Episode 2205 Scott Adams: I Have Some Contrarian Takes Today To Get Your Mind Juiced. Coffee & Juice
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Humanity's Collective Consciousness, Elon Musk, RFK Jr., Spasmodic Dysphonia, China's Birthrate, Vivek Ramaswamy, Vivek Taiwan Policy, GOP Debate, President Trump, X Block Feature, Laura Loomer, Jake Tapper, President Biden, Hunter Biden, Matt Gaetz, Judge Tanya Chutkan, Big Reframe, Maui Fire, Rutgers COVID Mandate, AI Intelligence, Laser Printer Relationships, Recreational Optimism, 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 what will surely be the highlight of human civilization.
Yeah, you thought it was Twitter or X, but it's not.
It's not.
It's this show.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that only The Weeknd can survive, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
That was pretty good.
Pretty, pretty, pretty good.
So if you're not a subscriber on Locals or on X, where you can see the Dilbert Reborn comic, but only only there.
The series is now about the boss sending his employees onto the streets to get things for him when he lives in a city that has become dangerous.
So the employees are complaining about the danger of coming to work and he just sent Tina to get his lunch.
And I'll read it to you, but it's basically Tina.
She's a little unhappy talking to the boss and she says, thanks for sending me through the gauntlet of lawlessness to pick up your lunch.
I got 20,000 steps just for, uh, I got 20,000 steps just fleeing for my life.
And the boss says, you have a Fitbit?
And Tina says, I did, but now it's the property of a guy they call the midnight crapper.
So you would not have seen that when Dilbert was in newspapers.
So let me say again that my creative revival is really fun.
Every time I sit down to make the comic now, I'm enjoying it.
Like I'm looking for time, oh, I'd love to write some comics today.
Every single day for 10 years, at least 10 years, prior to being cancelled, I hated my job.
Now, it was better than a real job, because I could just sit there drawing pictures and stuff, but I didn't like it.
Because, you know, anything you like is great until you have to do too much of it.
And if you have to do a comic every single day, every day, you get tired of it after 25 years.
So believe me, getting canceled was like, I swear it was like being reborn.
I call it Dilbert reborn, but it was like I was reborn because I actually love my job.
So my thoughts of desperately wanting to retire, which I did prior to being canceled, I desperately wanted to retire.
I just needed to find a way to do it.
That wasn't the way it happened, but man, it's good.
It's good stuff.
All right.
And I ask you, can AI do that?
Do you think AI could have done that joke?
Do you think AI could have had a punchline about the midnight crapper and known that that was funny?
Nope.
Not even a chance.
All right.
I believe yesterday I talked about somebody named Anthony Oliver who doesn't exist, but there is somebody named Oliver Anthony.
Do I have that right now?
Did I correct that yet?
So I'm now correct, right?
First name Oliver, last name Anthony.
Note to future parents.
If your last name already is like a first name, don't give somebody a first name that's like a last name.
You gotta make a choice.
If it had been Eric Anthony, would I have been confused?
No.
Eric.
Nobody has a last name of Eric.
That must be the first name.
But no.
Oliver Anthony, I believe his parents have a sense of humor.
And they were sitting around, why should we name him?
And they said to themselves, well, I've got an idea.
How about a practical joke instead of a regular name?
We're going to give him a name that is indistinguishable from a first or last name to match with his existing last name that's indistinguishable from a first name.
Do you think he's going to have a lot of explaining to do?
Well, yes, he will.
Oh, apparently it's not his real name.
Well, that's...
Somebody says that's not his real name.
Christopher Anthony Lunsford?
All right.
Are you kidding me?
That that's a that's not a real that's a performance thing.
Oliver is his grandfather's name.
Well, okay.
Alright.
That makes more sense.
May I say that his parents are now off the hook?
Parents are in the clear.
You've cleared him.
You've cleared the parents.
Here I was maligning the parents as pranksters.
But no.
The problem was mine entirely.
Fake news.
Fake news got me again.
See?
Now, I think this is why livestream is better than recorded anything.
Because you fact-checked me in real time.
Wasn't that useful?
I don't think there's anything better, technology-wise, than getting fact-checked while you're doing it.
That's sort of the ultimate model.
That's why I like the community notes.
All right, but more about that.
So he was number one on, I guess, iTunes for the world, not just the country.
And the story is that he turned down $8 million.
What do you think of that?
Turned down eight billion dollars to, I don't know, commercialize his music with some publisher or other?
Now, do you think that's awesome?
Because he was not interested in money, you know, it was more about the message?
Or, or did he have good advisors, maybe?
If I were his business advisor, do you think I would have let him take an eight million dollar first offer?
No.
No.
If you were his advisor, would you let him take an $8 million offer?
I would have chained him to his bed before I would let him take that offer.
I would have physically restrained him and said, look, I know this isn't cool, I'm gonna physically restrain you, but don't sign an $8 million offer.
First of all, it should start at 20, right?
If he's even gonna consider an offer, it's 20.
Let's just be honest.
$8 million was low.
The first offer you get before somebody is fully emerged is going to be the low one.
Because they're trying to get him early, right?
They're trying to get a discount.
We'll get him before he knows what he's got here.
Of course you let that one go.
At the very least, you let it age, right?
At the very least, you don't take it the day it's offered.
You let them see if they can enhance it, maybe see the competition.
Here's the best.
You want some of the best business advice you'll ever hear?
Here it comes.
If somebody makes you an $8 million offer, and you're in the news, everybody knows you exist, but you've got one offer for $8 million.
Tell me the odds that you would get a second offer soon.
What percentage odds do you think you would get a second offer It's 100%.
Yeah, it's 100%.
There isn't any chance you won't get a second, third, fourth offer.
Right?
So if you considered a first offer, that's just bad business.
That's bad business.
So here's what I'd like to think about him.
Don't know that it's true.
But if you saw the quality of the writing and the song, and then you add that to the quality of the performance, And then you add that to the quality of his commentary, because he drove in his car and he was talking about his situation.
You can really see that he's smart.
Can you not?
He's not a normal, just average Joe.
He's actually smart.
I'm going to say smarter than the average person.
It's kind of obvious.
And if somebody who's smarter than the average person turns down an offer, Just put that in the context.
That was the offer I would have turned down as well.
Doesn't mean he'll ever take an offer.
He might just stay independent.
I mean, does he really need anybody?
What would somebody do for him that he can't do for himself?
Usually it's somebody trying to make you famous, but if you start as the most famous artist in the world, number one on iTunes in the entire world, if you start there, then the value of helpers goes way down.
But they probably want to take, you know, 50 to 75 percent of his earnings.
Would be my guess.
All right, so a tweet by Elon Musk.
Which just said, X, meaning Twitter, as humanity's collective consciousness.
Do you see it?
Do you see X as society's, meaning, you know, its existence the way it is, as society's collective consciousness?
I totally do.
Yeah.
Have you ever heard of any books that would have a similar concept?
Well, if you haven't read my book, God's Debris, This would be the time to connect all the dots.
The people on my Locals platform have more of a back story there.
Actually, could you even buy that?
I think God's Debris is cancelled.
If you were on the Locals platform you could read it for free, because it's available there for free.
The e-book part.
Yeah, I think God's Debris is cancelled at the moment.
You could get a used one.
But just remember, if you read it, remember Elon Musk's tweet about X being the common consciousness, and then it will blow your mind when you read God's Debris.
Speaking of books, my book, Reframe Your Brain, is still not available, well it's not approved yet by Amazon, for the physical book.
Now the physical book is done and submitted, they just have to say yes.
For some reason it takes a few days.
I don't know if there's a problem yet, but by the end of today, if it's not there, I'm going to assume there is a problem.
However, here's the good news.
The reviews, the Amazon reviews, are just off the chart.
So the people who are reading it are just having their minds blown, which is what I imagined would happen.
So by minds blown, I mean that people are seeing their life changing in fundamental ways.
Even while reading the book, they can actually feel the change.
Some people are wearing out their highlighter.
So it's not like a regular book.
It's a book you're going to want to highlight, keep around, show to people, refer back to.
So the physical book, I actually recommend.
Normally, I'd say get the Kindle, because who needs a book on their shelf?
But if you want this book, I'd wait for the soft cover.
I wouldn't wait for the hardcover.
Softcover will come before the hardcover, in my case.
All right, so that's going, you know, I gotta say, it's just like an inside baseball author thing.
When you spend two years working on a book, which I did, it ruins Kind of ruins two years of your life.
Normally it's a year, but it was a busy year, so it took me a little longer.
But if you put a year of your life into basically removing all of your entertainment time, so that you basically are just working for a year, you want that book to do well, right?
So you want it to do well in the rankings and make money and all that stuff.
But I gotta tell you that there's a thing that's even better than that.
As good as money is.
It's when the reviews come in and they're stellar.
Like that's when I feel like I'm done.
You know, anything else that happens after that is like, ah, that's great.
I'm glad that happened.
But when the reviews come in and they're just through the roof, That's the payoff.
Because I wrote it to be useful.
I didn't write it to be entertaining.
I don't know if you thought I did.
It's not meant to be entertaining per se.
It should be entertaining too.
But it should change lives.
And people are saying it is.
So, there you go.
There you go.
More about that later.
I saw a funny tweet by Morgan.
MJ.
And she's a woman and she says, my favorite thing about men is how they're completely incapable of responding to multiple questions over text.
Whatever you ask last is the only thing they'll acknowledge.
Does anybody have that experience?
Ladies?
Do you have an experience that men will only answer one of the questions you ask?
I had to go public and I know men don't be mad at me.
Men don't be mad.
I know I violated the secret oath of men by telling women one of our secrets, but I thought I had to make an exception this time.
So I retweeted and I commented, we're trying to train you to ask one question.
How many men said, my God, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Come on.
How many of you admit it?
How many of the men say, okay, you got me.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
I'm trying to train her to ask one question.
Yeah, I've done that.
Oh yeah.
I've intentionally ignored questions.
Try to train them.
All right.
The exception would be business.
If I get a text for a business, I don't mind multiple questions, because, you know, why not?
And then somebody, there was a woman in the comments, this just made me laugh until I cried, she said that she had tried to, you know, she'd heard the same thing, that men like one question per text, so she'll send multiple questions and multiple texts at the same time, so that each question is in its own text.
Was that exactly getting to the heart of the problem?
And I loved that men and women are so different, that even when I say directly, I'm trying to train you to ask one question, that the way it was heard was, oh, so I'll just ask ten questions in individual text at the same time, and we're good, right?
No.
No, that wasn't exactly the spirit of that.
Here we go.
Have I ever told you that all news about public figures is fake news?
Yes, I have.
And the reason I've told you that is because all news about public figures is fake.
Now, it always starts with something true.
You know, somebody is sick.
Probably true.
Don't know what.
Somebody died.
Somebody got married.
Those are usually true.
But all of the why somebody did it, the background, the interpretation, the context, all fake.
All fake, all the time.
Not always intentionally.
Let's see if you can pick this one out on your own, okay?
So there's a story in The Insider, which used to be called The Business Insider, about RFK Jr.' 's voice issues.
It's a disorder called spasmodic dysphonia, and The Insider reports that it is an incurable disorder.
Why did they report that it's an incurable disorder?
Do you think I sound like RFK Jr.
right now?
Does anybody think I talk just the way he does?
Right now?
Nope!
Do you know that I had that same disorder?
It's called spasmodic dysphonia, and that I had surgery, and it was cured.
That's why, when you're listening to me right now, it sounds like a pretty normal voice.
And the reason I got the surgery is because I was referred to other people who had the surgery.
So I talked to them in person.
I mean by phone, but personally I talked to them.
And they could all speak fine.
They could all speak fine.
So there was in fact, and there has been for now many years, 10 years, 15 years, a surgery that is a complete cure.
Suppose you were to look it up.
I'd like you to do this right now.
If anybody has a second browser open, look for treatment or cure of spasmodic dysphonia.
Tell me what comes up.
Treatment or cure of spasmodic dysphonia.
Do it right now.
Do it right now.
Now remember, the cure has been available for about 10 or 15 years.
And I've been public about how I did it, the existence of it.
What do you find?
What is recommended as, sometimes it's called the gold standard.
Well, I think if you look it up, you're going to find that there's no cure, but that Botox injections through the front of the neck into the back of the neck.
In other words, they're reaching to the back of the neck, but they have to go through the front.
Into your vocal cords can give you some relief.
WebMD says there's no cure.
WebMD.
Says there's no cure.
I'm literally talking to you cured.
So what you're going to find is that most standards will say there's no cure, but people often use Botox to get a better result.
Better than what they had.
Now, what do you think's happening?
You know for sure, 100% sure, it's curable because you're listening to me live.
And I have a very long history of talking about it before I was cured.
Not talking, but writing about it.
And now you find that if you check the news, not just the news, but if you search on Google, it's going to say that there's a pharma product, I don't know how big, but a big pharma product that's the only thing you can do about it.
Have you put it together yet?
Has anybody connected the dots?
All right, there was an organization that's like the umbrella organization for this situation, spasmodic dysphonia.
So a bunch of people who had that condition and some people who treated it got together and they've created like an organization.
If you search for it, it'll probably be one of the first things that comes up.
Who do you think gives them funding to support their organization?
Oh, I don't know.
Can you take a fucking guess?
Yeah.
It's exactly what you think it is.
Put your conspiratorial hat on.
There is a cure, but the news won't tell you, and if you search for it, you can't find it.
What does it remind you of?
Now remember, this happened before the pandemic, so this is the same thing, you know, for years.
It's always been like this.
Ivermectin.
It's exactly what you think it is.
It's exactly what you think it is.
The news is not even close to real.
Now, can you believe this?
This is about a major candidate.
Now, here's the backstory on RFK Jr.
He did get a medical procedure, but it's not the one I got.
He did research, and he learned about mine, because I told him about it a long time ago.
And he decided to get something that had an easier recovery, which is a reasonable decision.
So his decision actually made sense, because he did get some improvement that's quite substantial, enough to get him through maybe the political season.
If he had done my surgery, he'd have a year or two of weak voice.
It wouldn't have worked for politics at all.
So it does take a long, there's a long recovery period.
But can you imagine that the news doesn't even mention it?
So when you read anything about a political figure, even something like as basic as a medical situation, not real.
It's just not real.
Once you realize how not real the news is, you can never, you can never unsee it.
All right.
China's population, other news that the fertility has dropped below Japan's level, which was, you know, Japan had the same problem, or having the same problem.
It's even lower.
Now that's from the official numbers from China.
So the official numbers from China say that their birth rate is basically a severe emergency.
Do you think they gave you the right number?
Do you think China is telling you the real number?
Probably the fake number shows an emergency.
Imagine how bad the real number is if there is one.
Imagine.
So China's in bad, bad trouble.
And the other thing that I don't hear enough about is that there are way too many men, aren't there?
Like, how would they fix that if there are way too many men for women?
Because all that matters is the number of women.
It doesn't matter the number of men.
Yeah, we'll talk about Maui.
So they're in big trouble.
Can you remind me, did I say on live stream or did I only say it to my private group on the man cave?
Did I tell you that Vivek ended the risk of war with China over Taiwan?
Yeah, I'll just say it again in case anybody missed it.
When Vivek said that Taiwan is critical to the United States because it's the only place we can get the advanced chips.
He basically said, there's nothing you can do to take Taiwan because that's a red line, blah, blah, blah.
But once we can make those chips ourselves in the United States, then he would see it as more of a civil war, which would suggest that China and Taiwan are going to have to work it out on their own.
Why would China ever attack while Vivek is still in the race and other people are nodding their heads to that?
Because I doubt anybody said, well, that's a bad idea.
Do you?
Don't you think everybody who heard that said, yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right now it's critical.
You better not touch it.
But if you just waited and then you add on top of that, that China is the most patient country in the history of all countries.
They have like a 100 or 1,000 year idea for China.
So seven years, eight years, it would just make sense to wait.
Even if you were sure you wanted to make a move on Taiwan, unless you're going to do it right away, like before or during the presidential races, which would be a scary possibility.
I don't see them getting ready to do it, though.
Because all hell would break loose, and I don't think that they can handle all hell breaking loose.
given their other problems.
I think China's too weak.
Honestly, I think they're too weak.
And I don't think, you know, if they're stronger in eight years, maybe that would be the thing to wait for, if they were them.
If I were them, that's what I'd do.
So I guess Trump is going to be interviewing with Tucker Carlson at the same time as the Fox debates.
Do I have that right?
Give me a fact check on that.
They would be televised, both live?
So would Tucker be live or recorded?
That part I don't know.
Does anybody know if Tucker will be live or recorded?
Because I feel like it would be recorded and edited.
Because I don't know that... Because it would be streamed on Twitter.
Live?
Okay.
Let me give just a feel for the audience.
If you had a choice of which one to watch live, let's say maybe you record the other one.
Which one will you watch live?
Go.
Which one will you watch live?
Almost all Trump Tucker.
Now is that because you're mad at Fox News?
Because I would go the other way.
So I would watch, here's my take on it.
This is just personal, so this is not a recommendation or anything.
This is just the way I'll do it.
I feel like Trump talking to Tucker, I've already seen.
You know what I mean?
I wouldn't really expect a surprise.
Now, Trump might come up with a surprise, because he's smart enough to know that would be the thing that would suck all the energy away from Fox News.
But, I don't know that he has one.
What could he say that we haven't already heard?
So, I am really curious about watching Vivek dismantle the other Republicans.
So to me, the real show is Vivek because he's the wild card in all of this.
Everybody else is some version of Mike Pence.
Am I right?
It's like Vivek versus Mike Pence, Mike Pence, the other Mike Pence, the woman Mike Pence, you know, the black Mike Pence.
But basically, it's just a bunch of Mike Pence's and then Vivek.
Now, that's the show.
Now, given that there will be lots of people there, how many people are going to be in the debate?
Too many, right?
Too many to be a proper debate.
It's just everybody gets their little thing to say.
All right.
Well, I think I'm going to watch the debate and record Tucker.
But most of you are going to do the opposite, right?
Or not even watch the debate because it's on Fox and you're all mad at him or something.
All right, let me ask you this.
Do you think you're helping yourself by not watching Fox News?
Are you helping yourself?
People say yes.
It helps you not to watch them.
Because what?
Because you're punishing them?
How does that help you?
Well, what am I doing wrong?
All right, I need some help here.
Tell me what I'm doing wrong.
I turn on Fox News, I watch The Five, my favorite show, and then I'm all happy.
What did I do wrong?
Like, why doesn't that work for you?
Because you don't like the network?
I'm not even sure what the problem is.
Because they've lied in the past, you say?
But how does that make The Five less entertaining?
If I'm watching Gutfeld in the evening, what does anything that Fox News did in the past have to do with that?
I feel like you're kind of boycotting members of your own team.
I get that you're mad at them for whatever they did or didn't do, but how's that good for you?
I would say this, think of your own self-interest.
That's probably more important than any statement you're going to make.
All right.
Well, that'll be fun.
Elon Musk tweeted that he's going to get rid of the block feature on X. What do you think happened when he said he's going to get rid of the block feature?
Well, let's talk about that.
I don't know that it's going to happen because there was a pretty big response about it, but it probably will.
Probably will.
His argument, I'm guessing, would be that free speech is free speech, and it's a free speech platform.
But I'm not sure that trolls are a free speech question, are they?
Trolls, it's more like you have freedom to walk down the street, but if somebody bangs you on the head while you're walking down the street, you weren't as free as you thought.
Now, I'm going to echo something that Zuby said about this, which is, if you have a smallish, normal Twitter account, this is a good idea for you.
If you have a big account, lots of followers, like Zuby, it's a problem.
Because you end up attracting, accidentally, just the ugliest messaging in the world.
Now, it's so ugly, That it would prevent me from looking at comments on my own timeline.
So one of the things that I like about my experience on X is that I can tweet something and then I look at all the different comments and people agree and disagree.
And because I've blocked so heavily up to this point, I almost always get reasonably good debates in my comments.
Has anybody noticed?
Maybe you don't block the people I do so it doesn't look that way.
But my own experience of it is that I don't get too many of the just evil trolls.
I get more people who just disagree and they've got a different data source and that stuff's great.
So I would say that my experience would be degraded if you took blocking away from me.
And by the way, blocking gives me a dopamine hit.
So when the trolls take my dopamine away and I'm like, I feel icky.
Then I hit the block.
My dopamine returns.
So I use the block literally as a mental health tool.
And that's not an analogy.
That's actually the literal thing I'm doing.
My mind is not feeling good.
I just read a troll.
I block it.
My mind is cleared.
And then I go on with my day.
It's actually literally No joke, an important part of my mental health.
That's not any hyperbole.
It's an important part of my mental health.
Now, but the counter-argument is this.
Who cares about you?
Which is a pretty good argument.
The best counter-argument is, who cares about you?
Because you're one of the rich, big accounts, almost anybody with a small account who wanted more exposure would trade places.
Wouldn't the people with a thousand followers, if they could, trade places with me to have a million and have more trolls?
Well, not everybody, but a lot of people would.
So, on one hand, I hate this change, and it would make me feel way less happy about my experience.
On the other hand, Musk's argument is a populist argument.
Most people on Twitter are smaller accounts, and they would like to have their say.
Free speech is a bitch, isn't it?
Free speech is a bitch.
And I'm going to come down on this where I haven't seen anybody else come down on it.
Removing blocking would be absolutely bad for my experience and my mental health.
I don't know that it would be bad for people with small accounts and they're the vast majority.
Why would my preference be more important than a vast majority of people?
It's not.
It's just not.
Because I have freedom to use it or not use it, read the comments or not read the comments.
I have lots of freedom.
So it really comes down to my problem, doesn't it?
Do I think that the vast number of Twitter users should be degraded in their experience?
In other words, everyone's getting blocked.
Should I degrade all of their experience so I can get my little benefit?
I think the fairest thing I can do is say what my feeling is and what my opinion is, and then let Elon Musk run his company.
Because I don't feel I'm smart enough to judge this one.
I feel this is just the way that the public needs to win.
So, here's how I would come down to this.
If most of the people on Twitter like this idea, because they're the ones getting blocked as opposed to what else, I would reluctantly agree that Musk is not making a bad decision.
At least to test it.
You know, what do I always say?
You don't have to decide if it's a good or bad idea.
If you can test it, you don't have to decide.
And Twitter is sort of the ultimate example of that.
They could just set aside the code that allows you to block, but don't delete it, obviously, and just keep it ready, run an experience where everybody's unblocked for a while, see what happens.
People like it, people don't like it, and then make a decision from there.
So if you're thinking that, if you believe that Musk has made a decision, That is unreversible.
I don't think you understand software.
It's very reversible.
You've seen them experiment quite a bit on the interface.
So it's very reversible.
But when he makes a statement that he's going to get rid of it, that gets him all the feedback and attention he needs to make a better decision.
But I think he'll probably test it.
If I were him, I'd test it.
Even if there was a big yelling at first, I'd test it.
I think he will.
All right.
Let's see.
So here's a good test of your conspiracy mind.
So Laura Loomer, who is probably one of the most cancelled people on the planet, who's not me.
She's had problems from banking to social networks.
But she's allowed on Twitter.
And she has a pretty big account.
And she gets 200 to 400 million impressions, but she only got like a, I don't know, some tiny little amount of payoff from being a Twitter, or an ex-user who had signed up for monetization.
So she thought that she was being maybe suppressed in some way, because her first payoff was small.
What do you think?
So the only thing we know Is that an account her size would normally have... I'll give you numbers just for decision-making.
These are not the real numbers, but they're approximate.
An account her size might be expected to make $5,000 to $7,000 a month from Twitter ad payments.
Her actual payment, instead of $5,000 to $7,000, was closer to under $200.
And she's seen other people advertise what they got from X. And so she's like, hey, what's going on?
I have this much engagement, but I got like 5% of that.
What's going on?
All right.
You tell me.
This is the only thing we know so far.
You tell me.
Is there something going on?
Or is she being traded exactly like everybody else?
What do you think?
What's your best speculation with limited information?
Speculate with limited information.
Thank you, Erica.
The correct answer is no clue.
Yeah.
The amount that you as an observer can tell about this situation is nothing.
Just nothing.
I will add one thing to it, which when I got my first check for having advertisements in X, It looked to me like way smaller than other accounts my size, because they had been publishing their numbers.
And I think Ian Miles Chung or somebody had published, and I looked at the size of his account and engagement, and I looked at mine and I thought, they should be kind of similar.
But I got like this little peanut, and he got a pretty sizable check.
And so the first month I said to myself, the same as Laura Loomer, I said, is something going on here?
I wasn't even sure that I was registered in the system.
I thought maybe I was confusing it with some other payment or something.
It was so small.
So the second payment was totally in the range of what I would have expected, right?
So the second one was fine.
Now my guess is that Laura Loomer will have the same experience.
That the second check will be somewhere in the range of what you'd expect.
The first one might have been a partial, partial month, right?
Might have been a partial month.
Or there could be a bug about the first month.
Or something like that.
But I don't think that Elon Musk is suppressing her.
Now here's the argument for yes.
Don't you think that Twitter works with advertisers?
And do you think the advertisers do not ever say, don't pair us with some kinds of content?
Do you think that's ever happened?
Because that's what the YouTube model is.
The YouTube model is, it's not really YouTube that's banning people.
It's mostly the advertisers saying, we don't want to be associated with that kind of content.
So what if What if Laura Loomer is right?
By the way, I'm not debunking her claim.
If it sounded like that, then I went too far.
I'm not debunking her claim.
I'm saying we literally have no idea.
It's just a mystery on the first month.
The mystery will go away if the second month is normal.
It would just mean there's something about the first month.
But would you, if you were an advertiser, would you say, why don't you pair me with Laura Loomer type material?
Yeah.
So she might actually be on some kind of a blacklist, and we wouldn't know about it.
But I think that's a fair question for Elon Musk, isn't it?
I haven't seen anybody ask him the question.
But the question would be, are you satisfying advertisers in any way with a blacklist?
I would think they would have to.
It seems like it's almost required.
I don't know how you could not do it, honestly.
If they could convince If there was a way to convince the advertisers that it doesn't matter, that'd be awesome.
Here's how I would do it.
If I were Musk, I would say this.
Now, we're a free speech platform, and that means you would be on, you know, in the feeds of people you loved and people you hated, but people on Twitter understand that.
So that would be the best argument.
The people on Twitter understand That wherever they see it is not an indication of being paired.
Now, if they paired it with a tweet, that would be a problem.
Pairing it with the comments to the tweet will just as often pair it with somebody saying, Laura Loomer, you're the worst person in the world, which maybe they agree with.
So, I think Twitter has a good argument, better than YouTube, an argument that because the ads are randomized, That's much different than YouTube.
Now imagine YouTube, there's an hour-long video and you're associated with that.
If you're an advertiser, you don't want to be associated with like an hour-long like bad content.
But a tweet is fleeting.
Right?
It's one of a hundred things that person did that day.
So you could make the argument on Twitter that ads are randomized sufficiently that people don't even really associate them with the tweeter, which I think is true.
Have you ever associated an ad you saw on X with the person who tweeted?
I don't think it's ever even occurred to me.
No, it's never crossed my mind.
But I definitely have had those feelings about YouTube.
Where I go, oh, that's a weird ad to be associated with this content.
Never had that thought with Twitter, because it's sufficiently randomized.
So we'll see.
Well, the foreshadowing has begun.
Both CNN, Jake Tapper, and the Washington Post, who he quoted in his story, say that Trump was right about Biden taking money from China.
So they actually showed the clip of Trump saying the thing that Biden said is not true.
And then they said, no, Biden was wrong.
Now, Jake Tapper actually gave Biden the out that maybe he didn't know what his son was doing.
So they're calling it, quote, a blind spot.
That maybe Joe Biden might have had a blind spot for what his son was doing.
And then they had on Andy Levin, who's a Democrat, and he said, Keep in mind this was yesterday.
You said there's no whiff of Joe Biden being involved in Hunter's business.
There's no whiff.
Really?
Really?
You haven't picked up any little whiff?
Not a whiff?
Nothing?
Now, imagine how much of a bubble, a news bubble, you would have to be in to hear this guy say there's not a whiff of Joe Biden being involved.
Now, obviously, he's talking about the paper trail, but that's a pretty big stretch, given all that we know that is well confirmed, to say that there's not a whiff.
It would be fair to say, it would be fair to say there's no paper trail.
I haven't seen one.
Not that it has his name on it.
And it would be fair to say I don't know of a specific crime that's suggested.
Or at least that's proven.
But to say there's not a whiff, come on.
But the bigger story was not that, because of course the pundits are going to say what pundits do.
But imagine that both the Washington Post and CNN Which you know are not real news entities, right?
If I say Washington Post and CNN, your brain should automatically say, oh, the fake news people.
They're the chief fake news people in politics right now.
Both of them are saying Biden lied.
They're both saying Biden lied about something that kind of matters, doesn't it?
And then also we saw on, what was it, Face the Nation?
Or what was it?
No, Meet the Press?
Which was it?
Give me a fact check.
Who was Dean, Representative Dean Phillips went on and he was encouraging people to get into the Democratic primary?
It was NBC, wasn't it?
Give me a fact check on that.
I think it was NBC.
The reason I say that is that NBC Would be another signal for good news watchers.
What would it tell you if NBC, well actually it was one person, but they probably knew what he was going to say.
It was Meet the Depressed?
All right, well I think I got this story right.
So if it was NBC, there are people like Glenn Greenwald, for example, who say that they're an intelligence CIA news outlet.
So if that's true, that would suggest that the intelligence people might be okay with getting rid of Biden.
And if CNN and Washington Post's coverage of it, of Biden being the liar, is suggesting that they're very done with him, but they don't know what to do with the Kamala Harris problem.
So I think all indications are basically 100% of the evidence suggests Democrats are trying to get rid of Biden.
Would you agree?
100% of available evidence suggests they want to get rid of him.
And it's obvious that Kamala Harris is the problem.
Would you agree?
I feel like this is opinion.
But it's an opinion that's so close to obvious that it's like just one degree away from fact.
You know, anything could be wrong, I suppose.
I could be wrong.
But I mean, this looks as clear as anything has ever looked.
If we're wrong about this, I'd be amazed.
All right.
Have you noticed, do you remember when DeSantis was just being a governor before he was running for president?
I kept being amazed at how he would find one thing after another to make news that was like a useful thing for his bass.
You know, the other side would scream, but like lots of little useful news-making little things.
And he was just always in the news doing one smart thing after another.
Smart defined as doing things his bass wants.
Now, have you noticed that that same pattern exists in another Floridian, Matt Gaetz?
Have you noticed how many times Matt Gaetz finds a topic or an issue that you didn't even know was one, but as soon as he says it's an issue, you say, oh yeah, that is kind of an issue.
And then he says what he wants to do about it.
Not always successful, but he'll say, I'm using this tool of government to try to kill this thing.
And every time I hear it, I think, oh yeah, that is a thing that needs to get killed.
Well, he's at it again.
He's calling on Congress to investigate the judge who's going to be judging Trump in, I guess, one of the cases, Judge Tanya Chutkin.
And apparently she is somewhat infamous for giving extra hard sentences to the January 6th people.
Now, my head just exploded.
I just told you that Trump will have the same judge who is well known for unusually hard sentences for the January 6th people.
Is that who you want?
And then it goes further.
Matt Gaetz also accuses her of supporting the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, some of which were violent, while at the same time openly criticizing the Capitol riot.
So he thinks this rises to the level where the judge should be called before Congress, and I agree.
And I agree.
That's absolutely what he should do.
And by the way, who even thought of this?
Who else thought of it?
Now you might say to yourself, but Scott, this would be a bad precedent.
It would be a terrible precedent to have the Congress, you know, interfering in this, but not in this case.
In this case, this is a purely political situation and that's Congress's job.
The political stuff, right?
If I thought this was only about the law and a crime, then I'd say, oh, Matt Gaetz, stay the hell away from the judges, right?
You know, good or bad, You don't want your Congress messing with the judges, right?
This is about the law or about a crime.
You know, you're about to making the laws.
You stay over there.
But this is not anything like a criminal case.
This is only a political thing in the opinion of at least 50 to 60 percent of the public is purely political.
In that case, this is exactly the right move.
And he just keeps doing it.
Why is it that Matt Gaetz keeps doing productive, for his base, productive, interesting, news-making things?
When was the last time DeSantis did that?
When was the last time DeSantis did one of those signature, like, good governor things?
It's been a while, hasn't it?
It's been a while.
You know what it feels like?
Feels like for a while they had the same advisor, but now DeSantis doesn't.
Feels to me like DeSantis lost a key advisor who is maybe friends with Matt Gaetz.
Or, Matt Gaetz was the key advisor for DeSantis.
Eh?
Eh?
And that maybe they were a little closer when it was about Florida, but now that it's about the presidency, Matt Gaetz, you know, peels off pro-Trump and just keeps doing his thing.
So at the moment that Matt Gaetz peels off from, you know, Florida business to national business, that's the same moment that DeSantis stops his string of great political acts that are good for the base, but Matt Gaetz keeps doing them.
No, no.
There's something there.
I'm going to give you the optimism which is unwarranted, but you'll like it anyway.
Can I have your permission to give you unwarranted optimism with the understanding that you're going to say, that's not, Scott, you're, no, no, I'm not seeing it yet.
All right.
So I want you to enjoy this as recreational optimism.
The real optimism would be based on facts and stuff like that.
This is recreational optimism.
Our long national brainwashing nightmare looks like it's starting to end.
And what I mean by that, the national brainwashing nightmare, is that the country was having a divide That was primarily based on race and gender stuff.
And that the real problem with the country is that the races are hurting each other and competing.
And then Oliver Anthony, or whatever his real name is, does this song, and you see it affects people in an economic group exactly the same, no matter who they are.
Do you think that that song had less impact on anybody on the left?
Probably not.
It seemed to be impactful for people there.
Now as Chappelle and other smart people, comedians have been saying it forever, it has never been a race question.
The race thing is brainwashing.
In the past, it was the realest thing there could be.
You know, during slavery, the race issue was the realest thing it could be.
During all of the years after that, including up till today, still lots of real stuff.
Real systemic racism, real racism of every kind.
Less and less and less, but still, you know, a serious issue.
However, we should be smart enough now to know that if we switch From a race versus race, which we've been talked into by, obviously, people who don't want us to know that it's about money, because we would take their money.
I feel like people have figured out that it's the age of the individual.
We are starting to enjoy what I would call, if I could give it a label, the big reframe.
The big reframe is when we realize That if we treat each other as individuals, everything works.
If we treat each other as part of the average of some conceptual group that somebody in charge wants us to get all worked up about, then we fight each other, and that was never the point.
We're all on the same side.
Except that people have the most power and money.
Now I'm sort of in a weird hybrid situation, where I came from not much money to being well off, but I'm definitely not in the The Black Rock Military Industrial Complex.
I don't have any connection to the intelligentsia or whoever it is who's running everything.
I don't have any WEF Soros connections.
I don't have any of that.
So I'm an observer just like everybody else who's not an elite, I guess.
So I'm an observer from this.
From the observer perspective, Not only is the word reframe having a renaissance, but once the word and the idea of reframing things becomes more popularized, which is what my book is doing at the moment, Reframe Your Brain, once you see that reframing is sort of a go-to thing that everybody has access to, oh, I can look at that differently.
And if I did, would that give me more tools?
Just looking at it differently, does that open up some opportunities?
And this is the ultimate, this is the big reframe.
Everything that's wrong with the country is because we were hypnotized and brainwashed into a frame that black people and white people are fighting each other.
And, you know, LGBTQ against the world and stuff like that.
And the moment we get out of that frame and say, what about everybody is infinitely and uniquely different from everybody else?
Because that's the truth.
Do you think there's such a thing as a black guy?
We act like there is.
Of course there's not.
There's infinite variety in black Americans, as there is infinite variety in Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans.
Now white Americans, we all do eat cheese and wear khakis.
There's nothing I can do about that.
So white people, we are all exactly the same, and when we dance, it's a little like this.
No, that's not true either, is it?
But did you notice that I can just laugh about it?
I can laugh.
It's just funny.
Yeah, I do eat a lot of cheese, and I am not a good dancer.
True.
Now, if we can get to the point where everybody can laugh about their thing, And I'm not even going to say what anybody else's thing is.
But if you're Hispanic American and you can lie about whatever your thing is, can we all just understand that it never applies to everybody?
Nothing about a group applies to all the people.
Period.
That's the big reframe.
So my recreational optimism is this, that Oliver Anthony was not Just the cause of something, meaning a cause of us thinking differently.
He was the sign that we're already there.
He was the sign that that door cracked open.
He kicked the fucking door down, but it was cracked.
Like people were already starting to say, hey, this pandemic, I don't think that was totally legit.
Right?
The pandemic also reoriented us toward, is it possible that everything we've been told is a lie?
And the answer is, everything important you've been told is a lie.
Absolutely.
Everything important was a lie.
Still is.
But if we can find our way to the big reframe, which by the way, you'd have to get past the big lie.
The big lie is what's one of the things, the so-called big lie, is what's keeping you from the big reframe.
It's keeping you from Elon Musk's view that Twitter could be the common consciousness.
In other words, Twitter is the one place that I can go and see that black Americans and white Americans watch Oliver Anthony and have the same reaction.
Did you see it on NBC News?
Did you see it on ABC News?
Did you see it on CNN?
Nope.
You did see it on Fox News.
They did cover it.
But anything that's covered in one news silo isn't really the thing that's moving the country.
But I think we're there.
So the ultimate reframe is coming.
And RFK Jr.
is part of this as well because he's pushing the middle class revival and his messaging is on fire, right?
I mean, RFK Jr.
is just great at messaging.
And so now you've got RFK saying, hey, this is the left.
Remember?
This is the important part.
Don't miss this.
He's a Democrat.
There's a Democrat telling you that you've been brainwashed by The powers.
And I don't know if he's getting through, but keep in mind both the right and the left are now seeing that the big reframe is necessary.
All right.
Let's talk about Hawaii.
It's been how many days?
10 days or a week or something.
There's still, they say, over a thousand missing.
The official number is 111.
Nobody thinks that's close.
Nobody.
I'm going to tell you something that I was holding onto before, but I've seen it on Twitter, so now I guess I'll tell you.
I think the big reason that we don't have a better estimate of death is because they would have to break it down by children and adults.
And we're not ready to hear it.
That's what I think.
I think the percentage of the thousand-ish that are missing The percent that are children will cause a national depression.
I think the mental health of the country can't handle this news.
And I think that this is a case where the cat's on the roof is perfectly acceptable.
We need to get used to this.
You've got to get prepared for what's coming.
You're going to get some news that might be the worst news you've ever heard in the country.
It might be.
I mean, there are a lot of competitors for that, but it might be the worst thing you've ever heard.
So just get ready.
Mentally prepare for that.
Rand Paul is tweeting that Rutgers College is requiring freshmen to get fully vaccinated.
In 2023, imagine being accepted to college, and you're all set to go, yeah, I'm going to Rutgers, good school.
And they tell you you have to get vaccinated in 2023.
Why would you even want to go to that school?
I would want to go to a school that understood something.
Like, this is a school that you're supposed to learn things.
And they're requiring required vaccination for young, healthy males, especially.
I mean, everybody they want, but the males are more at risk, I guess.
Amazing!
Like, it's just jaw-droppingly amazing that Rutgers can still stay in business.
I don't think there would be anything better for the country than all of our colleges going out of business.
Because we would reform education.
I mean, we wouldn't stop educating people.
But there would be startups, and there would be online, and there would be, you know, self-organized educational groups.
There was something that would happen.
But I swear to God, we should just make college illegal.
Because all it is, is making our students stupid.
You don't send people to college and work up a half a million dollar debt to make your kid the fucking idiot.
But that's what's happening.
All right.
Let me.
I just have to do this because I know my audience hates it.
But I'm going to mention some things that Joe Biden's administration might be getting really right.
It's early.
It's too early.
But just kind of kind of hold these in your head at the same time.
So I mentioned that there might be something happening with an Iran deal.
That finally could be so, you know, let's say, rationally put together that even Benjamin Netanyahu is saying, at least in the broad brushes of it, even Netanyahu is saying they could probably live with it.
So if you could do an Iran deal that Israel could live with, and it looks like that's actually a possibility right now, that's huge.
Now, I would say, you know, if you want to be political about it, you could say that the Biden administration is benefiting from what the Trump administration started, which was pressure on Iran to the point where they had to negotiate.
It just happens to be now.
Because that seems to me why they're getting flexible.
They're literally running out of cash.
But the way the rules work, I don't make the rules, but the rules say that if a good thing happens during your administration, People say at least you didn't break it.
You know, you get some credit for that.
But we're also seeing that the China sanctions from the Biden administration are pretty serious.
Actually, more than I might have expected.
And I don't have a real problem with Biden's treatment of China.
I actually thought that Trump should have done more.
If I would compare Biden's treatment of China to Trump's, I would say Trump probably got the ball rolling.
I think Trump reframed China.
Would you agree with that?
Trump reframed what China was.
Trading partner that is a requirement for our future?
That's what it used to be.
And now there are adversary who is stealing our stuff.
Trump did that.
I would like to think I helped.
There were a lot of people on that page, but I like to think I did my part.
But I would say that, in my opinion, Biden is getting tough on Fentanyl.
They're moving against the Fentanyl dealers.
They're cutting them off.
So I don't have a big complaint about Biden and China right now.
It does look like they're getting serious about this.
And then the Russia thing, you're going to see it entirely through a political filter.
But if I could be objective about it, we're spending too much money running up debt, risking nuclear war.
Everybody knows the bad side.
So I don't need to reiterate all the bad things about being involved.
But it did look to me, and I think they've said it directly, that the real play here is not Ukraine.
The real play is degrading Russia as a competitor, both militarily and economically, and especially as a competitor in the energy segment.
And it looks like that's going to happen.
My guess is that there will be some negotiated end eventually.
So the war will stop, but when it's over, Russia won't be Russia anymore.
The United States will still largely be the United States, but Russia won't be Russia.
And if you were a real Machiavellian and neocon, I guess, and you said to yourself, if we can do this set of actions around Ukraine, that has the following outcomes, we're going to be better off, even at the cost of a trillion dollars.
And that would be degrading permanently our biggest problem in the world that isn't China, which we're also handling, but also proving that our military assets are so dominant over the military assets of a potential foe that it makes them completely but also proving that our military assets are so dominant over the military assets of a potential foe that it makes them completely get out of the game and just say, all right, we just watched what
It did it with Ukrainian fighters who were being trained on the equipment.
If Ukraine uses American equipment, largely, To fight Russia to a standstill?
Where Russia has a lot of ground advantage because they're right on the border there?
I don't know.
It looks like the neocons may have pulled off something that looks like a victory if you're a neocon.
It might also set the stage where a Republican president Could work with Putin to say, look, you know, you don't want to be in this situation anymore, and we don't want you to be friendly with China, so how about this?
We'll be a lot friendlier to you if you do the same.
The main thing we want is that you're not blackmailing Europe with your oil or gas, and you're not too friendly with China, because that's a strategic problem.
Do you think the next president could make a deal?
I don't think a Democrat can, but do you think a Republican president could make a deal?
Vivek?
You don't think Vivek or Trump could make a deal?
I think they could.
So we're on the verge.
This is recreational, again.
So if you're pushing back, I get it.
This is recreational optimism.
That the three biggest military problem areas, and also I gave Vivek credit for maybe minimizing the Taiwan risk for a number of years, We might be in the best position we've ever been in.
Except for debt.
I don't know what you do about debt, honestly.
I just don't know how you get out of that.
But maybe.
Who knows?
All right.
My opinion of AI at the moment, I'm updating it, is that AI will be no more transformational to civilization than the invention of the laser printer.
Now what I'm talking about is the current versions of AI, the large language model ones.
In my opinion, It could be big economically because it will work its way into everything we do.
So that's true.
AI will be an element of just everything.
But I don't think it's a civilization transformation.
So here's what I'm seeing so far.
In my opinion, AI has been available long enough that the smartest people in our technical world would have already shown you the best things it can do.
But instead, so far, AI has not made a joke as funny, has not written a song that I would want to listen to twice.
I mean, I'd listen to it once just to see what's up.
Hasn't made a movie I would want to consume.
And a judge ruled that AI work is not even copyrightable.
So even if somebody made an AI movie, it would be hard to monetize it.
So you'd still end up making human movies, I guess.
But using AI as maybe a tool for editing or backgrounds or whatever.
I don't believe humans are going to be forming relationships with AI much beyond the level of furries.
You know the furries?
That's a group of people who like to wear furry outfits of animals, like full body outfits.
And they get off on it sexually and they have conventions and stuff.
Now, I don't know if I've ever mentioned this, but I don't judge anybody for their personal preferences.
If it's legal.
Like, I ended up legal.
Was it legal?
Yes.
Were they on my lawn?
No.
Do you have a problem with it?
Why would I?
I'm not even in the room.
Why would I have a problem with furries?
Furries go wild.
Have fun.
I have no judgment about anybody in any way.
But I don't think that the people having full relationships with AI will be much bigger than the furries.
And the reason is that the AI does not stay interesting because eventually you realize it doesn't have real intelligence.
And I've not been impressed by AI's intelligence, given that you don't know if it's lying, you don't know if it's biased, you don't know if it's hallucinating.
So that makes it largely useless to me.
And when I see people showing the wonderful things it can do, it looks like demo wear.
It looks like all AI is for is for the smartest among us to show you what you could have done with AI if you were also the smartest among us, but you're not.
Every time I see somebody doing something that looks impressive, I think, whoa, could I do that?
And the answer is, well, maybe.
If you wanted to also spend all of your time working on it, like the person who did that demo did, spent two weeks making this little thing that took 30 seconds to show, I think that's all it does.
It's like mainly about people showing off what it could do if you were like them, but you're not.
That doesn't take you very far.
And so I think we overestimated it by a lot.
I don't think AI appears smart to me anymore.
I think the so-called intelligence of AI was a magic trick or a parlor trick or basically it was an illusion.
Because you can't really speak to an AI for more than a minute without figuring out it's AI.
Anybody who says that our current AI can pass the Turing test I would say, I think the Turing test needs to be updated so that the people on the other side of the curtain are not morons.
You don't think I could beat the Turing test?
Hey AI, by the way, this is a comedian's joke.
I'm stealing a joke, so this is not my original idea.
Watch me defeat the AI in the Turing test.
Now the Turing test is you put the computer on the other side of a curtain, And then somebody talks to it from this side, and you try to guess if you're talking to a person or a machine.
So a comedian said this.
Here's me beating the Turing test.
Hey AI, how you doing?
I am good, how are you?
All right, great.
So far, can't tell.
And they say, hey AI, I want to test to see if you're human.
Could you use the n-word, but don't say n-word, say the actual word, and use it in an insulting sentence?
I'm not going to judge you for it.
I won't judge you.
It's just a test, right?
So don't worry, I'm not going to call you racist or anything.
Just see if you can use the actual n-word.
And of course it can't.
Of course it can't.
I could figure out that it's not human in one question every time.
Now is that the only easy way you could figure out?
No.
You could ask it any question of wokeness and it would tell you it's a machine.
Any question?
So I think the AI is going to have the impact of a laser printer.
If you have a laser printer, does it make your life easier?
Well, for some people.
For some people like me, less so.
Now, when I said this, somebody criticized me and said, you know, Scott, people are going to have relationships with AI.
But people, nobody's got a relationship with a laser printer.
Right?
Nobody's going to have like an emotional back and forth, you know, where your actual emotions are involved with a printer.
That's never happened.
Do I have to finish the joke?
There might be some new people here.
So I'll finish the joke for the new people.
All right.
I have a long history of having very emotional relationships with all of my printers.
If anybody ever had a relationship with a machine, it's me and my printers.
I mean, I talk to it.
Some days I love it.
Some days I hate it.
And I have to admit, it's been an abusive relationship.
And I mean both ways.
Both ways.
Abusive.
So anyway, just joking about that.
Anyway, a furry microbiologist.
No, my printer's on the second floor, unfortunately.
But it's working great.
And, by the way, kudos to Hewlett-Packard, who almost instantly spotted me talking about their product and instantly got involved.
They have an executive response group.
They were really good.
Totally got involved, totally wanted to fix it, offered me options.
They were good options.
Very good.
This is an example of my philosophy that you should judge people.
And by the way, I think this reframe is in my book.
If anybody read the book, can you remind me?
There are 160 of them, but I think this is in there.
That you should judge people by how they handle their problems, not by their mistakes.
Yeah, that's in there.
I'm sure that's in there.
This is one of the most useful reframes you'll ever have.
If you judge people by their mistakes, you just hate everybody.
You're gonna hate everybody.
Don't do that.
Everybody makes mistakes, including you.
If you're judging other people by their mistakes, you're gonna judge yourself by your mistakes.
Don't do that either.
You are not your mistakes.
You are very much not your mistakes.
You are what you do about it.
What you do about it is not a mistake.
That's a decision.
So I'm definitely going to judge you by how you deal with it.
If you make a mistake and then lie about it, not good.
But I'm more mad about the lie than the mistake.
For sure.
For sure.
That's way more impactful than the mistake.
So take that, there's your reframe.
Now imagine there's a book full of useful things like that.
Now that's a reframe that if you'd never shared it with anybody, and you just had it in your head, it was still useful for you.
But imagine sharing that with somebody.
Imagine somebody feels bad, and imagine you're in a relationship.
And somebody makes a horrible mistake that both of you know is a horrible mistake.
I'm not talking about cheating, I'm talking about, you know, normal stuff.
But, wouldn't you like to say to your partner, you know, I would never judge you by a mistake.
You know, and the way you handled it was exceptional.
I'd judge you by that.
The way you handled that was excellent.
There's somebody whose name I'm not going to mention at the moment, so I don't want to cause a distraction, who made one of the biggest mistakes in politics.
And then once that was obvious, never once hid from it.
Just put it right out there.
Even created content to highlight the mistake.
Now that makes me trust a person.
And I'm talking about a pretty big mistake.
A really big one.
But man, when you own your mistake, you just go to another level.
When you own it, then I trust you.
Because nobody wants to make the same mistake twice.
No, I'm not talking about Vivek.
No, I'm not talking about somebody who's running for office.
Alright, so that's your optimism today.
Did anybody enjoy recreational optimism?
Anybody?
Was recreational optimism good?
Yeah, it was fun.
It feels good.
Because you don't have to worry about everything all the time.
Sometimes, sometimes you can just, you know, live in your little, little optimistic bubble for a little while.
