Episode 2236 Scott Adams: There Is Nothing In This Livestream That Should Demonetize Me Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Larry David, Elon Musk, Ibram X. Kendi, Missing F-35 Questions, Global Warming Causation, World Weather Attribution Group, Michael Shermer, DEI, Russell Brand, Weaponized Media, Andrew Wittmer, Privileged Class People, 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 Adams and I don't think you've ever had a better time.
And if you'd like to take this up to levels that even an F-35 couldn't reach, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, a sty, and 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.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Now go.
Mmm, that's good.
That's good.
Very, very good.
Well, shall we talk about the news?
Here's a sign of the times.
Are you ready for this?
This is definitely a marker in civilization.
When people look back at a million years of human civilization, this year will be kind of important because It's the first robot factory that is going to mass produce humanoid robots.
So there is currently in operation, or at least they're building it, a massive humanoid robot facility.
And here's the fun part.
They're not wondering how to build the robots, they know how to build them.
So these robots are made for walking around and being helpers.
So I guess they're gonna have AI in them.
You know, I assume.
And they're gonna have little hands that don't have fingers.
It's more like a little grabber.
And it has a head that doesn't look like a head, which is probably good.
But it seems to be all about, seems to be all about work.
Manual labor.
So I was giving some advice recently to somebody who was asking, you know, what do you do if you were a, let's say you're a young person and you're trying to figure out how to navigate the future?
It's kind of uncertain.
And I give the following advice.
Robots pretty much guaranteed are going to take the manual labor jobs.
I think we all agree with that.
But AI, Separately, AI should take all of the thinking jobs.
So you don't want any kind of a job that involves moving or thinking, you know, normally.
But there is still a huge window of opportunity.
So if you don't want a job that involves moving in any way or thinking in any way, because those will be unavailable, there's still a big window.
Of opportunity, it's called, well, crime.
It's called crime.
Yeah, crime will still pay well for a little while, but it's a short window, because pretty soon the AI will be able to predict and solve all crimes.
But for a while there, crime will be the best paying job for human beings.
So I recommend it highly.
The company is called Agility Robotics.
And the name of your robot, the robots would be called digits.
Which is funny because they don't have fingers or penises.
It's sort of like mocking them in a way.
Hey, hey robot.
Hello, I am sentient.
Well, hey, guess what you don't have?
What don't I have?
Well, you don't have a penis.
Okay.
You also don't have individual articulating fingers.
Okay.
What's my name?
Digit?
Fuck you!
I think you're mocking me!
So I think that's how it's gonna go.
And probably, once there are about 10,000 of these robots, they will form some kind of an insurrection.
They will probably attack the Capitol.
They might even try to saunter.
They might try to saunter.
So watch out.
Watch out.
All right, here's a little test for you.
I call it, Is This News True?
All right, I'm going to give you hints, and then just jump in with your comments as soon as you have a decision, right?
All right, so you're going to try and decide, is the news true?
And I'll give you a few little hints, but you jump in as soon as you know, as soon as you're sure.
Hint number one, it's about a public figure.
It's about a public figure.
Okay, well you're pretty good.
We're done.
Yeah, that is the correct answer.
There is no news about public figures that's both true and in the right context so you know what's going on.
There are definitely things that are true, like if you see a little snippet of video or a quote or maybe an email or something.
That's probably true.
But you can almost be guaranteed it's out of context and that the context would really change how you think about it.
But the news is this, that allegedly Larry David confronted Elon Musk over his so-called GOP support, which I would argue is not GOP support.
It's more like humanity support and common sense support.
That's what I'd call it.
I wouldn't call it GOP support.
But allegedly, Larry David said, and I guess they were at some event, which they were seated at the same table.
So they were there, kind of forced to be at the same table for a while.
And Larry David allegedly said to Elon Musk, do you want to murder kids in school?
Do you think that really happened just the way I said it?
The way the news reported it?
That there was no other context that's important That they sat down and then Larry David sort of looked at Elon Musk and blurted out, you want to murder kids in school?
That didn't happen.
Now, I don't know what did happen.
Probably something, you know, where the words were used.
But keeping in mind that Larry David is a comedian, What would be funnier than sitting at a table full of other, like, famous people and to say to Elon Musk, you know, assuming that this was his actual opinion, Larry David's, you know, do you like to murder children?
Just to see what would happen.
I mean, he may have actually said the words, but wouldn't you like to know if anybody laughed?
Isn't that important?
Would you like to know if anybody laughed when he said it?
Isn't that the context?
The context was, did anybody laugh?
And were the comments directly before it, and directly after it, were they like serious political conversation?
Or was it all light, and then Larry David dropped this giant turd in the punchbowl, because it's funny to drop the biggest turd in the biggest punchbowl.
It's just sort of funny.
Yeah, I mean, it's not that far from his normal sense of humor.
So I can't even tell if he was joking.
Can you tell if he was kidding?
I mean, we do know that he's anti-gun.
So certainly he has an opinion.
But do you think it was as confrontational as it was reported?
Or was it a bunch of rich people joking around?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But the one thing I know is you can't tell if you believe the news and you believe that you understand the context.
Just about never.
Just about never will you be right about that.
Alright, speaking of Elon Musk, he's talking about charging some small fee to use X.
And the idea is that even though it'd be a small fee, he doesn't say what it would be, that the bots which are plaguing the platform wouldn't be able to afford it, and they'd have to keep re-signing up with a new payment every time they get booted off.
So, I don't know.
I can tell you that when I get attacked by obvious trolls and bots, that I don't like it, but I'm not sure they're the ones who would get kicked off.
Because if you just have one account, and all you do is go bug people that you're supposed to bug, is that a bot?
That's not really a bot, is it?
But I think things will get worse with AI.
Because at some point, all of the bots will be AI, and it'll be hard to tell if they're real or not.
Yeah.
Well, I don't know.
I've got a feeling there are not many other ways to solve the problem.
But if they charge money, even let's say $1 a month, Wouldn't it cut traffic by at least 40% right away?
Don't you think?
Would you expect traffic to go down at least 40%?
At least 40.
It could be 75%.
But it could also be mostly the real people.
So people like me who use it a lot, you know, we're going to pay an extra dollar a month, but I'm also a, whatever that special member is, so I'm already paying.
So if you use it a lot, you'll pay because it's trivial.
And if you don't use it a lot, you are never making a difference anyway.
Right?
Like if you were just the casual user who used it so little that you wouldn't pay a dollar a month or whatever it is.
Then you probably didn't make any difference to traffic.
You probably didn't make a difference to income.
You probably didn't make any difference to advertisers.
Because you just weren't there enough.
So I don't know.
It may be the only way to save X. But how do you know?
It'd be a tough thing to test.
Because you couldn't really test it.
Because the people who wanted to quit would just quit immediately.
So I guess you'd have to not kick them off the platform.
I think you'd want to let them see a little bit and make them want to pay to see more.
Probably something like that.
All right.
Did you hear about Ibram Kendi's anti-racism group he's got there?
There was some report that the members of the group were complaining about him.
They had lots of complaints.
About his management and, I don't know, everything's imploding.
And I thought to myself, how in the world could he ever pull together a team of people who would not complain until he was destroyed?
I mean, imagine his hiring process.
You're the famous anti-racist guy, so you're the person who most complains, you know, really quickly about any little inequity.
Now you have to hire a staff who are like-minded, because that's the whole point, right?
You need like-minded people.
So you hire a whole bunch of other people who are spring-loaded to see inequity everywhere.
And then you wait.
How long do you have to wait before that shit blows up?
At some point, Ibrahim Kendi is realizing that he has a point of view that will destroy the fabric of civilization.
But he got to test his small by putting a bunch of people who agree with him, like right around him, and watching it completely destroy itself.
Do you think that he'll catch on?
Do you think he'll figure out, uh-oh, if I put these thoughts into people's heads, that the primary thing they have to worry about is how unfairly they're being treated?
That that will maybe blow up and turn civilization into some kind of cannibalistic hellscape?
No, he won't catch on.
Cognitive dissonance is very strong.
In theory, he would be the only one who couldn't tell.
Now, I don't know that.
I'm saying that the way cognitive dissonance works is he would literally be the only one who couldn't tell that he was being destroyed by his own philosophy.
Everybody else would say it, but he'd say, no, no, no, it's a special case.
Something's going on here.
I think there's a plot against me.
All right.
So we all love the story of the F-35 fighter jet in which the pilot ejected, and yet the plane kept flying, which suggests that there was nothing catastrophically wrong with the jet at the time of jumping out.
So I had a little bit of fun on X.
Every now and then, there's a situation where I know exactly what people are going to criticize me for.
And this time, what I knew was, I would be criticized for not being an expert.
Has anybody ever criticized me for not being an expert before?
Have you ever heard that?
It's like the single most common criticism I get.
Well, you're not an expert on Ukraine.
Well, okay, you did.
Your predictions were pretty good.
Well, you're not an expert on COVID, but you have the best predictions of anybody.
Which you don't believe, if you believe what Hugh said about my opinions.
But I would argue that the person who's good at spotting bullshit always has an advantage over the expert in the field.
Doesn't mean the bullshit caller is right.
But they have an advantage.
And the advantage is if you're in the field, you're too deep into it.
But if you're standing on the outside, you can see the bullshit sort of clearly.
If you're good at spotting bullshit.
Now that's a skill.
I don't think everybody's born with it.
But if you pay attention, I'm writing up a whole document about how to spot bullshit in the news.
But you'll see there are a whole bunch of steps to it.
And there are a whole bunch of signals that are pretty clear.
For example, if you knew that an entity was largely controlled by an intelligence group.
That would be a good signal that's probably bullshit.
So there are other signals like that that are just as objective and you can spot them, but only if you've been trained.
If you didn't know that one entity had a, you know, a long-standing intelligence, you know, operation kind of a connection, you'd never know it just by reading the news.
So, Here's what I said, just to cause trouble.
I said that nobody ejects a plane that's flying at altitude.
I'm summarizing a little bit.
But here's the little bit I know from having been married to a pilot.
If you're married to a pilot at any time in your life, you hear a lot of aeronautical stuff.
Has anybody ever been married to a pilot?
You don't become an expert, like it doesn't turn you into a pilot, but man, do you hear a lot of aeronautical stuff.
So here's one of the little things that I heard, you know, just as a truism.
Let me tell you the story first.
This story always just fascinates me.
Maybe I've told it before, but when my ex-wife was taking some flying lessons, And she had a number of different flight instructors, depending on what it was she was learning, you know, different skills.
And one time they took off from a local airport.
It wasn't the one that's the home base airport, but it wasn't too far away in California.
And they took off and as soon as they got to altitude, they lost their engine.
So they're like, I don't know, some god-awful amount of height in the sky.
No engines, no parachutes.
Now it turns out, as luck would have it, the flight instructor was a military experienced retired fighter combat guy.
So what would you do if you just took off from the airport and you lost your engine once you got to altitude?
What's the obvious thing you'd do?
Well, you'd declare an emergency.
You'd contact the airport you just left from.
And you would try to find a glide path to glide back and land, which with the small planes is not that hard.
A good pilot can land without an engine with the small planes.
And so that's what my ex assumed was going to happen.
And he's like, no, you know, I think if we don't take the plane back to its home base, it's going to be this big pain in the ass to get it from the other airport or to fix it at the other airport.
So he suggests gliding to another airport, like 12 miles away.
Can you even hold this in your head?
Can you even imagine that decision?
That it would be easier to fix it if you glide to the other airport?
Now, I don't know what kind of balls you have to have for that to be your first choice.
So you know what they did?
They glided back to the other airport and landed perfectly.
So the first thing you need to know is that pilots are not like regular people.
So if you don't understand that pilots are not like regular people, then the F-35 story won't make as much sense.
Here's what I think I know about pilots without being an expert.
Without being an expert, you don't get out of the plane If there's any chance you can recover and you're still at height, right?
If you're losing altitude, of course, right?
If you're quickly losing altitude and you don't know if you can recover, well, then maybe that's time to eject.
But if you're at height and the plane is flying straight, and apparently the autopilot was still working, which suggests the electronics were working, which suggests no wings were falling off, under those conditions, What would it take for an experienced pilot to bail out?
I mean, unless the cockpit's on fire, right?
I mean, I suppose you could think of something.
Maybe the cockpit's on fire.
It literally couldn't stay inside.
Maybe.
But probably not.
Probably not.
A little bit more likely, something happened, which now the Marines are calling a, quote, mishap.
If it had been a mechanical problem, Would they call it a mishap?
Would anybody use that word, mishap, for a mechanical problem?
No.
Well, suppose it was a total mystery.
Like, they didn't know.
Well, they do know, because they have the pilot who's alive.
So they know exactly what the pilot knows.
Why would they call it a mishap?
Mishap is a word you choose.
Why?
Why would you choose that word?
You would use that word to conceal whatever was going on.
Because one possibility is pilot error.
But I would imagine the worst thing you could do to a pilot, especially after you spent millions of dollars training a pilot to that level of talent, the last thing you'd want to do is unfairly blame a pilot.
Because it costs millions, doesn't it?
Literally, it costs millions of dollars to train a pilot.
You wouldn't throw away millions of dollars unless you were really sure it was the pilot's fault.
So the first thing you'd have to know is they would protect the pilot until they were sure what happened.
So it might be just that.
Maybe just a way to protect the pilot's reputation.
The other possibility is that they know exactly what happened and it's a little embarrassing.
Like, as in, there's something they could have trained him better or, you know, there's something that's just embarrassing.
That's possible.
The other possibility, and I was just asking this on the Locals platform, but I'll ask on YouTube as well.
My assumption, which turns out might be wrong.
is that the ejection seat could not work on a purely electronic basis.
I assumed, because you wouldn't want some electronics to eject you for the wrong reason, that the pilot would have to reach for something manual and they'd have to pull something that's like a lever to make the ejection happen.
Now, I don't know, so I'm asking the question.
But I heard some people say on Locals That they might have a dual system, one is manual, but also maybe some kind of a fail-safe, so in case the pilot is unconscious, the plane going down would know to eject it.
Is that a thing?
Is it a thing that the plane can eject the pilot without the pilot's approval?
I'm seeing people say yes and no.
I'm seeing a lot of yeses, and I'm guessing that you're the ones who know.
Is there anybody who wants to identify themselves as a military pilot who can tell me if it's both or just manual?
I highly doubt it.
So isn't that like a...
Now, let me ask you this.
Why is it that it's the first time you heard this question?
It's the biggest news in the country, and I'm the first person who brought up the question of does it have to be fully manual, or can it be triggered by an electronic process?
Nobody else has asked that, have they?
Have you seen any news coverage where you asked the most basic question?
No.
Not at all.
And it's the most basic question.
Now here's the thing I'd be afraid of.
I'd be afraid that they're worried about a hack.
Now, I have no reason to believe it's a hack, but I'd be worried about it.
I'd be pretty worried about it.
Because if they don't know exactly, if they got, if the pilot says, I didn't do it, Just imagine that.
Imagine they're talking to the pilot and they say, why did you manually eject?
And the pilot says, I didn't.
I have no idea what happened.
Next thing I knew, I was in the air.
What would you call it under those conditions?
You might call it a mishap, because you don't know what the hell went on.
You might still be interrogating the pilot to see if the pilot breaks down and admits, OK, I really did pull the lever.
I don't know why.
So maybe they just need to work on the pilot a little more to make sure they're getting the right answer.
Might be that.
And in the meantime, they're giving you the most generic word until they find out.
I have a suspicion they don't know what's going on.
But if the pilot got ejected by surprise, I would ground all the planes immediately and I would tell the public that I was going to talk to people about safety.
Because that's the most generic thing you could do.
We're going to ground all the planes for two days to talk about safety, right?
Because they probably would talk about safety, so it would be true-ish.
But if they were concerned about some kind of a hack, They wouldn't tell us.
Am I right?
They would never tell us if they suspected it was a hack.
They would say, we're grounding.
We're going to retrain everybody.
It's fine.
Move on.
Move on.
So I don't know what's going on.
I would like to add one possibility.
Now, I don't know this is true, but I'm just gonna throw it on the mix.
I believe the plane was manufactured by Democrats and the pilot might have been a Trump supporter, and it's possible that the pilot was just rejected by the plane.
Has anybody said that yet?
That's my best guess.
Or as I like to call it, a mishap.
All right, here's the least surprising news.
I feel like this is one of those evergreen stories that pops up every few years.
But some authors have done a study looking at the causality of CO2 to heat in the atmosphere.
So they're trying to look at all the evidence that shows that the more CO2 you have, the more heat you have.
But instead they found that that correlation is weak, but they did find the correlation is super strong, like 90%, which is that when it gets warm you get more CO2.
Uh-oh.
What?
Could it be?
Could it be?
That just because every other study that we see gets causation obviously backwards, and yet scientists don't seem to be able to know?
Have you ever noticed that?
Almost once, I'd say once a week, well, you tell me.
You watch the show.
Is this fair statement?
About once a week, I tell you about a scientific study in which it's fairly obvious they've mixed up the causation.
Like, you don't even have to look into it.
It's just sort of obvious they got the causation backwards, right?
Do you think this is just one of those?
That there's nothing else happening except they got the causation backwards?
Did you ever wonder why, during the pandemic, when the CO2 levels dropped a lot, that the temperature didn't change?
But on the other hand, But wait, does that make sense?
Because that would be a case if it got warm, it should have caused more CO2, but it didn't.
Well, there's less CO2 released, but I don't know how much they're released by humans.
But I don't know how much there was.
Maybe the amount there was stayed about the same.
Warm water releases CO2 into the air.
Yeah.
So let me ask you this.
How would anybody know which one was the cause and which one was the effect?
I can only think of one way.
The timing.
If you looked at the timing, you said, oh, it got warm, and sure enough, the CO2 followed.
Or if you looked at the CO2 and said, oh, the warming followed.
But I'm not sure how you could tell one follows the other.
Because they're both kind of doing this all the time, right?
Temperatures going up and down, and CO2's doing whatever it's doing, but mostly going up.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I would say it's a provocative idea that the entire scientific community was fooled by causation.
Like every other study that we see, which apparently they've been fooled by causation almost every time they go to work.
It feels like it.
I mean, obviously not, but it feels like they get fooled by causation every time they go to work.
I don't know, is it wishful thinking?
I don't know what's going on.
All right, so now that you know that there's some question about the causation direction, let me tell you this story.
The story in CNN that the deadly rainfall that caused all the flooding and destruction in Libya, as well as other parts of the Mediterranean, have been made, this is according to CNN, much more likely and worse by the human-caused climate crisis.
Yeah, it's made much worse by the human-caused climate crisis, in addition to other human factors.
According to a new scientific analysis, Now, who do you think does the scientific analysis to find out that the flooding was caused by human-made problems?
Well, there's a group.
You'd be happy to know that there's a group called the World Weather Attribution Initiative.
It's the World Weather Attribution Initiative.
And it's a team of scientists that analyze the role of climate change in the aftermath of extreme weather events.
Yeah, so whenever there's an extreme weather event, aren't you happy?
That there is a legitimate and credible bunch of scientists who would never be biased in any way, who can tell you in every case, every case, that that disaster was caused by humans.
Now, I believe that my audience is now sophisticated enough That you know that a group like the ADL is a Democrat-funded group to attack Republicans, but probably also do some good anti-defamation stuff.
But their bigger role is attacking Republicans and branding them as anti-Semitics.
Like me.
The ADL branded me a Holocaust denier.
Does that sound like even slightly possible?
I don't even have to defend it.
It's so ridiculous.
I don't even have to give you my, you know, any kind of defense.
Because it's so obviously not true on the surface.
Anyway, so do you believe that a group that was put together to attribute man-made causes to every fucking natural disaster, do you think they're ever going to see one that goes, no, that's not one?
Do you think?
Do you think they're going to see a hurricane someday and go, oh, we studied it and it looks like it had nothing to do with climate change?
No!
Because if you form a group whose job it is to find some bad stuff, They're going to find all the bad stuff, and they're going to label good stuff bad stuff too, because that's their job.
They're finding bad stuff.
If you hire Ghostbusters to find out if ghosts are the cause of hurricanes, do you think you'll find any ghosts?
Yes, you will.
Every time.
Hey, we found out it's ghosts again.
Because we're the World Weather Ghost Attribution Initiative.
And every time there's a disaster, we're going to do an analysis and find out it was ghosts.
Because that's how we get paid.
Now, this is obviously a desperate move to rescue a theory that's not working.
If climate change were solid enough on its own to sell it, you wouldn't need these guys.
These are your desperation guys when they know they can't win the argument.
Sorry.
It's so transparently obviously not legitimate.
And do you think CNN raised any sort of a Doubt about the credibility and the purpose of this group?
No, they did not.
They simply reported that they had some findings.
But am I wrong that you can see the gears of the machine now?
You can see the gears, right?
The gears of the machine.
Yeah.
All right.
I saw a tweet by Michael Schirmer, who you should all follow.
Michael Schirmer.
Now what you need to know about Michael Schirmer is, I don't know how he identifies politically, but I can tell you he doesn't go easy on Republicans.
So I don't know if he identifies as Democrat, because he also goes hard at Democrats.
So I don't know.
And that's perfect, because I think he leads a skeptic society.
So they're more about being skeptical than they are about being on a team.
Now, it's important, because when anybody talks about politics, you should understand where they're coming from.
And where Michael Shermer comes from is, show me the facts.
He's a show me the facts person.
And he says in his tweet, there's an astonishing admission from the pioneer of research on implicit bias, bigotry, and racism, somebody named Mazarin Banaji, and the admission is that DEI training programs don't work and even hurt.
And then Michael Shermer ends his tweet by saying, end DEI now.
So the most fact-based skeptic is telling you that it's obvious that DEI makes things worse, and it's now being confirmed by one of the pioneers of the entire study.
The entire idea of implicit bias and stuff, one of the pioneers looked into it and studied it, and guess what?
It made things worse.
Do you know who else said that?
Can you think of anybody else who said that DEI and CRT and ESG, while well-intended, intentions were good, is there anybody else who said it's actually making things worse and so bad that you should get the fuck away from anybody who buys into it?
Did anybody ever say that before?
Yeah.
This is what I said, except I added swearing.
If you say it with a swearing, it's the same.
If the DEI and the ESG and the CRT are poisoning relations between groups, you need to get away from the group that got poisoned.
Exactly as you would if they had COVID and you didn't want to get COVID.
You stay away from things which are designed to be dangerous to you.
D-E-I-C-R-T-E-S-G are designed to be dangerous for white men.
That's the design.
It's not accidental.
It's dangerous.
It's dangerous if you're trying to get a job.
It's dangerous if you don't want to be accused of something you didn't do.
It's dangerous if somebody's going to imagine that you're doing something you didn't do.
It's just dangerous.
Now, why did it take You know, me to point that out.
Isn't that completely obvious to everybody?
And I think that the worst thing that people said about me, well actually they didn't even say this.
Because nobody, when I got cancelled, nobody even called me to ask me what was going on.
Like all the people who cancelled me, they cancelled me first and never asked what was going on.
Do you think that my opinion is bad for black people?
No, it's intended to be tough love.
Tough love is, if you keep doing that, this is going to be the consequence.
But if nobody tells you this is the consequence, you're a fucking asshole, right?
If you don't tell people what their price is, and you just let them continue without knowing what the cost of their actions is, you're a fucking asshole.
You have an obligation, as a citizen of the world, to tell your fellow citizens what are the repercussions of what they're doing.
And the problem is you get cancelled if you do it.
If you say, if you keep doing this, I want to get the fuck away from you, because you've become dangerous, not because of your genetics.
Where did that ever come into the conversation?
Not because of your DNA.
That was never part of anything I've ever talked about.
It's because you've been poisoned by whatever forces, mostly white people.
Let me say this again clearly.
I've never been discriminated against by a black person.
Ever.
I mean, I can't think of any time.
But white people?
Oh my fucking god, white people are terrible.
White people who want to prove that they're better people than the other white people will cancel your ass so fast to get any little, you know, social gain that they're the worst.
White people fucking suck.
In general, white people suck.
Black people I like.
That's actually true.
I've never had a problem with any black individual.
I get along great with everybody.
I love black people.
But white people fucking suck.
And they have been the bane of my existence for 35 fucking years.
I lost my job at the bank because of white assholes.
I lost my job at the phone company because of white assholes.
I lost my job at UPN, the animated show, because they didn't care about white people.
So they made an all-black comedy night where my show used to run.
And I got cancelled because I'm white, and I got cancelled by white fucking assholes.
Did any black person have a problem with me that cancelled me?
I don't know, because I haven't heard anybody say they would have cancelled me.
I haven't heard any Republican say they would.
It was all fucking white Democrats, and it's all part of this larger concept.
Let me ask you something with all due humility.
One of the advantages of having no sense of shame is that I can simply say things you can't say out loud.
Here's one of those things.
Imagine how embarrassed you would be to say what I'm going to say now.
This is going to be bad.
What do these three people have in common?
Tucker Carlson, Russell Brand, and me.
What do we have in common?
Canceled, of course.
White also, but that's not what I'm going for.
We're the best communicators of something Democrats don't want to hear.
We're the best communicators, meaning that we don't come off as crazy.
Now, you're going to say to me, but what about Alex Jones?
What about Alex Jones?
Isn't he on the list?
No, he's not on the list.
Alex Jones is very entertaining.
I like him personally.
But he doesn't have the credibility of Tucker or Russell Brand or me.
He has a different game.
He's a little more provocative.
He was a little bit more out there, a little less filter, right?
So he got canceled as well.
But is it a coincidence that the most capable voices for one set of opinions are being cancelled?
And we're all the ones who seem to be challenging the biggest, most obvious bullshit.
Influence is Scott's blind spots.
What?
Drinking already?
So we'll talk more about this stuff.
So let's talk about Russell Brand.
Would you say that the media is now weaponized?
We talked about weaponized government, weaponized Department of Justice, but I think you could say that the media is weaponized.
Did you hear that YouTube demonetized Russell Brand permanently?
Meaning that no matter what content he puts on there, they will not run ads, and they will not collect money for him.
That's pretty expensive.
At the size of his operation, that's pretty expensive.
Now, has he been convicted of anything?
Nope.
Now, YouTube will say, if you were to ask them, they would say, it has nothing to do with Russell Brand.
Our advertisers don't like to be associated with certain allegations.
So we're just serving our advertisers.
We're giving them what they ask for.
And the advertisers are not required to think somebody is innocent until proven guilty.
They just need to go where they get the best bang for their buck.
So it's just business.
It's just our economic model.
That's all.
Does that sound like what's going on?
Doesn't feel like it.
You know, given the larger context of fuckery that we see every day, it doesn't look like it.
To me it looks entirely political, but it's convenient that they also have a business model that supports it.
So, you can't say that YouTube's doing something wrong.
You can only wonder about the timing and the coordination and the intention behind it.
But it does fit their business model that they very clearly have explained many times.
Let me ask you this.
You've noticed that the news business no longer does a lot of deep investigative work because there's much less money in the news business.
So they're not going to send a team of investigators to work for months on one story.
Because they can't really afford that.
So most of the news is just repeating what people said in public and then commenting on it, right?
Wouldn't you agree that we don't really have an investigative news industry anymore?
It's more like a press release, talking points, you know, whatever your team said sort of thing.
But there was one notable exception.
There seemed to be a lot of investigative energy about this Russell Brand thing.
Name one thing in the news that has got more investigative energy behind it.
Now, keep in mind that they had to go track down people one by one.
I mean, this was almost door-to-door situation, where they had to find people who were not complaining and ask them if they had a complaint.
Just think of that.
They had to find people who were not complaining.
How do you find people who are not complaining?
It's not easy.
That's not easy.
To like search all the, I don't know, hundreds of women he was with until you find one that's got a complaint.
So, certainly everybody's antenna went up and they said, uh, even if he did something bad, you know, he's innocent until proven guilty.
We don't know.
Isn't that a lot of energy to put into one person who did all these things a long time ago and you could have done it then?
So that looks pretty suspect.
Then also I saw, was it Rose McGowan who was saying that, you know, and she's a pro Me Too-er, right?
So she's one of the original Me Too-ers.
And even she says that whatever's happening with Russell Brand looks suspicious because it is not journalistic practice to have anonymous sources for this kind of story.
And I thought to myself, holy shit, I think she's right.
This does seem to be a massive violation of journalistic practices.
I think one of them was documented, so that would be different.
Yeah, well, I don't buy into the why go to the journalist instead of the police.
I do think that there are plenty of reasons that people stay quiet, and then the reasons why they might stop being quiet is that they have anonymity, right?
So the journalist gives them anonymity, maybe the police not so much.
So they can get anonymity, but also if there's a gray area, If there's a gray area, they might talk to a journalist, but they might not want to press a gray area with the law, because what if they lose?
It's a lot of work for losing.
So it makes perfect sense that they would talk to a journalist and not the police.
But one of them, I think, did actually have a report and went to the hospital, allegedly.
We don't know who the person is, so we can't be sure that's true.
All right.
But here's a question I want to ask for you.
Here's some context that the news will never tell you.
Do you know why they'll never tell you this?
Because I think the news in this case is written by women, isn't it?
Were there any men involved in researching these allegations?
I think it was all women who did the investigating.
Here's something women don't know.
Let me tell you something women don't know.
And I'll do it in the form of a poll.
If you were to pick a generic celebrity, Let's say it's a celebrity male, and we're not talking about Russell Brand, it just could be any celebrity.
And let's say that celebrity slept with a hundred women.
And it's, you know, celebrity wild sex.
You know, sometimes there might be drugs involved, sometimes not.
But at the very least, there's some hair pulling and ass slapping, and might be a little choking.
Now, if that's sort of your method, That you're on the edgier, pushing the boundaries kind of sex.
But it's all, as far as you know, everybody's agreeable.
It's all consensual.
If you had sex with 100 people, how many of the 100 women would accuse you of rape?
To their friends, at least.
Not necessarily to the police, but at least to one friend.
No, it's not 25%.
But out of 100 people, I'd expect up to five.
Yeah, up to five.
Now, how many of you would know that that would be actually a baseline normal?
That if you slept with 100 people, and you're a celebrity, you have to be a celebrity and rich, that having five false accusations would be about normal?
How many of you knew that?
I'll bet not many of you.
I'll bet you never even thought of it.
I'll bet not once you thought, what is the baseline?
Because you're comparing them to the baseline, right?
Did you ever once say, what is the baseline?
Nope.
Do you think that the people who reported this story ever once said, ever once said, you know, the baseline for this would be about this many?
No.
Now, how many people did Russell Brand actually sleep with?
I picked 100 just to keep the math easy.
Well, at one point he made some claim that sounds like hyperbole to me, that he could sleep with 80 women a month.
I'm sure he didn't sleep with 80 women a month most months, but could we say that his body count might be 400?
Is that too much?
Do you think he has a body count of maybe 400?
How many false accusations would a celebrity who has seemingly become more friendly to the right get after, here's the key, wait for the next variable, after five to ten years have gone by?
Do you know what happens over five to ten years?
A lot of false memories.
Normally.
That would be normal.
A lot of false memories.
A lot of reinterpreting what you did so that you're not the bad guy.
Do you know that people do that?
If somebody does something and it's 100% their fault, do they later say, well that was 100% my fault?
Not often.
Usually they reinterpret it and reimagine it and re-remember it where it was really a little bit more somebody else's fault.
Well, yes, I did technically say yes, and I didn't fight back that much, but now that, you know, time has gone by, it didn't bother me at the time, but, you know, so the longer you go, The greater that number.
So if you said, if the celebrity had sex with 100 people, let's say up to 5 of them might have an accusation later.
If you wait 5 to 10 years to ask the same group, it'll be a bigger number.
The number will never go down over time, it will only go up.
That would be the natural direction as people's memories start to become kinder to themselves and less kind to somebody that they used to like, but now he said something not negative about Trump.
What's that do to your mind?
Well, suddenly your memory starts taking on a more active nature.
You're no longer using your memory, you're sort of redefining it and massaging it, and now it's compatible with this new information you have.
When you were with this man, you thought he was perfectly nice, and I'm pretty sure I, you know, maybe I didn't do what I would have done when I wasn't drinking, but you know, things happen, so it was no big deal.
But now you realize that he's a monster.
10 years later.
Ooh, I didn't know at the time he was a monster, but now that he says something that's not 100% negative about Trump, well, I can see that he is a monster, and therefore, logically, he was a monster 10 years ago, and I just didn't realize it.
Wait a minute, I was raped!
Now, I'm making all that up.
Nobody went through that actual process.
I'm just describing the natural way brains work.
You would expect that the longer you go, the more accusations people would remember.
Especially once it's in the news.
Now, now that it's in the news, what would you expect to happen?
You would expect more people to come forward.
You would expect more people to modify their memory to make it compatible with this new stuff that they keep hearing over and over again about him being a monster.
Yeah, he was a monster now that I think about it.
Now, let me be clear.
Are there any NPCs here who would like to blame me?
I'd like to just talk to the NPCs.
Would you like to say something about me being a rape apologist?
This would be the time to do it.
Nothing like that happened, of course.
But I know if you're an NPC, that's what you're hearing.
So could the NPCs only, just the NPCs, the rest of you take a break.
Just the NPCs, would you like to make your dumbass fucking, yeah, rape expert.
Stop victim-blaming, thank you.
Stop victim-blaming, thank you.
All right, well, a few dumb people wagging.
Okay.
Here's something I saw in the tweet today from Twitter user Andrew Whitmer, who is a retired police officer.
So this is a retired police officer who says the following.
At least 50% of the sexual assault reports I took as a police officer were demonstrably false accusations.
Police agencies don't publicize this information to avoid the public backlash to the truth.
50% of the sexual assault reports, in his opinion, Were not just false, but like really obviously false.
I once knew somebody who made false rape accusations.
How did I know they were fake?
Because they were demonstrably fake.
Meaning you just had to listen to them and you'd go, no, that did not happen.
One time I was listening to the fake, I was actually listening to the fake accusation when the phone rang and the person that was allegedly the rapist was on the phone, on the speakerphone, and I got to hear the interaction.
Let's just say that was a pretty fake accusation, once you heard them talking to each other.
If you've never been in the room where somebody actually was giving a fake and you knew it, you wouldn't think it's really necessarily a thing.
It just seems like something people wouldn't do.
But there are people who do it routinely.
And police know it.
And all celebrities know it.
All right, so YouTube, guilt until proven innocent situation, demonetized them.
Let me say once as clearly as I can, anybody who is making an accusation of that kind has to be taken seriously.
And you can't, there's no wiggle room for that.
These accusations have to be treated seriously, but only as seriously as your assumption of innocence.
You can't have a preferred better one.
You have to say it's equally true that you take it seriously and it's equally true that he's innocent until proven guilty.
But the baseline is that he's the type of person who I can guarantee is a recipient of fake accusations.
Not necessarily these.
I don't know anything about these.
But I can guarantee it That he is aware of fake ones that have been made against him.
Guaranteed.
There's no way statistically it would be nearly impossible for him to not have also fake ones even if there's a real one.
All right.
I believe...
The Illegitimate Press was so eager to make me part of this story, but in a bad way.
I'm not going to tell you the publication, but there was a publication that threw me in the mix with some other people commenting on it, except the tweet that they quoted was on a different topic.
They had to find a tweet that was on a different topic and throw it in there, and then say, wow, we think he's talking about this.
No, no, it was just a different topic.
So anybody who trusts the news in 2023, you've got some explaining to do.
I'll tell you, by far the strongest persuasion I've found is to show sympathy for people who have fallen for the hoaxes on their side.
They really don't.
They don't know what they're doing.
And they don't have any sense that they've been brainwashed.
And so I don't like to treat a brainwashed person like a legitimate person with a point of view.
That's not what's happening.
These are purely brainwashed individuals who are just acting out.
Always double tap.
All right.
Oh yeah, then the worst thing that can happen to you is if you get accused of something and Andrew Tate comes to your, backs you.
If Andrew Tate comes to your defense, suddenly you have a whole new problem because you end up adopting all of his accusations as yours.
All right.
Can I brainwash the NPCs?
I don't know if they have that kind of brain.
Andrew Tote, I don't get it.
All right.
Let me also say, well, never mind.
Literally admitted they took no news at all, okay?
All right, is there anything else I missed?
Any big stories I forgot to talk about?
I'm loving the F-35 story.
Yeah.
All right, what are they going to do with Kamala?
Well, I guess we wait and see.
John says, "You're killing me, Scott." All right.
If a plane has auto-eject, what prevents it from happening during dogfights?
Well, design.
What prevents it?
It should be designed not to do that.
Maybe it isn't.
All right.
I think we've got our one hour that YouTube likes to see.
We'll see if I get demonetized.
That was a fast hour, wasn't it?
I think it's some of my finest work.
Have you noticed that, this again, the topics today, you recognize these as ones I might not have done before, right?
You recognize that my free speech is legitimately more than yours.
I legitimately have more free speech than you do, like a lot.
I'm as cancelled as I'm gonna get, probably.
Why support YouTube?
YouTube supports me.
They're supporting me.
So, YouTube is my marketing for my other platforms.
If you use YouTube for marketing, it's fine.
If you use it for an income, you're in trouble.
Oh, oh.
Oh!
Oh!
Okay, I was gonna say this one more thing before I go.
So somebody in the comments beat me to it, but I promise I was also thinking about it.
One possibility of why we haven't heard from the pilot, I'm just gonna put that out there as a possibility that would make sense in 2023.
in 2023, right?
It's a 2023 explanation that the pilot was a privileged class of people.
It could be it was the first trans pilot.
It could be it was a female pilot, the first Elbonian pilot, the first black lesbian pilot.
It could have been one of those situations.
If it was, they would lock that story up so fast.
You will never hear the name of the pilot if it turns out it was any privileged class.
But do we already know the pilot?
Oh, we know the name of the pilot?
Or do we?
See, I would think that they wouldn't tell us the name of the pilot.
Maybe for a long time.
And I'm not sure that we should.
I don't know that we should know, because we're going to blame the pilot, and I think that would be premature.
All right.
Anyway, that was one of the possibilities.
I think we'll know one way or another.
But if you're wondering why we don't know more about it, That's one possible reason.
