Episode 2306 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/28/23 Wokeness Jumps The Shark, Hunter Rejects Clothed Hearing
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Wokeness, Alcohol Addiction Drug, Semaglutide, Mini Soap Opera App, Jewish Students Sue Berkley, China Internet Speed, Hunter Biden Congressional Testimony, Adams Rule Of AI Art, GPT-4 Radiology, Alex Soros Information Silo, Deadspin Smears Kid, X Community Notes, Elon Musk's Israel Visit, Dov Hikind, MartyrMade, Israel Hamas War, Mike Benz, Business Insider's Publisher, Integrity Initiative, President Trump's J6 Defense, 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 Cold Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a better time.
In your life.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that people can't even understand, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard chalicestine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Now, go.
Savor it, savor it.
Thank you.
Good.
That was some good sipping.
I'd like to compliment all of you who participated for your excellent sipping talents.
Well, I have a theme for today's show and the theme is, is it my imagination or has wokeness totally jumped the shark?
Now if you don't recognize that American TV reference, Jumping the Shark is originally a reference to a TV show that had a ridiculous plot, Happy Days was the name of the TV show, where one of the characters would be water skiing, Fonzie was the character, and he would jump off some kind of a ramp, water skiing, and he would jump over a shark.
Since the show was usually on a stage and a set, just doing funny things, it became a huge, huge hit.
But after a while, the good writers move on.
I don't know if you know this.
This is why all good TV shows eventually fail.
Let's see if you know this.
The reason a great TV show fails, pretty much all of them, is that if you get a job as a writer for a top number one show, You're going to get a nice paycheck.
So of course, the best writers would try to work at the best shows.
But once you've worked at the best show for a year, You can get a much bigger paycheck somewhere else.
So it's basically a way to siphon the good writers through the good show but almost immediately to a higher paying job for some new show that needs somebody who's got that experience and credibility.
So the nature of the model is that any good show Should attract good writers, but over time they're going to be moving out too fast and it should be self-destructive.
Anyway, that's just an aside.
But it seems to me that, and so the jump the shark thing means that a formerly good thing went too far.
It just became too ridiculous to even work anymore.
That's what jumping the shark means.
So you tell me if we've reached that point.
In my opinion, now keeping in mind I see a certain amount of right-leaning media stuff on the internet, so I probably see more of that than anything else, but in my experience at least 90% of all the stories in the wokeness domain, from racism to trans to everything else, 90% of the news stories are treated as jokes.
True or not?
In the beginning of the wokeness trend, there would be two sides to every story, but both sides would treat it seriously, right?
So the woke people would say, hey, we have this serious issue.
And then if you thought that was, you know, too far or something, you'd say, hey, what are you doing to our society?
Or, you know, you seem to be ruining the, you know, something that was good about what worked before.
But it was basically two serious conversations.
But as the wokeness became more extreme, it became harder and harder to hold your frame that any of this was serious.
Because it no longer looked like serious people.
It looked like, you know, the slippery slope.
Just things went too far and it just jumped the shark.
Let me give you some examples.
Apparently the Daily Wire just finished a movie that's a comedy that's going to make fun of trans athletes.
Yeah, the ones born male and doing sports as a woman.
Now, did you see that coming?
I did not see that coming.
I didn't know they were working on it.
But apparently it looks like it's done.
Now, when was the last time you saw any comedy?
Seriously, when was the last time you went to see a comedy at a movie theater?
I don't even remember.
Honestly, this is not a joke, I actually don't remember.
I think it's been years, five years perhaps?
I think at least five years since I've thought there was a movie in a theater that was worth going to a theater for.
And it's not just because I like to watch everything at home.
It's like I haven't even been tempted.
But this will be interesting.
I'll probably watch it.
The Daily Wire's movie.
I don't know what the name of it is, but you'll hear a lot about it.
So that's my evidence number one.
That wokeness has now completely turned into a joke content.
It's far more likely to be a joke than to be a serious conversation.
Let me see who texts me early in the morning.
My college just texted me.
To ask me to give them money.
How do you think that's going to go?
No.
I'm not going to give money to a college.
Do you know I am not going to give money to a college?
Now this is my undergraduate college, Hartwick College.
And I don't really even know what they're up to.
But I guarantee they're racist as hell.
I don't even have to check.
I don't even need to check.
Am I right?
Would you agree that a liberal arts college in upstate New York, would you agree that I don't need to check to see if they've gone too far?
I don't need to check.
No.
They're asking me for money.
Do you know how I treat that?
Literally as a joke.
Am I right?
Yeah, as I'm talking about how wokeness has become a joke, when my alma mater, Hartwick College, contacts me in the middle of my statements to ask for money, I just think, well that's funny.
As if I would give them money.
As if!
There's not the slightest chance of that.
Alright, in other news, to back up this claim, That wokeness has jumped the shark?
I don't know if this is true, but I saw on the internet a claim without a good source that said that there's a study that says if your business gets labeled racist on Yelp, a year later your business will be up.
Apparently the claim, and I'm not positive this is true, but it sounds true.
Because it kind of works in my head so I'm kind of biased where thinking is true but I don't know for sure.
That makes sense to me because I think the people who read a story about a business being racist don't really care because it's like one incident and maybe they just want their coffee.
So they don't care?
But I can definitely see people who think that wokeness has gone too far to say, all right, I'm going to support that business.
I hadn't even thought about them before, but I think I'll go there twice this week.
I can see that.
And when you read the story that, and again, if it's true, I can't guarantee this is true, but if it's true that Yelp labeling somebody a racist company increases their business, Isn't that kind of funny?
Am I wrong?
Like, when you hear that story, you're like, that's kind of funny.
Like, no matter what you think about the base situation, it's just funny that it doesn't work out the way you think it would, right?
So everything about this topic is literally the fodder for a humorous movie, or you read it, you go, okay, that's kind of funny.
We'll get to some more of those, but let's talk about some other news.
Thanks to Owen for all these little scientific tidbits that I see on X. So there's an alcohol addiction drug, perhaps.
Now, it's too soon to know, but in the course of testing something for something, some people at the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University, they found that something called semaglutide, semaglutide, Turns out they were testing it for something else, but as a side effect, the people taking it dramatically reduced their alcohol consumption, which wasn't the subject of the test.
And now they say, hey, maybe we should do a big test on this and see if it works.
Imagine that!
I don't think it'll work.
If I had to bet, I'd place a large bet against it, because it's a little bit too good.
You know, when you hear that, you know, cancer has been cured by something that sounds too good to be true, it's probably too good to be true.
Probably not true.
So this one's probably in the too good to be true category.
And it was only, I think there were only six people that they looked at.
So six people is by no means telling you that it works or that it's safe.
But if all six people dramatically reduced their alcohol intake, I wouldn't ignore it.
It's not proof, but I wouldn't ignore a six out of six.
All right.
There's a new Chinese app.
Just what we need.
A new app that's getting tons of downloads.
And apparently what it does is it creates these little dramas that run for like a minute.
But there are lots of them, so they form a body of work after a while.
And they're really cheesy.
And they're like little soap operas with bad actors overacting in a soap opera way.
But apparently middle-aged women just love this thing.
So it's got millions of downloads.
It's called Real Short.
Real as in two E's.
E-E.
Real Short.
And just so you know, it's coming.
Now my question is this.
These little soap operas, they have one thing in common.
To make it a dramatic soap opera, you have to have people really dysfunctional.
You know, people are cheating, and you know, that baby doesn't belong to you, and you know, all that stuff.
Do you think all of that works against, let's say, traditional families?
Do you think watching Continuous content showing people cheating on their spouses and, you know, every manner of bad behavior.
I feel like it's not exactly a good message.
And then it makes me wonder, huh?
So TikTok got to the younger kids and China owns, or at least could control it if they want to.
So that would give China the user interface to control the minds of our young people.
Now they have a similarly addictive app that's aimed directly at older women.
Older as in, you know, the mid-range.
Is that a coincidence?
Or is that part of a plan?
To weave their content around the brains of Americans so that they can tweak it as they need to?
You know, Elon Musk does the best job of calling out the fact that our big problem is Do you think that this app will cause people to want to form families and have children?
Or is it going to make it look like just a landmine if you even get in a relationship?
I feel if you watch enough content where people have bad relationships, that's going to have an impact on you.
So I would be worried about a second front in China's ability to control our minds.
That's real.
Well, going back to my category of wokeness jumping the shark, turns out that Jewish students are suing my other alma mater.
Is it alma mater or alma mater?
Mater, right?
Alma mater?
Mater.
OK.
My alma mater, Berkeley.
So months ago, I disavowed Berkeley for being a racist college, so I didn't want to have anything to do with them.
And if I knew where my diploma was, I'd set it on fire, because I feel embarrassed to be associated with Berkeley.
Literally, literally embarrassed.
And now Jewish groups are suing Berkeley For what they claim is just out of control anti-Jewish policies.
I guess there are some groups that don't allow Jewish people to join?
What?
What?
There are some student groups that forbid Jewish people from joining them.
I mean, just hold that in your head for a second.
Anyway, now obviously these groups are, you know, special purpose groups or whatever, so they would say, no, it's not about anti-Jewish, it's more about who's in.
So it's not about who's out, you know, it's about having a club for ourselves.
But the effect of it Might be to just be purely racist.
So to me, I think it's funny that the most liberal college in the world is being sued by its Jewish students for being racist.
Isn't that funny?
To me, that's funny.
It's like, you know, all good things go to shit eventually, because good intentions always turn into horrible things.
Anyway, here's an irony of the simulation.
If we live in a simulation, clearly it was made by people with a sense of humor who keep yanking away the dollar bill we find on the sidewalk.
It's like, oh, there's a dollar on the sidewalk, and you lean over to pull it, and there's a string on it, and they yank it away.
Here's another one.
As you know, semiconductors are beginning to reach a limit to how much more you can do with silicon and the common materials.
But there are new materials that are being considered, so it turns out there is one material that is really, really good for microcomputers, semiconductors, for semiconductors, and it's a diamond.
It's diamond.
Seriously?
Seriously?
The one thing we need that would be the thing that's better than the thing that we're using?
Diamond?
Could you be any more inconvenient?
What could be worse?
I literally can't think of anything that would be worse than finding out the only way we'll be able to keep up with China is with diamonds.
So, well, you know, maybe we can lab grow them, I suppose, some version of them.
Yeah.
Anyway, this is just ironic that the most expensive thing in the world is probably not, but well, maybe it is.
Are diamonds the most expensive by weight?
Is that a true statement?
They're not the most expensive by weight anymore?
What would be most expensive by weight?
Rubies, emeralds, not gold.
Definitely not gold.
Saffron?
Uranium?
Oh, maybe uranium.
Yeah, maybe.
All right, according to Unusual Whale's account on X, China has launched the fastest internet, 1.2 terabits per second.
It can transmit 150 movies that are 4K movies in one second.
150 movies that are 4K, you know the real dense ones, in one second.
That's pretty awesome.
Now that does certainly open up a question whether there's a strategic benefit to that.
Is that something that we need to catch up with right away?
Because I wonder if you had this internet speed And you attached it to one of these hedge funds that tries to do automated trading, you know, when they find small errors.
And the whole secret of the hedge fund, they literally put their, I think this is still true, the hedge fund would literally put their data center physically as close as possible to whatever they're interacting with, you know, to trade.
Because that distance would give them a millionth of a microsecond advantage over everybody else.
So they can front run trades.
But what if you've got this 1.2 terabit thing?
I don't know.
Does that give them some advantage?
I don't know.
I think not, because it would have to be 1.2 terabit all the way.
So might not help them, if you're in a different country.
I don't know.
But that's fun.
I think that has more to do with virtual reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But the limit for something like meta to transmit realistic looking images like you're in a 3D world, the limit is the transmission, right?
It's not the computer, and it's not the limit of the software.
Am I right about that?
It's just the transmission limit.
Well, let me explain to you how the transmission limit could be gamed.
You ready?
Let's say you want to transmit, I think they're already doing this by the way, but it's a fun technical fact.
Suppose you wanted to send my image in 4K, a full 3D looking image, to appear on your computer at a distance and not have any lag.
There's a way to do that.
If you were to send a refreshed screen of every position I'm in, Your internet would choke, especially if there are other characters in the scene.
But, if you take one really good image of me, and then you only transmit the changes, the other side can recreate me without a full picture of me being transmitted.
For example, if the receiving side already had a full model of me, and then I took my hand and I went like this, It could use AI on its end to say, well, I know what that would look like.
If his hand looks like this here and he moves up here, it's still going to look like the hand.
I'll just recreate it as if it had been transmitted.
But the only thing being transmitted is the coordinate changes, you know, where your fingers are.
So it'd be like the end of my fingertip.
It knows that it was here, but now it's here.
So it just fills in the rest.
We already have a technology that can get around a lot of speed limitations.
Scott, look at what Elon said on your tweet.
Uh-oh.
Did Elon just say something on a tweet of mine?
All right, we're going to stop and look at that.
Because I'll be far too curious.
What should I look up?
Look up Elon?
And then look at his comments?
Alright, let's see what he replied.
It's probably a reply, right?
Is it a reply?
He could have just told me what he said.
On my woke tweet?
Alright, I'll look at my woke tweet.
Alright, find me.
Alright, let's see what he said.
About Wokeness Jumping the Shark?
Oh yeah.
So five minutes ago, Elon Musk... So here was my tweet.
So it's basically the theme of the show.
I posted that it feels like Wokeness has totally jumped the shark.
90% of the stories in that domain are being treated as jokes.
And then I said, balance will be restored.
And Elon replied, indeed.
Woke is a laughingstock at this point.
Have you noticed how useful Elon Musk is in moving the needle on everything?
It's hard to find any category that's interesting that he isn't the most important voice in it.
Because, you know, if Scott says, you know, Wokeness has jumped the shark, you know, maybe it makes some content for my show and maybe you repost it.
But if Musk says it, by tonight it could be a headline.
I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News covers this as a story because he said it.
They wouldn't cover it if I said it.
It's amazing how useful he is in pushing energy toward one point of view.
Because certainly it would be good if everybody started thinking, oh, wokeness is the funny stuff.
Like it's just a joke.
And Musk is saying it directly.
Yeah, it's basically a joke.
So that helps.
Thank you for alerting me to that.
Anyway, Hunter's agreed to testify and allow it to be a public hearing.
And so his lawyers have said on the 13th of December, he'll be in a closed door deposition.
Now you probably ask yourself, Why would Hunter want it to be public?
Like, wouldn't you think that everything about that he would want to be, you know, low-key so that... Well, there are two possibilities.
One possibility is that his defense, or whatever he plans to say, is so strong that it would be better to put that out there than to have people wonder what happened.
That might be.
But I have another theory.
I think that Hunter was high, and his lawyer called him, and they had a bad connection.
And the lawyer said, Hunter, the committee's asking about a closed door.
Closed door.
Do you want to be a closed door?
Closed meeting or an unclosed meeting?
And Hunter thought he said clothed.
And so Hunter said, well, no, I don't want clothes.
I don't want to wear any clothes.
Have you seen his selfies?
It's funny if you've seen the selfies.
He doesn't like clothes when he's with a group of people.
You put several people in a room with Hunter, the first thing he does is take off his clothes.
Right?
I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene's going to be in the room.
The guy's going to start stripping.
He's going to be Lauren Boebert.
Right?
He's just going to start shedding those clothes.
So I think it was just a misunderstanding between closed and clothed.
I think that's all that's all it was.
It's just a guess.
It's just a guess.
Well, Biden is apparently going to use, or talking about using, the Defense Production Act to make sure that our pharma products get made in the U.S., which is a big problem.
Because we, it's hard for us, first of all, it's hard for the United States to do manufacturing apparently, but it would take a long time to bring everything back and then we'd still be dependent on Maybe the base materials, even if we manufactured here, we still have to get our base materials from a potentially unfriendly country.
So he's going to use the Defense Production Act, which gives the president extra powers and money to force things to happen quickly.
I'm going to surprise you on this one.
I'm 100% behind this.
Anybody disagree?
I'm 100% behind it and I think Trump would have done it.
I think Vivek Ramaswamy might have done it.
I don't know.
But this feels like me.
To me, this feels right.
100%.
And, you know, for those of you who Wonder, would I ever say anything good about a Democrat or Biden if they did something that, you know, clearly made sense?
Yes.
This clearly makes sense, in my opinion.
Now, the execution could be botched, you know, because it's the government.
But, yeah, I back this 100%.
This should not even be about politics.
Well, there's a story I saw in a Joe Pompliano post.
About Sports Illustrated, apparently Sports Illustrated bought or created these AI-generated headshots so it looked like real human beings were writing articles that in fact were written by AI.
But Sports Illustrated was trying to pass them off with a fake picture as if a human had done it.
Now when they got called out about it, they just deleted the content.
But here's the interesting part of the story.
Two parts that are interesting.
Number one, it's kind of interesting that they tried to get away with it.
Because imagine how much money they could save if they ran opinion pieces by robots and people thought they were human.
And they're like, oh, OK, good opinion.
But here's what I think.
They had to get rid of it immediately upon realizing it was fake, even though they could have said, you know, you caught us.
So we're going to label these as AI, but we're still going to keep the pictures.
You know, we think it's fun to do AI opinions.
That's if people had liked the AI opinions.
I believe this is more of what I'm going to call the Adams rule of AI art.
If you're the first one to say it, you get to name it after yourself.
That's how it works.
The Adams Law of AI Art, and it goes like this.
AI generated art, which would include writing and include opinion, that's art, will not be interesting to humans if they know it's AI generated.
And I've said this before, but just summarizing, I believe our appreciation of art has A little bit to do with the quality of the art, but a lot to do with what you assume about the talent of the person who created it.
Meaning that the art and the artist are the same.
Your triggering of what makes you say, whoa, look at that art, is not the art.
That's not what triggers you.
So art by itself is just dead.
It just sits there.
No matter how well it's done.
No matter how well it's done, it's just dead and it sits there.
Until your brain says, how did a human make that?
Wow, a human made that.
And what you're reacting to is the artist.
You're reacting to the talent of the artist, which is an extension of your mating instinct.
Because we're attracted to talent, because that's a tell for somebody with good genes.
Any kind of talent.
And art is a way you express your talent.
So, the Adams rule of AI art states that as soon as the audience knows it's AI, they will lose interest via the mating instinct being, you know, taken out of the conversation.
You think I'm wrong?
You think I'm wrong?
Here's my summary of that argument.
You ready?
Here's the summary.
If AI had created the Mona Lisa, and you knew it was AI, the Mona Lisa's total value would be a nickel.
Nobody would buy the Mona Lisa.
Everything about the Mona Lisa is about the artist.
Right?
It's all about the artist.
How about a Van Gogh?
Who would buy a Van Gogh if they thought it had been randomly generated by AI?
The thing that makes Van Gogh so interesting is probably because he had mental problems.
But when you look at it, you say, how?
Like, how did that come out of a human mind?
Like, what extra is going on in there?
In this case, it wasn't an advantage, maybe.
Yeah.
All right.
And then imagine modern art.
You know, we all laugh about the modern art.
It's like, it'll be a big white canvas and like a pickle.
Or a soup can.
And you'll say, that's not art.
You know, I don't love looking at that.
That's just, you put something in the middle.
Now, and yet, people pay a lot of money for it.
But imagine that AI made that art.
Imagine if AI did the soup cans that Andy Warhol did.
How many AI generated soup cans would you buy?
How about zero?
Yeah, zero, because there's no artist involved.
So just watch for that.
And I believe it will be in every form of art, from opinion, writing, visual art, musical, every form.
I think it will be the same.
Now, when I said this online, another user of the X platform asked me the following question, which is a pretty good question.
Says, well, if you believe that it's all about the mating instinct and that people aren't going to be attracted to AI, Scott, how do you explain that there are AI models within the, what's it called, OnlyFans?
Did you see how I pretended I didn't know what it was called?
What's it called?
It's like OnlyFans or something?
Yeah.
Never heard of it.
Actually, I don't use it, believe it or not.
So how could it be true, the Adams rule of AI art, if in fact people are making money with AI generated porn?
Is that a good question?
Here was my response.
Porn is not art.
Port is not exactly art.
And here's what I mean.
Yeah, you're going to say to yourself, but Scott, it is.
It is a form of art.
Here's where the art happens.
The art happens in your head.
Losing connection here.
Do you think YouTube's sending me like a warning shot or something?
Might be a warning shot.
Like, don't talk about this topic.
Oh, because kids are watching or something.
Maybe it's because kids could watch.
Is that why?
Oh, did Locals glitch too?
When Locals glitches, I can't see it on my end because it was continuous.
So maybe it was the internet.
All right.
But my point was that the art happens in your imagination, right?
Because there's actually not much Or involved in watching two people do the same thing that you watch two other people do the day before and two other people the day before.
It's kind of the same, you know, half dozen things they're doing.
It's not exactly art.
But in your head it is.
So the art's in your head.
But I would also argue that there's a good chance that the AI generated porn may disappear.
I think there's a novelty effect.
If I were in the AI business, like a techie, and I heard that OnlyFans had a successful model that was really making money and people liked it, I would probably sign up just to see it.
I would do that.
I mean, literally, I would do that without the sexual interest.
I would see how good it is.
Now, I did the same thing with the app that gives you a digital girlfriend.
Like, I didn't think I was going to have a digital girlfriend for the rest of my life, but I really wanted to experience it because I wanted to feel like, you know, what does the future look like with this AI stuff?
So some of it's novelty.
All right, GPT-4 AI for radiology is as good as doctors now.
So if you're looking at a radiology imaging of some internal part of your body, apparently the AI can find the pattern.
Meaning you can find the fault in the image, whatever's wrong with you, as well as a doctor now.
Now, what happens when you fast forward one year and it becomes common knowledge that the AI is better than a human doctor?
And let's say the AI says, it looks like you have a tumor, but the experienced doctor looks at the same image and says, I don't think so.
I don't think that is a tumor.
So I wouldn't operate because, you know, the operation is dangerous.
But the A.I.
is saying, oh yeah, that's a tumor.
Which would indicate, you know, you've got to operate immediately.
So what's the doctor going to do?
Here's what I worry about.
I worry that the doctor will have to agree with the A.I.
because to do otherwise would be risking a lawsuit.
So the doctor's going to say, I don't think you should operate.
But if the A.I.
says you should, and it turns out I'm wrong, you're going to die.
And then your lawyer, your family's lawyer is going to say, the A.I.
told you to operate.
And you also know the A.I.
is better than humans.
Why did you override the A.I.
when the A.I.
is the superior diagnostic tool?
You see what I'm saying?
I think the doctor just becomes Like the dog that guards the machine.
You know the old joke about what is it?
There's an airplane that's so advanced in flying itself that you only need two people to fly it.
You need a pilot and you need a dog.
And the job of the dog is to make sure the pilot doesn't touch anything.
That's the joke.
So it's going to be like that.
The doctors are going to have to agree with AI or just get sued.
And then why do you need a doctor?
Pretty soon doctoring becomes either just pure research or something.
I don't know.
It's going to be interesting.
Well, here's an update on Alex Soros.
I already talked about this, but there's a community note added to make it more fun.
So Alex Soros, as you know, has taken over for his dad, George Soros, in the Soros funds and giving out the charity money, etc.
And you also know that he gets a lot of heat, though Soros is due, for funding the campaigns for progressive DAs who like to not prosecute a lot of lesser crimes.
And it's making the cities look unlivable because of the unprosecuted crimes.
But Alex Soros, defending himself, He posted, where are murder rates actually higher?
And he says, not in progressive cities.
And he linked to an article that said that conservative rural areas have increasing murder rates.
And inner cities that might be run by Democrats, maybe not as much.
So he compared the conservative rural places to the Democrat-run cities and said, hey, it's not much worse in the city, so why are you bothering me?
Now, as I reposted him with a quote, I pointed out that the only reason you would compare a rural place to a city is if you're trying to hide the impact of your policies.
Does that sound fair?
Because it's such an obvious wrong comparison The only reason you would do an obviously wrong comparison is if you're trying to hide something.
Or you're trying to make something look true that's not true.
I guess that would be the other way.
All right?
And then I went on to explain that you should compare cities to cities, Democrat-run to Republican-run, and you should compare rural to rural, to the extent that there are any liberal-run rural areas.
There must be somewhere.
Now, I thought that was just obvious.
And it also made me wonder, is the situation with Alex Soros that he knows there's a problem, and he was intentionally using a misleading comparison to cover over the problem?
Because I can't read his head, I can't read his mind, so I don't know.
But the other possibility is he really didn't know.
And I think that's the stronger possibility.
Well, let me develop this.
How often do you see super leftist stuff on the X platform?
I feel like I'm completely shut out from it.
The only time I see left-leaning content is when somebody's mocking it on the right.
And I didn't turn off any, you know, I didn't turn any knobs so I didn't see Democrats.
Like, I want to see the Democrats, but the algorithm has locked me out.
Now, how about in person?
Do I see a lot of left-leaning people in person who would maybe correct me if I had some wrong opinions because I'd only seen one side of the issue?
I actually don't.
I don't have any conversations with people who disagree with me in person.
I'm sure there are people who disagree with me, but I don't have any conversations about it.
My daily life would be people who don't care about politics at all.
Let me say that again.
I don't spend time with people who care about politics.
At all.
You should see me trying to talk about my day.
Hey, how was your day?
A whole bunch of things you don't care about.
And I'm done.
That's my whole day.
Bunch of stuff that none of you care about who, you know, I know well enough to see in person.
I think I have one or two friends, you know, who engage in that content and otherwise nobody cares.
So here's my point.
Imagine you're Alex Soros.
How many staunch Republicans do you encounter in person and have meaningful conversations with?
I'm guessing zero.
Would you argue with that?
I'm guessing exactly zero.
So I think you could rule out that anybody in person is saying, you know, Alex, maybe that thing you're looking at is not the whole story, or have you considered this?
I don't think it happens.
Because it doesn't happen to me.
And if it doesn't happen to me, why would it happen to him?
Because I think my situation is normal.
You just get closed off in your little bubble, and people don't want to make trouble, too.
Right?
People don't want to... Since Alex Soros is rich, probably his friends who maybe even do disagree with him a little bit, maybe they don't mention it.
Because they kind of like having a rich friend.
That's a thing.
So I don't think he hears any consenting opinion, dissent, no, any disagreeing opinions in person.
Now, do you think he sees them in the media?
How often is he reading Breitbart?
Zero?
How often does he spend time on Fox News?
Zero?
I'm guessing zero, right?
How often does he follow me on social media?
He doesn't.
I follow him.
He doesn't follow me.
So my best guess is he actually has no exposure whatsoever to a countering argument that he would find stronger than his own opinion.
And there are counter arguments that are stronger than his own opinion.
A lot stronger.
But here's the beauty of the story is that now he posted this thing He might have noticed that my account countered him because I have a million followers.
Remember I told you if I had a million followers I could run the world?
This is what I'm talking about.
Because the only way I could break through that bubble is if my account is big enough that somebody's going to either mention it to him or he's going to notice it on his own because it's a big account.
You need about a million people to break through the bubble on the other side, and then only sometimes.
You have to do your best work to get in there in any way.
But on top of that, the community notes said, so it was added to the Soros So Community Notes says on X, the five cities with the highest murder rate and their mayors are, and it goes, you know, St.
Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, Cleveland, and they're all Democrats.
So the top five murder cities are all Democrats.
Now the other thing I criticized Alex's post was that murder isn't really the big question.
Murder is the worst crime, but it's not the big question when we're talking about the liberal DAs.
Because unless I'm wrong about this, can you give me a fact check on this?
Democrats don't like murder, do they?
I think they're opposed to murderers.
So I don't think there's a giant difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to whether a murderer should be in jail.
Am I wrong about that?
Aren't they pretty close when it comes to murder?
Because nobody's disagreeing like, well, maybe that murderer should get bail?
I don't think so.
But all of the other crimes, the property crimes and the lesser violence, those are the ones that really would show if you're looking for what's the impact of a progressive DA.
So when Alex looks at murder rates, he's first of all looking in the wrong box.
That's not where the problem would be?
Probably.
You know, I would look there too, but I'm not looking to expect a problem there.
So it's a diversion.
And if he can get you to think that murder rate is a key metric, then he wins.
Because it's not the key metric.
It's the one you should ignore the most, actually.
Perhaps.
So, now that I got a community note, and I think Oh, and Elon Musk actually weighed in on this because of the community note.
He said, those who can't handle reality will leave this platform due to community notes.
But the public will increasingly come to realize, this is still Musk, that X is the best source of truth, causing our user numbers to rise as they abandon the less accurate sources of information.
True.
True.
Yeah.
And X is rising in traffic, so...
It's working.
So now there are three things that happened with Alex's, four things actually, with Alex's post, which are all productive in my opinion.
Number one, a high account, with a lot of traffic in mind, countered him in a way which, if I may be humble, was really succinct and on point.
So he could have noticed that.
Maybe not, but he could have.
Number two, the community notes makes it a bigger story.
So the odds that he got fact-checked by community notes raises again the odds that he saw it.
Number three, Elon Musk weighed in, in favor of the community notes, obviously.
I think everybody notices when Elon Musk comments on their work.
Would you agree?
How do you not notice if Elon Musk comments on your note on X?
So that probably takes it to the next level of he'll probably see it.
So that's three things that are working in the right direction.
The fourth thing, and again with all modesty, if I did a good job of showing that that was the wrong comparison, Then it also educated a million people to, if they see it again, say, oh, that's the wrong comparison.
And that's really valuable, because that means that Alex Soros might hear it from different places at different times, and the more you hear the same thing, the more true it becomes.
Right.
So that's the update on that.
The publication called Deadspin, which apparently is just a bunch of racists, they said that the NFL needs to speak out against the, one writer said, the NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in blackface and native headdress.
Oh my god.
So there was a young boy who was wearing blackface and a native You know, a native headgear?
And should be called out for that, that blackface.
Oh, except it was only blackface on one side.
The other side was painted red.
Because it was the color of the team.
Black and red.
Had nothing to do with blackface.
So, do you know who called him out?
Community notes.
Community notes for the wimp.
Call them out.
I'm starting to think that community notes is, you know, it's in a nascent form so it should get better over time.
It's one of the greatest inventions in modern history.
It's simple.
It's a simple little model, and the model is, if you didn't know, the model is that people of all types, left and right-leaning, have to agree on the note or it can't go forward.
So Community Notes doesn't have the option of being biased, because the other people will say, nope.
Nope.
Too biased.
And that's it.
It just doesn't go anywhere if one side says they're biased.
But if one side says, somebody is talking about the murder rate in these cities, and the side that wants to make the opposite point says, we're just going to say what the murder rate is.
Do you disagree that the data we're using is correct?
And then the left says, oh, shit.
That is on point, and the data is correct.
What are we going to do?
We don't love it.
We don't love it, but we're honest brokers and what you're saying is on point and it is honest.
That's huge.
The fact that that works at all is just amazing.
It's really one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
Invention-wise, as an invention, it's just one of the greatest things.
All right, let's talk about the Musk trip to Israel now that we've got a little time.
To digest it, you know, Elon Musk had been accused of being an anti-Semite for something he said that was obviously taken out of context.
Advertisers left because of the protests.
So, partly to address that, obviously, but also partly because he's very interested in the world and peace and You know, keeping things together on this planet.
He decided to go over to Israel and he spent the day with Netanyahu.
He toured the kibbutz where much of the violence happened on October 7th.
He watched the video compilation from the GoPro cameras of the terrorists, you know, with the horrors.
I would never watch that.
I can't even imagine having that in my head.
One of the family members of a kidnapped person Offered him the dog tags of the kidnapped person who's not yet released.
Elon said he would wear the dog tags until the family member was released.
Oh my God, he's good at this.
Oh my God, he's good at this.
But here's the kill shot to the whole thing.
So the trip itself was, in my opinion, pitch perfect.
He hit every note right.
Every note.
Here's the things he got right.
100% backing Israel to kill Hamas because they have a preference for killing civilians.
And he says, if somebody wants to kill civilians, the only way to deal with them is kill them.
Perfect.
Perfect.
Then he says he is willing to help rebuild Gaza.
Oh my God!
Now I don't know what that help would look like, but if you were a Gaza resident and you hoped to ever go back, and you found out that the most capable person who designs anything is the best product person in the world right now, the best product designer for any design, if it's a product, is Elon Musk.
And if the product is a new city, just imagine!
I mean, can you imagine what he could do with a whole city if he starts from scratch?
You know, putting in self-driving cars and Tesla solar panels.
He's probably got some good idea for desalinization.
I mean, it could be crazy.
It could be just crazy how good it is when he's done.
So we don't know what kind of help he's going to give, but to say he's going to help allows him to be on both sides, because he needs to be on both sides.
When I say both sides, I mean he needs to be on the side of life for both sides.
Not guilty life, but he's on the side of innocent life, and that's the right place to be.
So he gave something for Israel.
He showed them the respect and the consideration, and really, he literally damaged himself permanently, to make the point.
I will never watch that video of the actual massacre, because I do not want that in my head.
I know what that would do to me.
I would be permanently damaged.
That's brain damage.
He actually signed up for intentional brain damage to show the degree of support he has for this.
He will never forget those videos.
They will be there like a virus or a disease in his brain for the rest of his life.
The rest of his life, he'll be damaged by that.
He did that voluntarily.
Amazing, really.
And then he also talked about the denazification of Gaza, and he talked about the importance of controlling the school system so that the education doesn't produce more terrorists.
Is there any note that he missed?
He didn't miss a note.
That is as perfect As you can do, this kind of stuff.
I've never seen anybody do it that well, actually.
That's the best I've ever seen.
And I would like to compliment Israel and Netanyahu's staff, because they were as wise as Musk was in knowing how to do this for optimum mutual benefit.
But here's the punchline or the kill shot to it all.
I don't know if you know this name, Dov Haikind.
Used to be in politics in New York State.
But he's well known as a defender of Jews, defender of Israel.
One of the stronger, more public voices about who is an anti-Semite and who's not.
And he did a video.
He didn't just do a post with words.
He did a whole video in which he said, I've devoted over 50 years of fighting Jew hatred.
I can smell an anti-Semite a mile away.
And let's be completely clear on this.
Elon Musk is no anti-Semite.
Now, I am going to give him a little bit of shit.
A dove.
Because he had to add this, he's made some mistakes in his judgment.
You know, I do that too.
Like if I'm supporting somebody that I don't support every single thing they've ever done, I'll do that.
Well, you know, he's made some mistakes.
But here's the better way to do it.
The better way to do it is to say, I haven't agreed with him on everything.
It's kind of a dick move to say he's made some mistakes in the same breath that you're supporting him.
It's just a dick move.
So, Dove has got a great reputation, does good work, so I respect him and his work.
So this would just be advice, not criticism.
I wouldn't word it that way.
If your overall point is supportive, don't say he's made some mistakes.
Say, I would have done it differently.
It's the same thing, but it's just not a dick way to say it.
All right, I would like to call your attention to an account which fascinates me because I'm surprised he's still alive.
All right, the account is called Martyr Made.
It's two words, if you just search for that on X. So Martyr, and the word Made, M-A-D-E.
And here's why it's interesting.
So, this account is doing a pretty aggressive effort of trying to do what I'll call, I'll put this in quotes, bull-siding the issue with Gaza and the Palestinians and Israel.
Now, he's not bull-siding October 7th.
He's completely against the violence of October 7th.
He's not pro-Hamas.
Not pro-Hamas.
Let me say that three times.
He's not pro-Hamas.
Not, not, not, okay?
But, he is trying to create a complete picture so that we better understand what everybody's thinking.
And that part is a value, but it is really dangerous territory, because you so easily could get lumped in with the supporting Hamas, and then, you know, your life is destroyed.
So I respect him for the risk that he's taking, In the service of making sure that we have a more complete understanding of things.
However, watch me not say he made some mistakes, because, right?
I'm going to model my own opinion.
I would say there are a few things that I would have handled differently.
See?
Isn't that better?
Like, you keep your respect of the person, but you can still say, there are a few things I would have handled differently.
So, on one of his posts today, He was talking about, well, I'll just read his post.
So he said this.
And I'll tell you what I had a problem with.
He said, where did people get this idea that half a century of brutal military occupation, he's talking about Israel and the Palestinians, could possibly result in anything but burning hatred of the occupiers, his word, by the occupied.
How would you feel about foreign soldiers strip searching your sister or killing your little nephew?
Of course, those are anecdotal things.
Now, so here was my response.
Number one, good question.
That's a good question.
How would you feel?
Perfectly good question.
But it's not the only questions.
So where I would have handled it differently, is this is a totally good question, but it's incomplete, and in its incompleteness, it may be as misleading.
So here are the questions I asked.
A related question is whether Israel would be under the same level of danger from Hamas no matter what they did.
Don't you think that murder and bait's assumption is that Israel would be under less risk if they only treated the Palestinians the way the Palestinians wanted to be treated?
That's a good question too, because my assumption is That Israel would be under exactly the same risk because I never hear the Palestinians say, you strip searched my sister.
I've never heard of that.
I mean, I'm sure that there are plenty of people mad about plenty of things, but it doesn't rise to the level of political speech.
When they talk politically, they say we want to wipe out Israel and kill all the Jews.
Hamas does, not the Palestinians per se.
So it seems to me that the point of view that all Jews must be removed from Israel and from the river to the sea, I don't think Israel would be any safer if they were just the nicest people in the world in every possible way from water rights to travel to security.
I don't think it would make any difference.
Do you?
It would definitely make a difference For the non-military population, for how they feel about the whole thing.
But it wouldn't affect Hamas.
Hamas doesn't even have a list of demands.
Have you ever seen a list of demands?
You know, stop strip-searching our women and whatever else is on it.
You know, water rights and travel.
I haven't even seen it.
If the leaders of the Palestinians wanted the public To be looking at the real treatment of how Israel treats the West Bank and Gaza, etc.
If that was the issue, it would be at the top of the issue.
Every day you'd see the news saying, well, what do you expect?
Israel does this and this and this to them, so it's a natural outcome.
I don't think anybody's thinking that way.
I think you've got people who are trained to want to destroy all Jews, And that's the beginning and the end of the conversation.
But should Israel treat all the Palestinians in the best possible way?
Probably.
But what is the argument for why they wouldn't?
What do you suppose would be Israel's counter-argument to the Palestinians saying, hey, we're treated terribly here?
I think the answer would be, the only reason we do any of this stuff is because of the security threat.
We wouldn't need to search your sister if somebody's sister were not coming in here and trying to kill us.
Right?
So I think the response would be, if you could make the security system go away, then we could fix a lot of these things that you're complaining about in daily life.
I assume that would be the argument.
Now, I'm not taking a side.
If it felt like I'm taking a side.
I'm not, because I don't really know, you know, the more daily life problems and which way the security concerns go.
That's a little more complicated than I could wrap my head around.
I'm just telling you, that should be a question too.
If the question is, how would you feel if you were abused this long?
You got to ask, why are they abusing you?
Is it strictly for security?
Or is it economic?
Religious?
Is there something else going on?
I'd like to know that.
And the next question is, What other options did the Palestinians have?
Was their only option to suffer and then support Hamas?
Because in my view of things, the Palestinians have had enough international public support for enough years that they should have very clearly, you know, succinctly stated their maybe top five demands and what they needed, and I think they would have got them.
The trouble is that one of their top five demands, and maybe number one, is, okay, number one, kill all the Jews and remove their corpses from Israel.
So here's the problem.
I don't think that the Palestinians, or anybody in power, could have ever put together a list of, if you just do these five things, we can live in peace.
We're just asking you, stop abusing us in these five ways.
Nobody's ever done that.
Here's why I think they don't do it.
If a Palestinian leader put together a list of five things that you needed to do in order to have peace, and none of those five things said, get all Jews out of Israel, the leader of the Palestinians would be executed by his own people.
He would be dead for putting together a list that would give them peace without their primary objective of getting control of Israel.
So, in my opinion, the Palestinians' clear strategy of not asking for the other stuff, and making that like the entire package of claims, seems to be a preference.
Maybe it's not a conscious preference, but In terms of the whole, it operates as a preference.
And the preference is, if we can't get this one thing, which is all the Jews out of Israel, if we can't get that, we don't even need to talk about 4 through 5.
It's like, you know, we need that first.
That's the opening bid.
There's nothing to talk about.
Under those conditions, Israel has a free pass.
I hate to say it.
I don't mean on a moral or ethical basis, but they have a free pass because their situation would not get worse if they were nicer, or would not get better if they were nicer.
So that kind of limits their options as well.
Anyway, I don't have a hard opinion about what should happen over there.
What I have is an observation that there aren't any good guys that are organized enough to deal with them.
So Israel always says, we would negotiate peace if you told us who to negotiate with.
Have you heard that before?
Who are we going to talk to?
There's nobody to talk to.
How do you do a peace deal when you literally can't even get a meeting with anybody who's in charge, who would even be a little bit interested in it?
So that's a good point too.
Anyway, so...
Mike Benz continues to be a national treasure here as he's helping us explain, he's helping us understand how much influence the security state, you know, the intelligence agencies have on our daily life.
Because you don't realize how much control they have over various entities and groups and the media, etc.
And so Mike Benz on the X platform is always calling that out.
Now he points out that Business Insider, a publication which Seems to be very opinionated about some political stuff.
Was bought a few years ago by what Mike calls a major CIA media conduit.
So some, I think a German entity or something.
But the publishing company that bought it apparently is well understood as a CIA cutout and we're not guessing.
And apparently we know there's this thing called What's it called?
The Integrity Initiative?
This is also from Mike Benz.
Something called the Integrity Initiative was this big umbrella group that would be the sort of mothership for all these different cutouts that look like they're independent people, but they're really, you know, they're just sent by the mothership.
So a lot of the people from one go to the other.
You know, there's a lot of cross-pollination of the people.
Now, if you didn't know that, you would read Business Insider and you'd say, hey, there's news.
But if you know it, you know that the only news that would be in Business Insider if, I'll just say if, this CIA influence is still working through the buyer all the way down to the stories, don't know.
But if that's the case, then you'd have to read their coverage with one eyebrow up.
It's like, I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
So don't believe anything about that.
There's an interesting story about the Trump lawyers.
I saw one opinion that, well, I'll tell you what that was.
His lawyers have asked for all information regarding government informants on January 6th.
So you think to yourself, aha!
Trump's defense is going to be that there were so many feds that they were the reason for the violence.
Aha!
That's what you say, right?
But apparently the lawyers are explaining in their request for this information, they're saying it's not because he thought the Feds instigated the problem, but rather, wait for it, because it would indicate whether the Feds did enough to prevent it.
In other words, they're going to argue there weren't enough agents there.
Now, here's what I think.
This is just my speculation.
I think this is just the cleverest way to find out how many agents were there.
Because if you said, tell us how many agents are there, couldn't the government say, we can't tell you that?
And then that's the end of it?
But suppose they say, we're trying to prove that they didn't have enough there.
Would that put a different kind of pressure on them To say we did a good job because we had enough people there.
This might be way more clever than you think it is.
But it was described by one observer as basically giving up on the idea that there were so many feds there that the feds caused the problem.
Like he's giving up on that.
I don't see that.
I don't think they're giving up on that at all.
I think if they have the number of agents, if it's a low, here's what I think.
If they get a number, which is iffy, if they get a number and it's like a low number, then they can claim, well that's the problem.
You knew there was going to be a problem, why did you have so few people there?
How is that my fault that everybody knew this was coming?
Because they did.
Everybody knew the protest was coming.
And you understaffed?
So you understaffed But I got impeached because you understaffed.
Is that what you're telling me?
So that would be one argument.
Now suppose, against all odds, they give a number that's like a crazy big number.
Suppose they come out with like 80 or 100 undercover people.
If you heard there were 100 of them, and I'm just making up that number, no reason to believe it, wouldn't you say to yourself, well they must have caused it?
Because 100 could have stopped it.
You know, that's what your brain would say.
That's not necessarily true.
But your brain would say, man, if they had 100 people, they could have stopped it.
But they must have been there to start it.
Right?
So your brain would play tricks on you if it's a big number, and it would play a different trick on you if it's a small number.
So I think Trump might have a good lawyer in that mix.
There's something about this I like so much.
So much.
Well, speaking of Biden and inflation, so Biden's trying to argue that corporations raised their prices because their own costs were high.
But then when the inflation went down, according to Biden, but not too many other people, the corporations didn't lower the prices.
So you know what the problem is?
So is corporations.
No, it's not how much money he printed.
It's not how much he borrowed.
No, no, no.
And so is evil corporations.
That's all he has.
Imagine having nothing else to run on, but that, yeah, inflation's high, but I blame the corporations.
Because you know what?
The free market has stopped working.
That's right.
The free market has stopped working.
That's what he's arguing.
Because if a company raised its prices, and then its cost of production went down, but it didn't lower its price, It's competing against somebody.
You know, unless there's collusion or monopoly activity.
That could be too.
Anyway, Trump is finding a way to lose.
It looks like Trump is going to take a crack at getting rid of Obamacare.
That is such a losing strategy.
My God.
How many times have I told you that nobody's even brought up Medicare?
I'm sorry, nobody brought up healthcare.
Healthcare became, was the biggest thing, and it just stopped being an issue.
When was the last time you heard anybody complain about Obamacare?
A year?
I haven't even heard the name in two years, probably.
Well, so here's what I think.
I said this in the beginning, and I'm going to double down on it.
I think Obama was a genius about Obamacare.
And in public, Obama said that Obamacare was basically a mess.
But once it got in the system, it would be too hard to remove it.
And so the government would be forced to keep tweaking and improving it until you had something that worked.
Because remember, healthcare was like this huge unsolvable problem.
Nobody could figure out how to create a good healthcare system that would also be supported by people.
There wasn't any way to do it.
If he had the best idea in the world, the other side would have said no.
There just wasn't any way to make a good one.
So instead of making a good one, he actually, in public, said directly, So we're going to give you a bad one, and we're going to stick it with the country, and when they're too hooked on it, they'll have to fix it.
And that's actually happening, I think.
I think there have been enough tweaks.
I think there have probably been enough tweaks that people just stopped complaining about it.
Or they adjusted to the cost, got used to it, started worrying about other things.
But here's my point.
I'm not going to make an argument that Obamacare is good.
If you heard that, that's not what I'm saying.
Let me say it again.
I'm not making an argument that Obamacare is good.
My argument is it's no longer a political question.
But if Trump says, I'm going to get rid of it, it's just going to turn into the worst political thing of all time.
You should just ignore it.
If nobody's complaining about it, at least in the media and social media, I don't see anybody complaining.
If they're not complaining, move on to something they are complaining about that you can fix.
To me, this would be like the abortion question.
It would be another way to lose on principle.
On principle, you might say, you know, this has to be fixed.
I know people aren't complaining, but on principle, there's some things wrong with it we need to fix.
But that's how you lose an election.
On principle.
So you have to make that decision.
You have to make the Vivek decision to just say, I'm trying to win this time, you know, so I'm going to let TikTok survive until I win.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my prepared remarks for what will no doubt be the best live stream you've ever seen in your life.
Probably...
Thank you.
Probably will go down in history as the greatest thing that ever happened.
All right.
Yeah, hit that subscribe button.
Hit the like button.
You YouTubers.
You know what I realize I don't do?
It's so dumb.
You're gonna laugh at how dumb this is.
After I do the livestream, you know, this will become posted as a recorded video on YouTube, I never remember to retweet it.
The most obvious thing you should do.
Like, I create this content, and it just sits there, and I don't even promote it.
I think I might start doing that today.
Anyway, hit the subscription button if you like it, and thanks for joining.
You are wonderful.
You can persuade him to talk to you in an interview online.
