white individual and you can help a black individual or any other kind of individual Yeah, do that.
Do that.
But if somebody says my group is doing poorly compared to your group, fuck them.
Just don't even get interested.
Just say, yeah, that's interesting philosophical point that has no interest to me.
You know, it doesn't affect my life.
So that's the change I'd like to see.
As we transition from the It's really a scam.
Sort of a scam to imagine that you should compare groups and then make policy based on that.
In 2023.
I do think historically it always made sense.
Because the problems were the bigger type, where the discrimination was built into the legal system, or it was reverberated from the past in such an obvious way.
But once you get to the point where 100% of individuals can succeed, If they just do the basic things that everybody who succeeds does, then stop talking about groups.
At that point, you're just making things worse.
So no interest in what white people or black people or any other group is doing.
So which part of that do you think will be taken out of context?
Somebody's already clipping this, you know.
Like, oh, I got that part.
I got that part where he said he doesn't care about black people.
Right?
Of course, that'll be out of context.
Because I didn't say that.
If you're listening, I said I care deeply about people.
People.
Like an actual human.
I care about them.
I want them all to do well.
I don't care about an artificial grouping.
Oh, my artificial grouping did better than your artificial grouping.
I don't care.
How did any individual do?
All right.
Too much on that.
Jonathan Turley, continuing to be a national treasure, writing about legal stuff.
The stuff he writes, I just don't see anywhere else.
I feel like all of his takes are just better than other people's takes.
Are you having the same impression?
Like, I don't know why one person could consistently say things that when I read it, you know, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm doing my best.
But when he talks, I always say, oh, that sounds totally right.
That's exactly how you should look at this thing.
So he was talking about Democrat Representative Goldman.
Who was trying to make the Hunter Biden a whistleblower from the IRS.
He was trying to take the piss out of him and degrade his argument.
So there's a whistleblower.
Who says that the, named Shapley, who says that the Hunter Biden investigations were impeded and slow walked, and he gives specific examples of how it was impeded and what was slowed down.
And it's very compelling, right?
It's one person's testimony, but it's under oath, he's public, and he was exactly the right person to see it firsthand.
So it's firsthand, under oath.
That's pretty strong, right?
That's pretty strong.
And also, I believe, backed up by other witnesses.
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
The latest whistleblower, Shapley, is it not true that we have other public whistleblowers who say the same thing?
There's more than one, right?
Is that true?
Yeah, okay, I'm getting confirmation.
There's more than one.
All right, so you're now at the highest level of credibility.
The highest level.
People who saw it themselves, have the same story, put their own skin in the game, became whistleblowers.
This is not good for them.
They're not going to benefit from this.
And did it publicly.
In front of the world.
Can you beat that?
That's pretty serious.
But here's what Jonathan Turley points out.
So Goldman was trying to get to the fact that whatever Hunter did, business-wise, there was no evidence that he had talked to his father.
So Goldman is trying to establish in our public's mind that, yeah, maybe Hunter did some stuff, but his father wasn't aware of the business dealings part of it.
And that he asked that question, and Chapley Tells him that, no, actually, we do have proof that the father knew about it.
He had very specific evidence of the father knowing about at least some of the business deals, which Joe Biden continues to deny, as Turley points out.
And what Turley was mocking Goldman for was, you probably know this, the lawyer kind of code or rule is that you never ask a question in court if you don't know the answer.
Have you heard that?
It's like the number one rule of being a lawyer.
Don't ask that question if you don't know what the answer is going to be.
Because he asked the question thinking it would go his way and it turned out to be the most damning thing for Joe Biden in the history of the Republic.
For the first time a witness under oath who was an eyewitness and had other people watching who agree said that Joe Biden lied and he was aware of these dealings.
It's like the biggest thing in the world.
And Representative Goldman is the one who surfaced it, and he was trying to hide it.
So the guy trying to hide it is the one who surfaced it and probably blew the... So Jonathan Turley, at the end of his thread, he's talking about this.
He puts a picture of Dresden.
Now, Dresden after World War II.
Now, if you don't know the reference, of course, this isn't funny, but Dresden was a German city that was firebombed into complete ruination.
It was just burned until it was just rubble.
The whole city.
And that was Turley's interpretation of the Democrats' case.
That Goldman had turned their own case into Dresden.
It was good writing.
So, good writing, good imagery.
I love Turley.
Alright, Apple says they're coming out with their own AI.
No surprise.
One could assume that they're a little late, but they're Apple.
So, you know, Apple can hire the best and catch up pretty quickly, I would think.
But what do you think about the fact that this would be, in my opinion, the first big thing since Jobs?
There was the Apple Watch, and I guess that's successful.
It's not like, you know, it's not like iPhone successful, but it's successful.
So that was the best they've done since Jobs is the watch.
But now they're going to do AI.
Don't you think AI would disrupt their entire business model?
Like, I don't even know if the App Store makes sense, if you have AI, if it's the right kind.
So, I think this is such a big moment for Apple that I don't know if they have the right people there.
But we'll find out.
I mean, Jobs picked Tim Cook.
So, I mean, Jobs picked him, so he must know something that I don't know.
But we'll see if Apple can pull off turning AI into something you all want.
Without destroying their own company.
Because it looks like it would cannibalize the iPhone, but I don't know.
And when I say that, I mean that the whole iPhone ecosystem is that third parties make apps and you buy the apps and use them on the phone.
But I think AI is going to make apps no longer necessary.
Because in theory, you could just tell your AI to become any app you wanted.
It would just become it on the fly.
It could code itself into that app.
The things it couldn't do is maybe do a dating app, because that's more about the network effect.
So there might be some network effects it can't copy.
But it could, if you didn't have an app on your phone for math, you didn't have a calculator, you could just say to the AI, all right, give me a calculator.
And it codes it and presents it on screen, just because you wanted it.
Because that would be like an easy thing to code in real time.
So it would just appear, but there would be no app.
Likewise, if you want to do a spreadsheet, you just say, all right, do my budget.
And a spreadsheet would appear, but it would have no app for a spreadsheet.
It would just know that that's what you wanted.
It would sort of code it on the fly and keep it live.
So for anything that doesn't have a network effect, say LinkedIn, something like that, I would think those apps will just go away.
So what's that do to their whole business model?
I don't know.
So that's the sort of thing I think Steve Jobs might have a chance of figuring out, but maybe an Apple corporate, you know, just keeping the model moving kind of people.
Maybe not the right people, but we'll find out.
Now, for the longest time I've been confused as to why the S-I-R-I product on the iPhone, and I'm spelling it so I don't trigger your phones, I've been wondering why it's so bad.
Like, it's really bad.
The only thing I can use it for successfully is setting my alarm.
Over time, I used to try to use it a lot because I thought I'd get the hang of it and it would maybe understand me better or I would give the better commands and it would just get better over time, but it got worse.
I got to the point where the only thing I'm willing to do is set my alarm or my timer, basically.
That's it.
Everything else, I assume it's going to take 15 tries.
It's not going to understand me.
You ever try sending a voice text?
It's just a nightmare.
Because it's writing stuff that you didn't want it to write, and then you're like, oh God, what do I do?
Yeah, timer, that's about it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, That concludes my amazing presentation for the day.
Best live stream you've ever seen in your whole life.
Everybody's saying it.
Everybody's saying it.
Is there anything I missed?
Proposed UAP disclosure.
I have no interest in the UFO stuff because it's not real.
So no, I'm not interested in a new hearing about a thing that isn't real.
Photographs or it's not real.
No, don't give me your grainy photographs of a tic-tac and a fly on your camera.
No, don't care.
All right, use AI to resurrect Steve Jobs.
That would be funny.
RFK is testifying on C-SPAN.
About what?
Big Pharma?
Oh, threads, have you spent any time on threads?
How many of you, let me ask it this way, how many of you are using threads more today than you were last week?
So if you're using it, is there anybody who's using it more today than last week?
I stopped even thinking I have it.
I actually forgot I had it.
It's completely off my radar.
I thought about using it just to promote things on Twitter, but I don't have enough followers, so there's no point in doing that either.
The one thing I thought I might use it for, just promoting my other things, it's not even that.
Oh, I knew what I was going to do.
I just want to be a jerk.
For entertainment purposes.
I'm going to open threads.
Now, I told you that when I brought over the people I follow from Instagram, I did not get the Illuminati, but rather I got people who look good in pictures.
But then they came over here and they started tweeting.
So I'm going to read you some of the insightful Tweets.
All right, here's one.
So here's the kind of thinker I was bringing over from Instagram.
I won't tell you who.
It's just some attractive person.
Here's a Threads post.
Fun fact.
I love riding bikes.
What's a hobby you love to do?
So I'm glad I signed up for Threads, because I would have missed that one.
I would have missed that one.
But there are others.
Actually, Jordan Peterson's tweeting there, so some of these actually make sense.
Or here's another one from one of the influencers from Instagram over on threads.
When in doubt, eat chicken and rice.
Okay.
When in doubt, eat chicken and rice.
That's a good post.
Here's another one.
Straight from the airport to the gym, just hitting the essentials today to tackle a full leg day after this week.
Well, you know, I woke up this morning and I was wondering about this influencer's leg day.
I was like, what day of the week is leg day?
And do you do it on the way back from the airport?
This is Threads.
That's Threads.
Now, does anybody have the same experience?
You go to Threads, and it's just influencers who can't make sentences?
All right, now I'm going to do the same thing.
I'm going to go to Twitter.
This will be a biased presentation.
All right, so I'm just going to pick just a random tweet.
All right, I'll just pick a random tweet on Twitter.
AI progress doesn't sleep at night.
New information about state-of-the-art speech recognition.
Something about Ron DeSantis.
Blah, blah, blah.
It was good stuff.
Something about the sentry records of heat records.
Basically, it's all fun stuff.
It's all like really smart people saying really smart stuff all day long on Twitter.
And I go to Threads and it's just, it's all your C++ students who have been forced to write things and they're not happy about it.
That's what it feels like.
It feels like Threads is all the C++ students.
What?
Do you see his Union Station is empty?
That can't be real.
Thank you.
That doesn't feel real.
I don't know what that's about.
All right.
That's all I got for you today, and I will go... Would you trust a picture of a UFO if somebody said they saw it?
