Episode 2191 Scott Adams: It's Better If I Don't Put A Title On Today's Show. Anything Could Happen
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, NYC Mayor Adams, Migrant Camps Central Park, Loneliness, AI Companions, Vivek Ramaswamy, Hannity, Newsom DeSantis Debate, President Trump, Political Persecution, Male Violence, Too Far, Antony Blinken, Postpartum Depression Pill, Media Credibility, Greg Gutfeld, Voltaire, Certainty Is Absurd, Cognitive Dissonance, Elon Musk, Kill The Boer Chant, NYT Racism, Alan Dershowitz, DC Courts Credibility, UFO Hoaxes, Devon Archer Likability, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adamson.
Wow, did you pick the right day to come.
We got a show for you like this show of shows, like no show has ever been.
Better than any show, everybody's saying so.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that are unheard of, all you need is a mug or a glass of tankard chalicestine, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Yeah, extra good this morning.
It was a little extra good.
There are no bonus points for gargling.
No, no, no, no, no.
Hold on.
We've got a couple of high achievers here.
They're trying to take it beyond the simultaneous sip to gargling.
No!
No!
The sip is good enough.
Stay.
Don't go to gargle.
Well, we've got all kinds of news.
Obviously, we'll be talking about the Trump stuff.
We'll get to that.
But while people are streaming in to watch, apparently Mayor Adams, no relationship to me in New York City, is considering putting migrant camps in Central Park and a bunch of other places in New York City.
What do you think of that?
A migrant camp in Central Park.
How about, let me Let me see if I can figure out how best to manage this situation.
How about we do, I don't know, the only thing that was possible to do that could work.
How about that?
Yes, literally the only thing that would be a good idea is to find some public space, put up some tents, and get them off the sidewalks where the other people don't want to walk past them.
Of course this is a good idea.
It's because compared to the other ideas, the other ideas are horrible.
Do you think you'd be happy to know there's a migrant camp in the middle of Central Park if you lived in New York City?
No, you wouldn't be happy about it.
But it's way better than the alternative.
And now what's the third alternative?
Name one other thing you can do.
Let's see, kill them all, put them in jail, ship them back, can't do that, it's a sanctuary city.
What are you going to do?
They're basically down to one option.
So even talking about that as an option is weird, because it's really a tent on the sidewalk or a tent in the park.
It's kind of a no-brainer.
So yes, tent in the park.
And as I told you before, I've invested in camping as a personal investment.
I bought a company that does camping stuff.
Because I just feel like I hate to say it, but a lot of humankind is going to move outdoors.
Does it seem like that to you?
That we're kind of at a point where just a whole bunch of humans are going to be living outdoors?
And I'm not even sure they'll be less happy.
You know, if it's someplace where the climate is survivable, I don't know, they might be happier.
Who knows?
Well, I say that human women are 20% obsolete, roughly speaking.
And by that I mean 20% of human males probably would already choose an AI companion.
Because the big story is there's an AI influencer, there are probably more of them, that are completely artificial.
They're just digital creations that look like human women.
Except very attractive and men are sending them money and forming connections and stuff.
I would say that at the moment, right now, current technology, 20% of women are obsolete.
And by that I mean that if you had a choice of matching up with one of the least, you know, the bottom 20% of women, you'd probably choose an AI woman instead.
If you could get, you know, somebody in the top 5%, you'd probably still prefer a human woman.
Very much so.
But the bottom 20%?
You don't think I would prefer right now, if the only option I had was a woman who was in, let's say, the bottom 20% of desirability.
That was my only option.
But I have an option for an AI creature that could be my companion?
There's no contest.
I would take the AI all day long.
Right?
Am I talking crazy?
Is that crazy?
Now, here's what I say to you.
For every single person who tells me that that's weird and creepy and wrong and will never happen, I say to you, you do not understand the depth of the loneliness problem in the United States.
Loneliness is one of those things that if it's not bothering you personally, it's kind of invisible, isn't it?
Other people's loneliness doesn't bother you.
Do you know why?
Because you're not with them, by definition.
Yeah, other people's loneliness doesn't bother you because you're not with them.
It's just something happening in a stranger's head that you don't see.
So you've got this enormous loneliness problem in the United States.
One of our biggest problems, I would say.
Very near the top of our biggest problems.
And the AI is clearly the solution.
And there's no way that you're not going to see at least 20 to 30% of the public, the male public, especially, going to AI companions.
I think in five years, 30% of men will have AI-generated companions.
30% of men in five years.
That's my prediction.
Somebody says you're projecting.
That is my point.
Now, you're not disagreeing with me.
All right, let me say that again.
Somebody says I'm projecting when I say that 30% of men will have AI companions.
That's my point.
My point is I'm projecting.
I'm saying that if you had experienced any loneliness in the past year, you know, if you've gone through a divorce, etc.
If you've experienced it, you agree with me.
Absolutes are weird.
But mostly, if you've experienced it, you agree with me.
If you haven't experienced it, you say, well, you're projecting.
There can't be that many people like you, Scott.
No, my point is, you don't know how many people there are like me.
Now, at the moment, I'm not that lonely, right?
So, if you're looking at me, you know, this week, you know, I'm getting my life slowly, you know, rebuilding from, you know, divorce, you know, discombobulation.
So, I'm in good shape at the moment.
I have zero interest in an AI companion at the moment.
But if you take me back to any of the days, let's say, immediately following divorce, And how that feels, if that had been any permanent situation, and I'm lucky because I'm healthy and I'm rich and I'm a public figure.
So as you might imagine, it's kind of easy for me to make friends.
There's just no barrier.
I can make as many friends as I want.
So I can fix my problem.
I don't have any problem that needs to be fixed.
It just takes a little while to manage things.
But if I were in that situation and didn't see a way out, if I didn't see a way to make friends or to have any kind of human interaction, yeah, absolutely, I'd go AI.
And if you don't see that, you're really going to be blindsided by one of the biggest trends.
All right.
And ladies, if you thought that you could abuse nerds for over 100 years, And the nerds would not find a way to invent something to replace you?
Well, you had a little blind spot there, I think.
A little bit of a blind spot.
Yes, of course the nerds are going to replace women who don't have interest in nerds.
Now, when I say nerds, I mean that in the most complimentary way.
I love engineers and technical people.
So I think they're going to do what they have to do.
You know, build themselves some friends.
All right, I saw a tweet by Men's Sexual Health.
And it was a list of the, what do they call it?
The eight signs of a good woman.
Would you like to know the eight signs of a good woman?
All right.
Now you want to get all eight.
You want to get all eight of these.
So look at the women around you.
And see which ones could hit all eight.
Number one, loyal, modest, tattoo-less.
Now this is somebody else's opinion.
I'm not reading my opinion.
This is from a Men's Sexual Health, that's just the name of the Twitter account.
No male friends.
No male friends.
Not glued to her phone.
Doesn't have Instagram or TikTok.
Is mentally and emotionally stable.
And has a good relationship with her father.
Now, I've never seen such a strong endorsement of the Amish, but it's a good thing the Amish are finally getting their due.
And Amish women?
Boom!
Amish women killing it!
So if you like a woman who is, as Men's Sexual Health says, a good woman, if you want a good woman, don't get any of those harlots with tattoos!
Don't come home with some tattooed harlot when you could have an Amish woman.
And really, really get the good stuff.
All right.
I saw one prediction from Jean-Francois Rucari-Pierre.
And if you don't mind, I'm going to pronounce his name again, just for my own fun.
So you could talk among yourselves, but I'd like to wrestle with this name a little bit more.
Jean-Francois Galibier.
Galibier.
I hope that's close.
Anyway.
All right.
He has a white-pilling kind of opinion that if you have a bunch of AI digital fake women, it will make the real human women who are trying to look pretty on social media a diamond Because right now, if you see a beautiful woman on social media, you say to yourself, whoa, a real live beautiful woman.
But suppose 9 out of 10 of them were not real.
What if 9 out of 10 are just not real?
Well, you would maybe slowly or even quickly decide that looking at these pictures on social media was just not doing it for you anymore.
Because it was just You would just be overwhelmed with the same look, right?
It was just, ah, yeah, it's perfect.
Then when you saw a real human, you'd be like, oh, a little flawed.
So one thing might be that the AI, you know, women posing on AI may become a thing of the past, because they would be competing with AI and losing.
AI would just look better.
So maybe, maybe, but I think that I think the real big change is going to be people having real AI companions.
All right, let's talk about politics.
I know that's why you're here.
So Vivek is... I feel like a broken record.
Every day I wake up, and every day there's a news story about Vivek Ramaswamy getting the so-called earned media.
In other words, he's doing something in the real world that makes the media, it's impossible to ignore him.
Do you remember what Chris Christie did this week?
I don't.
Do you remember what Tim Scott did this week?
Probably talk to people.
Do you remember what Pence did this week?
Got blamed for some shit, said some dumb shit.
That's it.
That's all you know about all those other candidates, right?
But what do you know about Vivek?
Well, this is just one of the three things he's going to do today that are newsworthy.
He's proposing a constitutional amendment that requires citizens from 18 to 24 to pass a civics test in order to vote.
The same test immigrants have to take to become naturalized citizens.
Do you like it or hate it?
Love it or hate it?
You can't vote even if you're a natural citizen.
You'd have to have a constitutional amendment.
But you've got to be at least as aware of the country as the immigrants who have to pass the test to become citizens.
Yeah, so here's, let me talk about this in two different ways.
From a political perspective, was this a good play?
From a political perspective.
No, hold on.
We're talking about it.
No, we're talking about it, so it's a good play.
Remember when Trump would say crazy things that you wouldn't even agree with and went too far?
But then you learned that the more attention you get, the better you do?
So he's getting attention.
If you don't like the idea, that's irrelevant to the politics.
Because the politics is about earning attention, and he just got some.
Got some free attention.
He's just killing it.
Nobody's coming close to the level of, let's say, strategic intelligence and execution that Ramaswamy is bringing it to the thing.
Nobody's close.
He's just killing it.
The second best is RFK Jr., who is actually doing a good job as well.
Actually a great job.
I'm going to elevate RFK Jr.
He and Vivek are really standing out in terms of how to run a campaign in an innovative way that I think will change campaigns forever.
Here's the other thing.
Vivek is running a campaign That's changing the real world.
Who did that before?
Anybody?
Vivek is actually changing opinions in the real world about actual real topics while he's running for office.
He's changing opinions.
That is so next level.
You don't even expect your candidate to change the real world, do you?
You do not expect the real world to change because somebody's running for office.
But he's actually changing the real world.
One of the ways he's changing it is he's proven there's a better way to campaign.
He's already completely changed what people understand about how a good campaign would run.
If you keep ignoring Vivek, you're missing one of the greatest shows of all time.
He's found a way to push into the conversation with no prior experience.
Only one person's done that.
Trump.
And Trump, you know, Trump at least was famous forever.
Right?
Vivek had a good book.
And that was enough.
Like, that's how much game he has.
He managed to push his way into the top of the conversation from nowhere.
Just with skill.
Skill.
Just skill.
That's what it took.
Now, part of it is that he's demonstrating exactly what he promotes.
So he's promoting competence above, you know, racial identity and other identities.
That's his whole theme.
Don't you love the fact that he's demonstrating it while he does it?
Right?
Like you've, I don't know if you've yet forgotten the fact that some would say he's a person of color.
He's made it irrelevant.
Hasn't he?
The only thing that his, you know, his ethnicity, the only thing it is, is maybe a negative if somebody thinks they don't know what a Hindu is.
And by the way, let me remind you again, if you're worried about a Hindu, you need to look into it.
That's not who you need to be worried about, right?
You don't need to be worried about a Hindu.
I don't know what you think a Hindu is, but just Google it.
Do something.
There's not a lot of big Hindu problems, at least in the United States.
It's a very respected community.
So that's interesting.
RFK Jr.
is suing Google for censoring him.
I don't know how you could win that.
That feels like something you couldn't win.
But is it a good idea?
It's a great idea.
He's running for president.
It's a great idea.
Because win or lose, he's now made me pay attention to the fact that YouTube censored him.
Now, I was kind of vaguely aware of it, but doesn't it help him a lot to bring it to the front of my mind?
Yeah.
This is good.
So, RFK Jr.
Free media.
Doesn't matter if he wins or loses.
It's the right play.
It just is the right play.
DeSantis and Newsom.
Apparently it's going to be real.
They're really going to have a debate.
Hannity is going to host it.
Which is pretty baller for Newsom, I've got to admit.
Let me give Newsom some credit.
He agreed to a debate hosted by Hannity.
You want to know a little secret?
This is something I learned a while ago.
I can't tell you how I know.
But there are people on the left who really like Hannity in person.
Did you know that?
That when, you know, if you're not talking about the on-air performances, that Hannity is actually somebody that liberals actually like in person.
He's kind of popular.
So this isn't as weird as you think.
It's not as weird to have Hannity, who you would imagine would be a deep, deep partisan in this, but he's actually more respected by the left than you think.
And I'm very interested to see if he can pull this off.
If Hannity can pull off a debate where Hannity himself does not become the subject of the conversation, that would be a tremendous Accomplishment.
If Hannity can pull this off and even the left says, okay, you know, that was just a good debate.
I'm glad we saw it.
If he can pull that off, it'll be one of the greatest things you've ever seen.
I don't think he can.
Honestly, I'm gonna bet against it.
Because, you know, the left is too primed to assume that whatever he says and anything he does is gonna look partisan.
But if he could pull it off so that even the left Looked for something to complain about, but they just couldn't find it.
That would be amazing.
That would be amazing.
So I have a very high opinion of Hannity's capabilities.
Really high.
He's one of those talent stack guys, where, you know, if you look at any one thing that Hannity does, you could think, well, I could think of somebody who could do that better.
But try to find somebody who can do all of the things that Hannity can do at the same time.
Good luck.
He's a pretty unique individual, and he did it the old-fashioned way.
Took chances, built up his skill set, collected a set of skills that work well together, implemented them in the right place, worked hard.
Perfect role model in the work sense.
You don't have to agree with his opinions.
That would be a separate topic.
Alright, and I also like the fact that both Newsom and DeSantis agreed to this because what it does is, well, I'm talking myself out of it as I'm talking, but my first thought was it makes you think past the sale.
The sale is, can you see these second-tier candidates as serious opponents, like actually running for the top job?
And if you have them debate, your mind automatically goes to, oh, that's a legitimate competition.
If they had never debated, it would be easier to dismiss them, assuming Biden stays in the race, as not important.
But the mere fact that they would have their own debate Does tell you a picture of them being in second place.
And that's probably a story that they're happy with at the moment.
I think DeSantis would be completely happy being the solid second place choice.
Because the risk is that something happens with Trump legally and he can't run.
Or something else.
You know, there's also an age risk.
So I'd say that's all good.
I like everything about everything, from top to bottom.
I like everything about the DeSantis-Newsom debate, including including Hannity as the moderator.
Because you know what?
I'd rather have somebody who is well known as a, let's say, a partisan.
And then they have to work as hard as they can to not look like it in public.
I like that.
Because if you put in somebody who's like allegedly independent, Let's say you put in Brett Baier.
Brett Baier, in my opinion, is actually wonderfully non-partisan.
He works at an entity that covers a certain set of news, but when he presents it, he does a really good job of not being a partisan.
But I think he would be more of a problem in this case.
Because if you have somebody who's Brand is nonpartisan.
Everybody's going to be debating his brand and whether he was really nonpartisan.
But if you put Hannity in there, he's got the highest bar of all to look like he's not favoring one candidate.
And so you're really going to make him work for it.
So it's interesting.
We'll see.
Now I think it's unpredictable how people will regard it and how it will turn out.
And it's very unpredictable how Hannity would do.
But there is a possibility he could nail it.
Because he has the skill.
He does have the skill to nail it.
All right.
Trump has famously truthed, if you go after me, I'm coming after you.
I would think that almost everybody would interpret that as talking about his legal jeopardy at the moment, and that who he's coming after would be anybody who is on the other side of him and that.
So how do you feel about that?
Do you think that, well of course the legal system already warned him off and said, hey don't do that, you're trying to, you know, this would bias people and blah blah blah.
So of course the legal system is pushing back on him.
But here's my take.
If this were a normal criminal trial, then having the person who's the defendant threaten the people who might be trying to put him in jail directly and publicly, very, very bad.
Very bad.
And I would certainly want the judge to try to, you know, tamp that down as hard as possible.
Very, very bad.
However, I don't think there are any honest observers who think this is a criminal trial.
Not honest ones.
I'll give you that lots of you, there might be people even watching here, who think this is really about crimes.
And if you do, I just feel sorry for you.
I just have some empathy for what has been done to you.
But, if you're like everybody else, you see this as, the people who actually pay attention, you see this as a purely political act.
In the context of a purely political act, I do want as much threatening as possible.
So I'm totally in favor of Trump saying, if you come for the king, And you miss, I'm going to burn you down.
That's exactly what I want to hear.
That's the safest situation.
I want the Republic to avoid all danger.
I want the Republic to have no violence.
I want the Republic to have no revolution.
I want the Republic to run the way the citizens want it.
You know, educate things, adjudicate things, and give us some results and let us go on with our lives.
No violence.
How do you get no violence?
Do you know why there's no violence in my house?
Does anybody know why?
Because I'm capable of violence.
That's right.
The reason that somebody doesn't just kick down my door and take my shit is because I'd kill them.
That's why.
That's the only reason.
Is there another reason?
No, there is not.
There's not another reason.
The risk of male violence is the only thing that keeps civilization together.
You know, Jordan Peterson says it best.
So if you want to see the smart version of that argument, see his.
But civilization is held together by males entirely.
Women are not part of the conversation.
By males putting up credible threats of violence to each other.
And by the way, we all see it.
So let me say it directly.
Trump says, if you go after me, I'm coming after you.
Ladies, sit it out.
You can set this one out.
This is not about the women of America anymore.
This is about the men of America, and Trump just put down the fact.
I don't even call this a threat.
This is a statement of fact.
If this line is crossed, and Trump spends one day in jail, let me tell you as a male who lives in America, all the rules are gone.
All the rules are gone.
One day in jail.
And every man listening to it knows what I'm saying.
Every woman listening to it might know.
But you're not part of the conversation.
You are not part of the conversation.
This is pure male business.
Because it's the men who are keeping things from becoming violent by being violent.
By being naturally violent.
And this is where the men will take complete control of this situation.
You'll never know it.
You'll never know it.
But let me say as clearly as possible.
If Trump is jailed for what is obviously just a political act, the rules are gone.
So deal with that.
Again, I do not promote any kind of violence against anybody for any reason.
But if somebody else takes all the rules away, I will play in the new game as vigorously as I can.
Right?
But no violence.
So I'm 100% behind Trump saying that if they come for him in a political trial, that there should be no controls on what he does back to them.
If Trump were to win, let's say he's in prison, he wins anyway, he pardons himself, I would be completely in favor of him immediately jailing every person who was involved in this.
And then let them work it out on their own.
Get some lawyers.
I mean, whatever it takes.
I'd put every fucking one of them in jail.
Because you need a credible, mutually assured destruction to keep the Republic safe.
Everything I'm talking about is to avoid war.
Is to avoid civil war.
That's all I want.
I want to avoid violence.
You can't do it by being weak.
Everybody knows that.
Well, maybe women don't know it.
Well, men know it.
Can I get a vote?
Every man knows you don't be safe by being non-violent.
That is not the path to safety.
100% of men understand that in their DNA.
It's not an intellectual argument.
There's no thinking involved.
Trust us.
Trust the men.
You need violence to be safe.
That's it.
There's no argument to that.
So, Trump has gone, as he does, he's gone through the bullshit, and the bullshit is, did he do a crime?
That really is just bullshit.
Right?
What matters is how you're gonna feel about it.
How you're gonna feel about it.
And he just told you how he feels about it.
So, there you go.
So this is the very definition of too far.
And as a public service, give me a little sanity check here.
Do you agree with the statement that it keeps the country safe to be as clear as possible about where the boundaries are?
Do you agree?
This is a boundary question?
Right?
Putting Trump in jail on a political charge, even if you can make your little argument, your little argument won't have any impact on anything.
We don't even want to hear your legal argument.
Do you think I would care if the court had a good argument?
No.
No, that's not in any part of my thinking.
This is about a boundary, and this is a solid boundary.
If you pass this boundary, there are no rules.
You don't want to live in that world, because you know how that goes.
All right.
You got a little quiet there, didn't you?
Meanwhile, in the absurdity Olympics, we've got Secretary Antony Blinken, who said this fucking thing.
Just imagine this.
This is our government.
This is a Democrat.
What's he, Secretary of State, right?
The United States strongly condemns Russia's conviction of opposition leader Alexei Navalny on politically motivated charges.
The Kremlin cannot silence the truth.
Navalny should be released.
He's actually saying this at the same time that his party is trying to jail Trump on political charges.
This is actually happening.
This is a real thing that's happening at the same time.
This fucking idiot is tweeting this at the same time he's insulting the citizens of the United States by doing the same thing.
He's just fucking doing the same thing.
Amazing.
Alright, we'll talk about this a little bit more, but in other news, there's a new pill for postpartum depression.
Do you think it works?
That's the whole story.
There's a new pill for postpartum depression.
I say no.
Do you know why?
Because I don't believe anything.
If it's in the news, I just assume it's bullshit.
Because the place you go to find lies is the news.
I don't believe any medical claim anymore.
Literally.
Well, I believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.
But, I guess I'm going too far.
I don't believe any new medical claim.
I don't care who says it.
I don't care what the source is.
I don't care how they studied it.
I don't care if it's a randomized controlled trial.
I don't care.
I just literally do not believe any medical news.
Would I ever be wrong about that?
Yes.
Yes.
But I didn't get myself to this point.
Like, I didn't talk myself into this.
This was the outside world beating the shit out of me until I stopped believing things that I shouldn't have believed in the first place.
So I hate to say it, but I would never give anybody a new pill.
For anything.
Just for anything.
Now, by the way, I'd like you all to Follow along as I probably kill myself by ignoring medical advice.
I am currently ignoring medical advice in a very aggressive way.
So I stopped taking blood pressure medications because I don't believe them.
I don't believe it's real.
Now do not, do not take medical advice from me.
You should make up your own mind, talk to your doctor.
Maybe you belong on blood pressure medications.
I'm just telling you that I can find no source of information I would trust, and I'm not even going to look.
I'm not even going to look, because I know there's no source I would trust.
Of course there's going to be tests that say it works.
Of course there are.
What's that tell me?
Nothing.
In 2023, there's a whole bunch of science that says these pills will keep you alive.
That doesn't mean anything.
I wish it did.
I would love to tell you, oh, I know I'm being a science denier now, but I'm probably killing some of you.
I mean, literally, I'm probably killing several of you right now.
Because there's somebody out there who's going to say, you know, he's making a good point.
I'll throw away my blood pressure meds and then I'll die.
Don't do what I'm doing.
This is not a conversation about medicine.
I'm telling you my state of mind, right?
So you should not adopt my state of mind, and you should make your own medical decisions.
Do not discontinue any medications because you heard the cartoonist say so, okay?
Although I think I already went too far on that.
Sometimes I forget how persuasive I can be.
Don't stop taking your medications because you heard me say it, okay?
Please.
Please don't stop your medications.
Please don't do that.
Yeah, I don't want to kill anybody today.
It's only a conversation about my state of mind.
Okay?
All right.
Greg Gutfeld had a Great take on how all of our institutions are corrupt, except the elections.
Everything in the world, from the Department of Justice, to the financial world, to the political world, it's all proven to be corrupt, but those elections are good.
He, of course, got some pushback on that, and so I thought I'd back him a little bit on that, so I tweeted that uncertainty is the only smart take.
When every other American system has been demonstrated to be corrupt.
In my opinion, the people who say the election was rigged and the people who say the election was not rigged are the same people.
To me, they look the same.
It's two people who have certainty in a domain in which certainty is absurd.
It's absurd to be certain it was true.
It's absurd to say that you know it was fixed.
Unless you have some evidence I haven't seen.
And it's absurd to say that it wasn't.
How would we know?
So the two ridiculous opinions are that it was rigged or that it wasn't.
Those are ridiculous opinions.
And watching, and by the way, the 81 million votes part is the worst part of the argument.
Let me stop.
It embarrasses me when I hear that, honestly.
Kind of embarrasses me to be kind of associated with that argument.
The 81 million can be explained entirely by the fact that eight years have passed, or a number of years have passed, the population is larger, and the candidate running was Trump, and the news had an unprecedented, you know, opinion on Trump.
Every indicator suggests that it should have been record voting.
Every indicator suggests it should have been record voting.
And we got record voting.
That is the weakest argument for a fraud.
By far, that's the weakest.
That one is just embarrassing, honestly.
Now, I get that it's sort of the bumper sticker view.
And keep in mind, I'm not saying the election was fair.
I'm also not saying it was unfair.
I'm saying the $81 million is the weakest argument for evidence it was Unfair.
The second weakest argument is that the votes are switched from Trump being ahead to Democrats being ahead.
Completely explained by the fact that Republicans vote in person and then ballots from Democrats come in later.
Now I don't know if that's true, but it is an explanation which fits the facts.
So your weakest argument Is that there was a sudden change in the voting.
That's really weak.
And the other one is that a lot of people voted in the most controversial election of all time.
Of course a lot of people voted.
If it wasn't a record, that would have been the strange thing.
Wouldn't it be more strange if it wasn't a record?
Right.
So.
And let me say again as clearly as possible.
Is it possible that the 81 million is a fraudulent number?
Yeah, absolutely.
How would I know?
Absolutely.
It's possible.
Is it a strong indication that it was rigged because of the 81 million?
No, that's a terrible, terrible argument.
I think you could only have that argument if you're really locked in the bubble.
If you spend a minute outside the bubble, that falls apart right away.
Now again, I do think there are arguments about the election that might be strong.
Might be.
You know, I'd have to look into them.
There might be.
But it's not those two.
You actually hurt yourself when you make either of those claims.
Because if you make those claims outside the bubble, the people outside the bubble know that those are the weakest claims.
So if you want to make the people outside the bubble agree with you, don't use those.
Those are only inside the bubble, hey, I agree with your bumper sticker kind of thing.
I actually laugh when I see the 81 million stuff.
When the 81 million's in a meme, I think it's great.
I laugh.
But don't take that seriously.
It was the most controversial election.
Of course the numbers were through the roof.
Some of them might have been fake.
I don't know.
Who knows?
So anyway, here's what I said.
I said that Gottfeld found the high ground here.
And now, in theory, what happens if you have two arguments that are irrational, and then somebody gives you the rational argument?
What happens to the people who had the irrational takes?
So the irrational ones that you know there was no fraud, or also that you know there was.
Cognitive dissonance, right?
So the predictable outcome should be cognitive dissonance.
So this is one of those places in nature where you get to learn what cognitive dissonance looks like.
So here's an example.
Somebody tweeted immediately after Greg's tweet, it's UNPROVABLE, all in caps, UNPROVABLE!
So the burden of proof is on you.
Greg.
In other words, somebody saying, oh, nice try, you election denier, but it's unprovable that the burden of proof has to be on you.
Now, is that cognitive dissonance?
Yes, it is.
Because it's not even on the same topic.
This is somebody who had to imagine that Greg said the election was rigged.
He didn't say that.
He's never said that.
Have you ever heard him say that?
Nope.
Not once.
Not once.
Never said it.
In fact, he said literally the opposite.
He said there's no way to know either way.
And the very first comment, it's unprovable, so the burden of proof is on you!
In other words, somebody imagined they saw an election denier, and that was the opposite of what they saw.
So if you look at the other comments, if you want to learn what cognitive dissonance looks like, this is a perfect one.
Because there is no argument with, I mean there's no rational argument, with we can't know.
There's no rational person who argues that point.
It's only irrational people who are going to debate that.
All right.
Elon Musk, not too happy with the New York Times today.
You know the story about the political party in South Africa that was chanting or singing the song Kill the Boer, which apparently is, you know, the Boers are the white people.
And so the news about that was, oh no, these racists are saying kill the white people.
This should be stopped.
Well, as Elon Musk points out, the New York Times decided to back the people who were chanting, kill the white people.
Seriously.
Seriously.
And their explanation is that it's really just an old anti-apartheid chant.
And of course, you don't like apartheid, right?
Nobody likes apartheid.
So you would consider yourself anti-apartheid, just like them.
So they are just you, basically.
They're anti-apartheid.
You're anti-apartheid.
They have a song.
It's just an anti-apartheid song.
Kill the white people.
So I think you should be way less excited or concerned that in the context of them actually, them, at least in the country, a lot of white people being killed for being white, that there would be somebody who's a major political party, all black it looks like from the pictures, chanting, kill the white people, the Boers.
And so the New York Times decided to side with the people chanting, kill the white people.
And when I say side with them, I mean just described it as not a big deal.
It's just an old song.
Don't worry about the old song.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I wonder if they say the same about the... I'm not going to go there.
Third rail.
Foot, third rail.
Let's keep it off at the moment.
So Musk tweets, the New York Times actually has the nerve to support calls for genocide.
If ever there was a time to cancel that publication, it is now.
And then he says, you can read their articles for free anyway.
And he gives the removepaywall.com URL.
By the way, I didn't know about that.
So you can read the New York Times for free, I guess.
And I plan to do just that if I ever have to look at that rag.
So I thought I'd run a poll, since it would seem that the New York Times is siding aggressively with racists, murderous racists.
That's what it seems like.
I thought, I wonder how other people think.
So I ran a little poll on Twitter, and I asked this question.
Who is more racist, the New York Times or me?
And as you know, I'm one of the most famous racists there is.
It's true.
Do you know why it's true?
The New York Times said so.
Yeah.
Yeah, the New York Times said so.
So it's got to be true, right?
The Washington Post said so too.
Well, it's got to be true.
If the Washington Post and the New York Times said it, Must be true.
So I thought I would test how much of a racist I am, according to the public.
And so when I compared myself against the New York Times for who's the biggest racist, 95% said the New York Times was a bigger racist than me.
So I'm going to have to up my game a little bit.
I was only able to capture 95% of the public, but I think I can do better.
The New York Times, though, is killing me in this.
All right, so I've said before that I disagree with boycotts.
I generally don't like them.
I don't think I would have done the Bud Light boycott, frankly.
Although I have to admit it worked.
From a political standpoint, totally worked.
Can I say that without any ambiguity?
The Bud Light boycott completely worked.
You don't think that that caused other companies to say, whoop, whoop, whoop, back off.
Of course it did.
Of course it did.
Completely worked.
Now the problem with boycotts is not that they don't work.
Boycotts can work.
I just don't like them because everybody will start boycotting everybody.
You see the point?
As soon as it becomes the go-to tool, then all the left will be boycotted by the right, and the right will be boycotted by left.
It's a very big drag on the free market.
Presumably there would be a 7-11 for conservatives, and someday a 7-11 for just progressives.
Maybe.
Maybe the free market could work it out.
But I don't need two 7-11s.
I'm quite happy shopping in the 7-Eleven with people who disagree with me politically.
So I don't want the economy destroyed by a bunch of boycotts.
However, I'm going to make an exception on this one.
Because if they're backing people calling for my murder, I think that might be a line that's too far.
Too far.
Yeah.
A little bit too far.
Now, I understand the argument that it's an old song, and it should not be taken literally.
That's a stupid fuckin' argument.
Right?
That's like saying you can use the N-word because, well, it's just a historical word.
Nobody means it seriously.
You couldn't possibly think we're using this in any kind of a racist way.
It's just the old way we used to talk.
I just thought it'd be ironic if I talked in the old way for a while.
Oh, no, it's just, oh, no, no, it's an anti-slavery word.
No, when I use the N-word, what I mean is I'm opposed to slavery.
This is a stupid argument, stupid analogy.
So yes, the New York Times, I think, deserves to be completely out of business.
This is way over the line.
You can't call for genocide against white people, even in your weird little indirect way where you're saying you're not, because they are, in effect.
They're basically putting a little, let's say, a little coat of respectability to the call for White genocide.
Nope.
You do not get it.
So now they have to go out of business.
New York Times has to be put out of business.
One way or the other.
That's got to happen now.
All right.
Ellen Dershowitz said the scariest thing you've ever heard in your life.
An opinion about the Trump legal problems.
He said that Trump will probably be convicted What do you hear when you hear that?
The first appeals court would uphold it, and then almost certainly the Supreme Court would throw it out.
What do you hear when you hear that?
Now, you might hear, oh, it'll all be OK, if you're an optimist.
It'll all be okay.
In the end, the Supreme Court will throw it out.
Trump will spend zero time in jail.
There will be no convictions.
We go on with their lives.
It could happen.
It could happen just the way he laid it out.
I think it will, actually.
That's the most likely outcome.
Most likely outcome.
But isn't there something we're accepting as okay?
At what point did we start talking casually about the fact there's no reasonable chance that the DC courts would rule fairly?
We're actually talking about the courts prosecuting him for political reasons, and we're talking about that like that's just a normal thing.
Oh yeah, but that'll get reversed in the Supreme Court.
How in the world did we start talking about the courts not functioning in America?
Because that's what it would be.
It would be not functioning.
How did we talk about that matter-of-factly?
Where did that come from?
How about that's the biggest fucking problem in the world?
Because the only thing that keeps the entire planet from burning is that some countries, like the United States, have a justice system that is Credible most of the time.
As soon as we take it for granted that the DC, you know, the heart of power, the most important courts would be where your heart of power is, right?
As soon as we take it for granted that they're not a functioning real court, that's a problem.
Don't you think that we need some kind of a martial law to replace the courts in DC?
Don't you think we need perhaps a constitutional amendment that says that you can't be tried in Washington, D.C.?
I'd be in favor of that.
I would be in favor of saying that it is illegal to be tried for any crime in Washington, D.C.
because it becomes political.
Now, maybe you could separate the politically oriented crimes from the regular crimes.
Yeah, that makes sense.
But there should be a law that says no politician can be tried in Washington, D.C.
It shouldn't even be an option.
And I think Vivek, you know, this sounds like a Vivek kind of a thing, because he's the only one bold enough to recommend changes that we all know we need.
And by the way, this should be, you know, if there's somewhere else like Washington, D.C., I'd say the same thing, right?
It's not about Washington, D.C.
If you've got a place, let me just summarize.
If one of the most eminent lawyers in the United States, Alan Dershowitz, can say matter-of-factly that the first and maybe even the second ruling will be unfair by design, unfair and we all know it, unfair and everybody can see it, so much so that the Supreme Court will certainly overturn it,
You know, maybe you should be worried that you know what the Supreme Court will do.
Let's turn this around for a minute.
How did we design a system where you know in advance what the Supreme Court will do?
Because you kind of do.
Now in this case, I'm just happy about it.
That would be a backstop for the worst-case scenario.
But you could easily see You could easily imagine that the Supreme Court looks illegitimate from the perspective of the left, because the left also can predict what the Supreme Court will do.
If you can predict what they'll do, I'm not entirely sure that's a real court.
I mean, again, I'm happy that it's conservative-dominated, because even though I personally am left of Bernie, I don't want my court to be making shit up.
I don't want them to make stuff up.
I want them to try to follow the rules and stuff.
So that suggests a conservative court.
But that has nothing to do with left or right.
The left should want a conservative court, in my opinion.
But obviously that's a rare opinion on the left.
All right.
So that's the most alarming thing, that we just talk about that like it's nothing.
All right.
I saw a Michael Shermer tweet.
I guess Joe Rogan was interviewing one of the pilots that saw the Tic Tac UFO.
And that same pilot who reported the Tic Tac UFO, there's probably more than one, I guess, admits to hoaxing UFOs.
And gave details about how he did it.
So the way he'd do it was... I guess they would try to convince campers that they saw a UFO because there's a way he could do something with his jet that from the ground would look like something impossible had happened.
In other words, he could create the illusion that physics had been violated because of an optical illusion at night in how he flies his plane.
I guess turning off the lights or something.
I don't know.
So the details don't matter.
But how do you feel about the existence of UFOs when one of the main witnesses admits in the past of faking UFOs?
And I think Michael Sherver said this as well.
The reason that people think UFOs are real is that it's hard to believe That anybody who's a human being would make up such a detailed story and put themselves in the middle of it.
It just doesn't seem like something a normal person would do.
So you say to yourself, nobody would do that.
It must be real.
Or at least they must think it's real.
Nobody would intentionally do a hoax like that.
Do you know who does hoaxes like that?
People.
People.
Since the beginning of time, There's never been a time in human history where there weren't lots and lots of people, usually men, usually men, maybe always men, maybe 99,99,99,99,99 percent men, who will tell you absolutely anything for various reasons.
Make money because it's funny, usually because it's funny.
Yeah, usually because it's funny.
So if you deny the existence of hoaxters, you're a hoaxter denier.
No, hoaxters exist.
Definitely exist.
Have I ever personally tried to fake a UFO sighting?
No comment.
Of course I have.
You don't think at least once I've taken a picture of something I threw in the air when I was a kid?
When I was 14, you don't think I ever once threw something in the air and tried to take a picture of it and call it a UFO?
They didn't come out very well.
But of course I tried.
Of course I tried.
Who calls me before 8:30?
Alright.
I think I know what it is.
And my last story, how many of you saw the Tucker interview with Devon Archer?
So it was like hours long, so I told myself I wasn't going to listen.
But then I made the mistake of listening to a couple of minutes of it.
And if you listen to a couple of minutes of it, it does draw you in.
And the stuff that I got drawn in on wasn't even important.
Like it was just Devon Archer describing the path of his life.
I would have listened to that all day.
It was like this fascinating story of how an unusually smart kid who got to Yale, and he played some lacrosse I guess, but how does a smart kid who's very internationally oriented and willing to do big things, how did he go from just being smart and playing lacrosse To Yale, to being in the middle of history.
And there are a few things he knows.
First of all, he's insanely likable.
I heard a number of people say that.
And I thought, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Everybody can be likable.
That's not really a high bar, right?
Everybody's likable.
But he's super likable.
He's, like, extra likable.
So the longer he talks, like, he laughs at himself and he's self-deprecating.
But he does self-deprecating right.
Like, he doesn't do it the cringey way.
He does it the way where you're laughing with him.
Like, it's all just kind of weird and funny.
But let me tell you, when he was done explaining the entire sequence of events that got all the way to Hunter on the board of Burisma, It all sounded normal and legal to me.
Isn't that weird?
It all sounded legal to me.
Now, you could say it's inappropriate.
You could say that you wish it didn't happen.
You could say it's distorting politics.
You could say it should be illegal.
Yeah, I'm with you on all that.
But when he laid it all out, I found him 100% credible.
I mean, unless he's the world's best liar.
But he does not look like a liar.
He does not look like a liar.
Not that I could tell.
But I'm just telling you the way he presents himself is very honest.
Good presentation of honesty, anyway.
And when he was done, I saw a series of events where one thing led to another thing.
Somebody saw an opportunity.
Somebody made a phone call.
And the next thing you know, you have this situation.
But honestly, it all looked legal.
I didn't say anything illegal.
If everything that Devon Archer says is true, which by the way, matches almost entirely the charges against him, right?
He wasn't defending him.
He was actually telling you the details.
When you hear the details, you go, that's probably totally legal.
So apparently, here's what you need to know.
If you're a big company outside the United States, And you want to get something done that involves the United States, you're probably going to have to deal with, in some ways, regulatory things or bureaucratic things.
You're going to have to get something done.
You can't just set up shop.
So because our government is somewhat opaque, like you wouldn't know who to talk to, you wouldn't know what to do, there's this huge industry of usually lawyers, I guess, like Hunter, whose job it is to make sure you can talk to the right person.
That's it.
You meet the right person to get something done.
Now, here's the weird thing.
I don't think the economy could survive without it.
Because it's all these people who would not be able to do business unless they could find the right person to talk to.
Because the bureaucracy would just be a total stopper.
You would never get a license, you'd never get anything approved, you'd never get past some regulatory hurdle.
So I do believe that this unseemly, corrupt-looking business of people connecting important people, it might be the only thing that's keeping anything running.
As bad as it is.
I'm not defending it.
I'm just saying, what's your alternative?
Alright, I have to go yell at somebody outside my doorway.
way.
We'll be right back.
Hello.
Can you sit outside for a second?
Are you getting access to that?
Am I on a live shoot?
Yes, go to the office.
Sorry, real world.
I'm having some work done.
Who shows up before 8 a.m.?
Seriously, who shows up before 8 a.m.
without telling you first?
Well, I'm glad they're on the job, getting the job done.
