Episode 2315 CWSA 12/07/23 GOP Debate, Trump's Narrow Ravine Strategy, McLeavin' And Lots More
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, Bill Ackman Harvard DEI, DEI Is McCarthyism, Competence Crisis, Grok AI, AI Advertising, Climate Change Models, GOP Debate, Chris Christie, David Pakman, Van Jones, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Replacement Theory, Tucker Carlson, President Trump, Dictator For Day, Gaza's Future, White House Interns, Thomas Massie, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, or in the Elbonian language, Inyon-bong-bong-gapati-cao.
As far as you know, there's an Elbonian language.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels which nobody could even understand, All you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tank, or a chalice, or a sty, and 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 of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Cybele TV sip, and it happens now.
Go!
Ah.
Just right.
Sublime.
All right.
Now, for those of you who are new, there might be some new people who have never seen the show before.
Give me the answer to the question before I ask it.
Go.
Answer to the question before I ask.
That is the correct answer.
Yes.
Now, here's the question.
In Erasmus and Poll, what percentage of people are in favor of removing statues of Washington, George Washington.
You said 25%.
Gosh, you're good.
It's 27.
27, but around, you know, within the margin of error.
I think your ability to know the answers before the questions are asked is unparalleled, purely unparalleled.
And if you think there's any audience in the world that is smarter than this one, Let's see if they can answer the question before you ask it.
Just give them that test.
They won't be able to do it.
Well, I am loving the, I don't know what you'd call it, but the ascension, maybe, of Bill Ackman, famous hedge fund investor guy.
So he's been going really hard at Harvard, especially.
And he says, among other things, in a long post today, he's becoming a national treasure in my view.
He says, I don't think it will be long before we look back on the last few years of free speech suppression And the repeated career-ending accusations of racist for those who question the DEI movement.
You think that'll happen?
You think we will someday look back at this period and it will look like McCarthyism?
And that the DEI thing will look like it was a gigantic mistake?
And it will be largely dismantled?
Yes.
Yes, he's absolutely right.
There's no way around it.
It's definitely gonna happen.
And he said we're all shortly going to realize that the DEI era is the McCarthy era part two.
He said he learned from someone who had first-person knowledge of the situation that when Harvard was searching for a president, the committee would not consider a candidate who did not meet the DEI office's criteria.
In other words, no white men.
That it was exactly what it looked like.
If you're wondering to yourself, huh, I wonder if they excluded white men in their search.
Yes, they did.
Yes, they did.
And Bill Ackman points out the same is likely true for other elite universities.
So the, would you say that the competence crisis is real?
I saw three College presidents that, in my opinion, were incompetent.
Now, as other people have pointed out, other people who identify as female, so I'll quote them instead of taking the heat on myself, those three college presidents set back women's rights by about 50 years. those three college presidents set back women's rights by about Am I the only one that had that impression?
And by the way, this wasn't my original, it's not my original observation.
It's something I was thinking when I watched it.
I think it was Greta Van Susteren who was saying it was setting back the women's movement, I think she said.
Set back the women's movement.
It really did.
It was a terrible, terrible day for women.
Well, McCarthy's leaving the job, he's leaving government.
I guess he had hinted that he might do it if he got pushed out of the leadership job, and I guess he is.
But the funniest part about that story is Matt Gaetz, who is obviously the agent of that change, he's the one who pushed for it, he had a post today with just one word, McLevin.
Now, some people interpreted it that Matt Gaetz was leaving, but that's not what he meant.
He was talking about McCarthy.
He was making a joke about the McLovin character.
There's a movie with a teenage character who calls himself McLovin.
He calls him McLevin.
Superbad was the name of the movie, yeah.
And I just love the fact that he's dancing on his grave.
All right.
China is allegedly going to revamp its space program.
And the reason that China is so worried about getting behind on space is not because the United States is doing such good work, but because Elon Musk is.
So who beat China to space?
Was it the United States?
Not exactly.
Was it India?
No.
No, it was just Elon Musk.
Just one person.
Just that one person destroyed on probably the most important stage of human development.
Someday, if humans live another thousand years, we're going to look back and see that the leaving of the planet has become interstellar.
Was more fundamental than even, you know, finding, discovering America, the so-called discovery.
And it was one person.
Basically one person did that.
And beat China.
So it was one person who beat over a billion people.
How many people are in China?
Two billion?
Two billion, right?
What's the population of China? 1.3.
1.7, 1.2, we got lots of estimates.
Over a billion.
All right.
So South Carolina, the state, they have announced that they're not going to invest the money in Walt Disney Company.
So it's no longer an approved state investment.
So now the Disney Company is not only fun for the whole family, But considered by one state so evil that you can't even invest in them.
But also, fun for the whole family.
But the state government has decided they're too evil for you to invest in.
You can take the family, but my god, don't put your money there, says the state of South Carolina.
I don't know if that will form any kind of a trend, we'll see.
I saw a post by Rohan Pandey, Who is my kind of poster.
You ever see a thing on social media where you say, my god, that could have been me posting that, because it looks like I did it.
Or here's one that just looks like something I would have done, except I'm not this smart.
So if I were smarter, I would have posted what Rohan Pandey posted.
He noted, he says, quick schizo theory, top and bottom quarks So those are the names for two different flavors of quark, the top and the bottom.
They were originally called truth and beauty.
So there's a truth quark and a beauty quark.
Now here's the interesting part.
Satya, first name of the leader of Microsoft, in Sanskrit his name means truth.
But Sundar, first name of the leader of Google, in Sanskrit his name means beauty.
So As Rohan points out, the two MFers, he says, competing in the race to AGI are named after opposing fundamental particles.
And then he says, the simulation is effing with us.
That's pretty good.
That the two people are truth and beauty, and that used to be two fundamental particles.
Now, it's all just coincidences, but it's fun.
Of course, he may have made up all of this, but still fun.
How many of you saw a very viral video of a new form of AI called Gemini?
I think it's Google's?
That was doing some amazing things by looking at images, and you could draw a picture, and it knew what you were drawing, and it could compare two things and all that.
Well, it took all of today to find out that was a fake video.
It was fake.
That totally fooled me.
But here's what was fake about it.
The fake part was, you believed that it was a human talking to the computer.
That's why you heard it was a conversation between a human and a computer.
In truth, they were giving it super prompts and text.
But the human was not repeating what the super prompt said.
The super prompt was giving it more information than the human was.
So the trick was, you thought that the computer only knew what it saw, plus whatever the human was saying verbally.
But what the computer actually knew was what they typed into the prompt, which had formatted the question in a way that narrowed the responses.
So the amazingness of the responses wasn't nearly as amazing as it would have been if you'd known how they asked the question.
But still amazing.
Yeah, still amazing.
It just wasn't as amazing as the video.
That's a claim anyway.
I don't know if it's true, but there's a claim that somebody's seen the Super Prompts and they're different.
All right, Axios is talking about Elon Musk's strategy with his AI called Grok, and apparently it's unclear whether the AI that Elon Musk is building Would be part of the X platform or part of a separate company that the X platform accesses and works with.
So we don't know that yet.
But if it's true that the Grok or, you know, that's the name of the AI that'll be operative on X, if it's true that it gets valued the same as ChatGPT, then Musk will have doubled his investment.
So if he paid $44 billion and ChatGPT is already valued on paper more than that, twice that, it's like $90 billion or something.
So he could actually double his investment the day that Grok goes live.
Potentially.
Because that would depend on people's psychology saying, oh no, that's as good as ChatGPT, so we'll give it the same value.
Could happen.
Here's what Axios speculates as at least a possibility, and I agree, but only after reading Axios.
So I did not come to this decision on my own.
Axios guided me there.
It goes like this.
When Musk said about advertisers, don't advertise F.U.
In other words, don't advertise if you have a problem or you're trying to manipulate me or Black family, don't advertise.
Now, do you think that Musk anticipated how much trouble that would cause, or at least knew there was a risk of how much trouble that would cause?
Because it seems unlikely that he would be unaware that would be a problem.
So one has to wonder, What if he knew how much of a risk it was, and he did it anyway?
Is it just because he's based, based and awesome, and he just didn't care about $44 billion?
Maybe.
That's actually entirely possible.
But I would like to suggest there's one other possibility.
It goes like this.
Elon Musk is the only person who's figured out that the advertising model is going to be gone in three years.
Because AI will completely replace it.
You might be the one who figured out that he has to get out of... He probably wants to get out of advertising as fast as possible and go to subscription or a model that looks like this.
Wouldn't you like to never see an advertisement again unless your personal version of AI decided from based on what you told it directly Or what it knew about you that it would always be scanning for new products.
And if it found anything that was right on point for you, it would show it to you.
But it wouldn't show it to you while you're on task.
In other words, it wouldn't interrupt you while you're reading something.
It would simply know that a good time to talk to you or even maybe just make a little shopping list for you that you don't even see unless you tap on it.
I don't see any way that advertising Works as a as a revenue model as a business model in ten years How many would agree with the following statement in ten years the advertising model will be completely dead?
in ten years I Think I can convince you in ten years.
It'll be dead How about five well anybody go with me to five I Because the thing that will kill it is likely to be some AI-related architecture.
I think five.
Now, in five, I don't mean every single ad model would be dead.
I mean, in five, you could maybe imagine that X would be ad model free, while still giving you all the advertisements.
You might actually say, let me ask you this.
How much would you pay to never see another advertisement again unless you wanted it?
And you only see it when you want to.
How much would you pay to remove just advertising from social media?
Because we're getting pretty close to that, and here's how.
If Musk succeeds in making X the place you go and just live, because you can make payments there, you can see the news there, you can comment there, basically you can just live there.
See all your videos and everything?
Then, suppose he makes it ad-free.
Imagine going to an environment that's ad-free and you're playing in your playground all day.
How would you feel the first time you turn on cable news and it goes to a commercial in 12 minutes?
And it stays there for another 12 minutes, it seems like.
You will be so done with the ad model once you buy out.
And I'll tell you, I have some experience with this.
Because I've bought myself in at the YouTube advertisements, meaning that if you pay extra, I forget what they call it, but whatever the business model is on YouTube, you pay extra to see no advertisements.
The nature of your experience without advertisement is so transformative that it makes YouTube, in my opinion, the premier entertainment vehicle in the world by 10.
It's probably 10 times more entertaining than the next most entertaining thing, this long form.
I'm just talking about long form.
So anyway, I think Musk might have more of an instinct about advertising being dead than you do, and just speculating that I think he's probably thinking ahead to the death of advertising and that he probably didn't feel that it was an existential threat to X if he just killed it early.
In fact it might accelerate the urgency to get past the model which is gonna happen anyway.
So he might actually come out ahead, because you can imagine what would happen to the team at X. Imagine you're working at X. You've got some people who are trying to work on the non-advertising model.
And some are working on the advertising model.
Do you think when he blew up the advertising model that that changed the energy?
Probably.
Probably the people figuring out how to make AI work and all the alternatives probably got real busy.
Probably also the advertising team got real focused on smaller businesses.
The ones that are more likely to be advertising.
So I'm not sure that that was the bad thing that you think it was.
Maybe it was.
There's no way to read his mind to know what he was thinking.
But I'm going to go on record as saying I think that Musk will probably say something that suggests the advertising model is not forever.
Expect to see that.
All right.
Climate activists are concerned that AI would be another risk to climate.
In two different ways, AI might be used to spread climate disinformation.
Well, my God.
My God, yeah.
I'd hate for there to be any climate disinformation out there.
Because you know what?
The climate information that we have now is so good that we all have the same opinion about the risk.
Am I right?
Yeah, because it would be a real problem If suddenly our good climate information turns into unreliable stuff because of AI, I mean, that's reason enough to stop AI.
Let's slow that down.
We don't want any unreliable information about the climate out there.
But also, the AI models are huge data center users, and so they use a ton of electricity.
So that's a good point.
Or is it?
Here are a few things that AI might tell you about climate models.
You know how I know that it might tell you this?
I asked it.
So I asked AI, hey, I got a few specific questions about climate models, because I would like to know how reliable they are.
So here are some things that there's no opinion in what I give you now.
So these are just facts.
I asked how many climate models are there?
Do you know?
How many climate models are there?
Thousands?
Dozens?
Hundreds?
25?
60?
13?
Now don't you think that if the entire strategy of climate change is based on the models, and it is, don't you think you should know how many models there are?
Would it affect your opinion of the reliability of models if you knew how many there were?
But take two extremes.
Let's say there had never been more than five models.
And one of them got thrown away over the years because it just didn't work.
But imagine if the other four had been doing a pretty good job for like 30 years.
That would tell you something important, wouldn't it?
You had three different models.
And they actually predicted pretty well the actual temperature for 30 years.
My god, that would be amazing.
And I would be quite inclined to believe a model like that.
Do we have that?
No, nothing like that.
That would be very, very believable.
All right, here's another question.
So the answer is that the IPPC averages 29 models.
Is that the answer?
To how many models there are?
The most official body takes the average of 29 models.
So would it be fair to say there are about 29 models?
Does it follow?
Does it follow that if they only use 29, well, they can't be that much more than 29?
Because the whole reason that you take an average is because you're not sure which ones are right.
So if you had hundreds of them, and you're not sure they're right, you would take the average of all the hundreds.
So therefore, if they're only taking an average of 29, doesn't that suggest, since they're not being super picky about which, you know, because they don't know which ones are right, that's why they take an average.
Doesn't it suggest that the total number might be close to 29, because why would they throw out any models?
What would be the reasoning We're discarding any models at all, if they don't know which ones are right.
And they don't know which ones are right, that's why you average, because you don't know which one's right.
Well, the answer is, it's probably hundreds of models, but they average 29.
Huh.
Huh.
Now here's another question for you.
How many models are retired every year?
Do you know what that means?
It means there used to be a model that they were tracking.
But it became so bad at tracking over time that they said, you know, we can't even tweak it.
We're just going to throw this in the way.
How many?
So out of the number of models that you don't even know how many there are, maybe hundreds, maybe 29 good ones according to the IPPC.
How many of them change out every year so that the 29 you're looking at are not exactly the same 29 as five years ago?
Do half of them change out?
Because if half of them change down, wouldn't you say to yourself, well, that doesn't sound very good at all.
That sounds like guessing.
If half of them are replaced every year, or is it one?
One out of 29 wouldn't be bad.
But how about the fact that you don't know the answer to that question?
Because if you don't know how many get changed out every year, you don't know anything.
Do you understand that?
If they're tracking 29-ish models, But you don't know if they're replacing models as they go.
You literally don't know anything.
Nothing can be deduced from tracking a changing basket of anything.
Imagine if this had been the stock market and they say, we're going to track the S&P 500.
Oh, but wait, the S&P 500, the biggest 500 companies, it changes all the time.
Things are coming in and coming out.
So at the end, what did you really check?
It wasn't 500 companies, because at the end it might be, you know, 350 to the left, depending on how long you're tracking.
So, if you're not tracking the same thing, you're not tracking anything.
All right, here's another question.
How many variables are in a model?
How many variables are in a typical model?
If there were three variables, I would say to myself, hmm, three variables.
There's at least a fighting chance that you could wrestle three variables into a useful model.
This three is not too many.
Suppose you had five.
You know, five is not just two more variables.
When you go from three variables to five, your possibilities explode.
So, how many variables do you think are the essential variables?
Do they even have a name for it?
The essential variables.
Because they're infinite variables, but they're not all meaningful.
How many of the essential ones?
Well, if you check online, you'll find out four.
Four variables.
So I said, oh, that's not bad.
Really?
This is four variables?
And then I looked a little deeper.
No, there are four Categories of variables.
There are four categories.
The total number of variables is closer to 54 essential variables.
54 variables.
Now let me ask you this.
What if there were one more variable that they found tomorrow?
Because I see stories about this all the time.
Oh, we found another variable we didn't know about.
If you were to find the 55th variable, and you added it to the 54, what does your intuition tell you?
Does your intuition tell you, well, it's only one more variable.
You've already got 54 variables, so if you're only going to add one more, how much difference could it make?
Am I right?
It's only one more variable.
You've already got 54.
Couldn't make that much difference, right?
No.
One variable can completely change the outcome from up to down.
If you've never done modeling, you wouldn't know that.
How many of the 54 variables, if you got any one of them wrong, just one of them, how many of the 54 could completely reverse the direction from the temperature going up to the temperature going down in the future?
How many of the 54, if you just had one of them, just one of them, a little bit wrong, how could it change a lot of them probably?
Probably a number of the 54 if you got them a little bit wrong and you iterate that over time because small errors exaggerate over time with models.
Probably there are 54 ways that that could go wrong.
In other words, you'd have to really have a solid lock handle on all 54 variables or else it wouldn't necessarily be anything.
It would just be, I don't know, could be anything.
That would be the only way to analyze 54 variables.
Now let me ask you this.
How many models that purport to forecast the future, and of course there are financial models, economic models, so a lot of people have models that try to forecast the future.
How many of them have something in the order of 54 variables and they track record of being correct?
Now I'm laughing.
Because everybody who's been involved in any kind of forecasting or modeling knows, and I'm going to say as clearly as possible, they know that this isn't real.
This is not real.
There's nobody tracking 54 variables and maybe hundreds of models, but some humans are picking the best 29 out of the hundreds.
Because what?
You know how they pick the 29 models out of the hundreds of models?
Is it because they're the most accurate?
I doubt it.
Or is it the ones that support the narrative the best?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Use your understanding of everything you've ever seen in the real world.
You tell me that there are hundreds of models to choose from.
They're only going to choose 29.
You think they're going to choose 29 models that when you put them together they don't support the narrative?
There isn't a slightest chance of that.
Not even the slightest chance.
Now, how about weighting?
You think they take those 29 models and they give them all equal weight?
Because normally when you do a survey, you would weight it by the number of people you talked to.
Right?
If you're going to take an average of a bunch of surveys about, let's say, vaccine effectiveness or something like that, the thing that would make it logical to average them is that they're individually smallish studies.
So if you add them together you've got enough at least people involved to say something.
But what is it you're averaging if you're averaging climate models?
What is the meta-analysis logic that adding them together and taking the average is anything?
Like how does it even make sense?
Yeah.
The meta-analysis at least makes sense, even though it's bullshit and it's horoscopes, but at least there's a little bit of logic to it.
If the only thing wrong with the studies was some of them were underpowered, then adding them together would be exactly the right solution.
But if you have completely, you know, just people looking at variables on their own and databases on their own, what is it you're averaging?
Just the outcomes.
And I'm not sure there's any logic to that, or why would you even assume that the average is useful?
There's no logic to say that the average would be useful in this specific case.
There are lots of cases where the average is exactly what you want, but I don't see any internal logic to this.
So you don't know how many models are added to the total, new models.
You don't know how many are retired.
You don't know how they picked the 29 models, and you don't know if they added one more variable someday to the 54 they have, if it would reverse the entire direction of the curve.
Let me say the faster version of all this.
Nobody can predict the future.
Nobody can predict the future.
That's never been a thing.
Ever.
Ever.
Right.
You can say maybe that human nature stays consistent over time, and that gives you a little bit of that history repeats feel, but even that's fake, right?
But you could definitely say, all right, next year humans will be selfish and susceptible to cognitive dissonance.
Yeah, that's fair.
But you don't know anything about the variables in nature.
All right.
Let's talk about that GOP debate.
I saw a little of it, and I watched a bunch of clips, and if you didn't watch it, the four participants that are not Trump are Vivek Ramaswamy, and Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley, and that other guy.
Who's the other guy?
Who's the fourth person on the stage?
Is Sanctimonious something?
Yeah, somebody named Ron was also there, but he did not make any highlight.
Ron didn't make any highlight films.
The highlight films left him out.
Now, here's what I take away from the whole thing.
It was easy to observe that people just thought their favorite person won.
I was watching David Pakman, When he was observing it as an observer, so I was watching him observe in real time.
And his take was that Chris Christie won easily.
It was like Chris Christie's night.
Now, Pacman's a Democrat, you know, famous Democrat.
And do you think that what he was responding to was the quality of Christie's arguments?
Or was it that Christie hates Trump the most?
Obviously, it's because Christie is the one who says Trump's the problem.
Obviously.
Now, did he really believe that Chris Christie did the best job?
I think so.
Yeah, I don't think he was lying.
I think that we all had our subjective reality reinforced.
If you were in Nikki Haley's camp, you thought she won.
If you were in DeSantis' camp, you thought he won by not making news.
You know, not being crazy.
If you were in Vivek's camp, as I am, You think he won?
And I do.
So everybody agreed with what they thought was going to happen before it happened.
So you can ignore everybody's opinion of who won.
That's useless.
But there were some highlights.
Van Jones said he was literally shaking after listening to Vivek.
And what he called his smooth and condescending way and he's more dangerous than Trump because he could outlive Trump by 50 years and you might be seeing a tyrant in the making.
Those are my words.
But he says that Vivek's embracement of the quote replacement theory that we'll talk about is one step from Nazi propaganda.
What do you take from Van Jones' reaction to Vivek?
Do you say to yourself, my God, I had not thought of it that way, but Van Jones might have a good point about this, this Brown fellow becoming the next Hiller?
Or do you say, that's the only one he's worried about?
To me, it looks like Van Jones is only worried about one candidate who isn't Trump.
So, does that make you like Vivek less, knowing he's the one that scares Van Jones the most?
Well, if you believe that the reason he's scared is the risk of totalitarian racism, then I guess you haven't listened to anything Vivek has said.
I feel as if this analysis of Vivek has to ignore everything he stands for, the books he's written, every TV appearance, and everything he's ever posted, which is 100% merit and which is 100% merit and not race.
He's the most anti-racist candidate of all time.
By far.
He is the furthest from a racist Nazi of any major candidate in the history of the fucking United States.
That's true.
He says that the loudest and he's the one that says you got to include white people and white men if you're being serious about merit.
If you're being serious about not being a racist.
Who's the other brown leader who says, how about white people are not discriminated against either?
Yes, definitely don't discriminate against anybody else.
But why are you discriminating against white people?
He's the only one.
Yeah.
The comment says, Scott is a vague propaganda minister.
How about I'm just endorsing him for president?
Looks the same, I guess.
All right, some more things that happen.
So Megan Kelly asked Nikki Haley, aren't you too tight with the banks and the billionaires to win over the GOP's working class base?
Good question.
And she said, We will take support from anybody.
I don't ask them what their policies are.
They ask me what my policies are.
Nicely done.
Nicely done.
I don't think Nikki Haley is my first choice, or even third or fourth choice for president, but that's a good answer.
That's the Willie Brown answer I always talk about, where you should just go right at it.
So denying that you're taking money from somebody is weak.
And denying, you know, sort of just restating your policy is kind of weak.
But she says it directly.
We'll take money from anybody.
They ask me what my policies are.
That's the way it works.
It's not the other way around.
That is a cool, strong answer.
I like it.
All right.
Vivek went super hard at them, and he had quite a few moments.
One of his moments was he challenged his competitors to name the three provinces in Ukraine that they're trying to protect.
Now, number one, it's a messed up question, meaning that I don't think you need to know the names of the provinces.
The same as I didn't believe that George Bush Sr.
really needed to know the cost of a price of bread.
Remember that gotcha when somebody asked George Bush Sr.
if he knew the price of a loaf of bread and he didn't?
That really was unimportant.
Because if he understands, you know, the inflation rate, he kind of gets it.
You know, you don't need to be shopping for a loaf of bread yourself.
That was always dumb.
So when Vivek used the loaf of bread trick, I'll call it, to challenge them to name the three provinces, Nikki Haley got a look on her face that Vivek called out as a blank expression.
Now, this was the brilliant part.
This was brilliant.
So much like the, uh, you've heard the auditory illusion of, uh, uh, what is it?
Green needle and the other, uh, Jan and Laurel, Laurel and Yanni and all that stuff.
So when Nikki Haley made, uh, let's say an exaggerated expression on her face to that comment, you know, in her, like her mouth, especially when it's sort of a smirk, I looked at the smirk and I said, is that a, Blank expression?
Or is that a smirk?
Because a smirk says, I'm going to kill you.
And I have the goods.
But if the smirk was a, uh-oh, I'm in trouble, well, then it's the exact opposite.
So when Vivek called her out and pointed to her and said, look at the blank expressions, he primed you to see it as a blank expression.
And it was brilliant.
That was probably the smartest in-the-moment play you'll ever see in your life.
Because when he called it out as a blank expression, you saw it that way.
If he had not called it out, do you know how you might have seen it?
How many of you watched the debate and noticed that eventually Nikki Haley did say the names of the three provinces without prompting?
Did anybody see her do it?
Nope, you didn't even see it.
I did.
I saw it.
Because she did it when somebody was talking over her.
So one of the others or more of them were talking over her, and after the conversation had gone for a while, she sort of leaned into the mic and just said the names of the provinces.
So if you're wondering what the smirk was for, she showed you that she actually knew the names of the provinces.
She did a bad job of clearing out the space so that when she delivered her kill shot, that she knew the names of the provinces, you could hear it and it would be her moment.
So I think, you know, you can't read minds.
I can't read her mind, but I did observe personally her saying the names of the provinces.
Now, did, did she have to think about it?
Probably.
I would.
I'd have to like, think about it for a moment.
It's like, can I come up with a three?
And then I think Vivek said something about, you know, acting like she got one of them wrong or something, Crimea or something.
Can you give me a fact check?
There are three provinces, but that doesn't include Crimea, right?
Crimea is its own thing.
So she got, you know, she may have known, she may have gotten close or she may have had an answer that the audience would recognize or would think was the right answer.
But, um, so I'm going to give Vivek an A plus for creating that situation.
It was a good one.
For priming us to see her as a blank, blank face and also the other people.
And then also talking over her when she had a chance, talking over her when she had a chance to redeem herself.
That also worked.
So you might say to yourself, that was really kind of sneaky, you know, weaselly debate technique.
To which I say, that's all these debates are.
All the debates are, are people looking for their little weaselly, tricky moments.
It's not about the cleverness of their argument.
If it were about the solidness of the argument, DeSantis would look like a winner, you know, at least half of the debates.
But it's never about that.
It's about creating the energy in the moment and the, you know, can you do it again kind of vibe.
So if you didn't like Vivek, you liked him even less because he was so strong in the debate.
If you liked him, you said, oh, he scored all the good hits and etc.
Another, we'll give some more moments here.
So Vivek said that he believed, he said, why am I the only person on this stage, at least, who can say that?
And they listed several things that are really controversial.
He says he believes now that other people are afraid to say they believe.
So the first one is that January 6th now looks like it was an inside job.
Now he says, looks like it was, which is the fairest way to say it.
If he said it was, I think that would be going too far.
Well, he's really smart about knowing where that line is.
So he says, it looks like it was an inside job.
And it does.
It looks like it.
I also do not declare that it was.
But based on what we've seen, I'd say the hypothesis that it was an inside job is dominant, more likely than the opposite, but I don't know for sure.
Then he also said the government lied about 9-11 and Saudi Arabian involvement lied for 20 years.
I'm not totally up on that topic but sounds like that's about right.
That the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
Now when he says stolen he doesn't mean that the vote was miscounted.
He's talking about more Your platform manipulation and the suppression of free speech and all that, which is valid.
And then here's where the trouble comes.
Or does it?
You've heard of this thing called the Great Replacement?
I know you've heard of it.
It's the idea that generally comes from very right-wing conservative types.
And they say that Remember the Charlottesville March and the marchers were saying, they will not replace us, talking about Jews.
And that's just like a sliver of the larger concept.
But then if you look at the border, it looks like there's some kind of, well, some would say, I'll say some would say.
That it looks like the open border is an obvious attempt to replace the current majorities with rounder majorities that are more likely to vote Democrat.
Now, Vivek is taking, I think, the border is open and they're bringing in lots of future Democrat voters to replace us, meaning, you know, us in this case would be conservatives, not white people.
So when Vivek says replacement, He's not talking about brown people, because he's brown, right?
He's not talking about, I think they want brown people to replace Vivek.
That's not what he's saying.
But he's definitely dancing close to the sun here, because people like Van Jones are going to hear it as the racist version.
But if you hear it as the, why is the border open and non-citizens are pouring in and changing the nature of of our country in ways that maybe he doesn't like or you don't like.
So this is really dangerous and provocative, but I think what he's trying to do is revive free speech.
That's what I see in this comment.
I don't see in this comment any kind of, you know, dog whistle.
I don't think he's about the dog whistle.
I think this is more about The beginning of reclaiming the Great Replacement from, it's only what racists talk about, to, I'm just looking at the math.
You just brought in 8 million people that weren't here before.
Are they having an impact on our, let's say, ability to manage the country the way we were?
Of course they do.
Of course.
It might be a good impact or it might be a bad impact, but it's certainly replacing what was here in a general sense impact.
But I don't think it's a racial comment.
I think it has more to do with how people think actually.
All right, so we'll see if he can get away from that little hole.
He dug himself a little hole because should he become president or presidential candidate, he's going to have to explain this for the rest of his career.
Like, they'll never drop this.
But he is good enough that he could take the gun from their hand and flip it around.
So if you imagine Vivek answering the question, hey, is this great replacement thing, sort of a Nazi thing?
He would obliterate whoever asked him that question.
Like, that would be another moment that he would sparkle, because you should be able to obliterate that dumbass question.
He could do it.
All right.
And then he went after Nikki Haley for saying that when he had criticized her prior debate, Nikki Haley suggested that maybe he had a, quote, woman problem.
Maybe he had a woman problem.
Well, that's not quite a nice thing to say for one Republican to another.
Because aren't the Republicans the ones who are supposed to sort of not talk like that and not act like it's some kind of weird Woke DEI thing.
That's kind of the opposite of being a Democrat or a Republican at the moment.
So Vivek answers by saying, I don't have a woman problem.
Nikki Lee has a corruption problem.
And then he held up his notes and on one page he had written, Nikki equals corrupt.
Did you see that moment when he held it up and showed that was all that was on his page?
It was visual.
It made the news.
And you'll remember it forever.
Perfect.
Perfect.
Then he said that Nikki Haley, this is a woman who will send your kids to die so she can buy a bigger house.
Talking about her preferences for more war-like policies.
This is a woman who will send your kids to die so she can buy a bigger house.
You could write A doctoral thesis on that one sentence.
It's so perfect.
Persuasion perfection.
Because, you know, I always tell you that fear is the best persuasion, right?
Fear is the best persuasion.
What is more scary than sending your kid to die?
That's pretty scary.
And what is more visual than sending them to die so you can buy a bigger house?
So you got the bigger house, you got your visual, you got your son dying.
That's also a visual.
But it's also fear.
One sentence.
Do you understand how good he is at this?
This is a skill level that we've... I don't think we've ever seen it before, honestly.
I'm not aware of ever seeing anybody who operated at this level, including Trump.
Trump is a singular character.
I always resist comparing him to anything, because his own method just can't be duplicated.
You can't take his method.
He just sort of operates in his own zip code, and he is just Trump is Trump.
In fact, that's all I say about him now.
Trump is Trump.
That's the good news and the bad news.
Trump is Trump.
Why is he leading right now in the polls?
Because Trump is Trump.
It explains a lot.
Nobody else is him.
If anybody else could be him, they might be leading in the polls too.
But Trump is Trump.
There's only one.
There will never be another one.
If you like that, there's nobody else to vote for.
All right, so that was pretty artistic from the Vakes.
She called her, she says she has donor puppet masters.
I like Puppet Master too, because you can see the puppet strings.
Visual, visual, visual.
Just so good on the visual stuff.
And then he says directly that he rejects identity politics.
He says two X chromosomes does not immunize you from criticism.
Oh, thank you.
Yeah.
Vivek slamming Nikki Haley for being too woke.
That is the show I wanted to watch.
That one speaks to every part of my body.
I can feel that.
There are a lot of things that you say, oh, that's a good intellectual pointer.
I like that policy.
That's a good policy.
When he said 2x chromosomes do not immunize, it doesn't immunize you from criticism.
He rejects identity politics.
I could feel it.
In my body, I could feel that.
That's a whole different level.
So there's some controversy about, I guess, the Rumble feed that was covering the debate.
I guess it glitched out when somebody, maybe Megyn Kelly, asked about the warp speed, you know, getting the vaccinations fast with Trump.
And so people are saying, oh, that's a coincidence that it cut out just on that question.
But it wasn't a coincidence.
It was just a technical problem.
It is very unlikely that Rumble would cut out on a Republican debate.
Let me say that again.
There's not really any chance that Rumble intentionally cut a feed at any point during a Republican debate.
That is not a possibility.
There's no real world possibility of that happening at all.
All right.
What else?
So The Rock.
Notice I didn't mention DeSantis.
I feel like DeSantis is just a Running out the clock.
You know, sort of waiting around to see if anything happens with Trump, but not really trying too hard to win at this point.
I think he's just trying to do an honest attempt because he has backers and they want him to do it.
It just looks like, I mean, he did not seem engaged.
He just did his good DeSantis job.
And by the way, I have the funniest or unusual take on DeSantis.
DeSantis is the best politician that doesn't interest me.
So it's like a compliment.
Actually, that's just a complete compliment.
You know why he doesn't interest me?
Because he doesn't do crazy shit every day.
There's no crazy shit.
He just like sort of does good things that his base wants him to do.
He's a great politician in terms of execution.
But for For the presidency, if you're running against a Trump, you're running against a superstar.
He doesn't have superstar energy to level up to, you know, the Taylor Swift of politicians.
So it's terribly unfair.
And if DeSantis comes back around in some subsequent year and runs for president, I can say supporting him.
He's a solid, solid, patriotic, Good servant of the people, I think.
So The Rock, Dwayne, The Rock Johnson, did some mysterious meeting with the military folks at the Pentagon after, you know, not long ago, saying that the parties wanted him to run for president.
The parties.
I love the way he says it, making it seem like, you know, even the Democrats and even the Republicans, both sides.
Yes, it's the parties.
Oh, don't ask me which side.
I mean, they all want me.
So he's very smart to not kill the rumor, because the longer the rumor goes, the more fun it is for him and the more free attention he gets.
So he's smart to keep it going.
But I would say it's unlikely that he was talking to the Pentagon to line up his support for running for president or to do his research before he ran for president or any of that.
The most likely scenario is he has some business with the Pentagon.
Could be he's doing a movie, might want some support from the military.
Could be the military wants him to be sort of an ambassador to improve recruitment.
He's gotta be perfect for that.
So I doubt that it's because he's running for president.
But it's fun.
It's fun to think about it.
Speaking of fun, Axios is reporting that Melania thinks Tucker Carlson would be a great VP for Trump, because he's sort of the more articulate version of Trump with very similar attitudes about things.
Now, I don't think it's going to be Tucker, because I don't think Tucker would be reckless enough to take the job.
It seems like Tucker's in sort of an ideal place for his media life, and unless he's looking for a radical change to that, which would surprise me, I don't think he's going to even consider it.
But it's a lot of fun, isn't it?
A lot of fun.
I tell myself, okay, just game that out in your mind.
Question number one, would Trump do better in the election if Tucker is his vice president?
Go.
Would Trump do better in the election?
Almost all noes.
Wow.
About 80% noes on locals.
What do you think, YouTube?
Oh, YouTube is more yeses.
Well, also lots of noes.
I should have waited.
All right, more noes than yeses.
So a lot of you don't think he would change the outcome.
Here's why Tucker would be a positive.
Tucker is one of the, I'd say, top five best communicators in all of politics.
Would you agree with that?
He's a top five best communicator in all of politics.
So therefore, some would say, therefore he would be a good vice presidential running mate.
Here's what I say.
You get all that for free.
Tucker is still going to be talking.
He's still going to have a huge platform, no matter what.
And you know, he's going to be supportive of Trump because he said so directly.
So Trump can get all the benefit of Tucker's communication excellence without any of the reputational harm of saying, Oh, 10 years ago, Tucker did a thing.
Oh, five years ago, Tucker said this thing that could be interpreted two ways.
He could just take all the good for free with none of the pain.
Because if he could find a VP who didn't have any of the controversy that Tucker brings naturally, then he can get all of Tucker's goodness, plus a solid backup candidate that helps him for his age especially.
I think Trump has to go young, because the age question will be salient if he gets elected.
And I think Vivek is a more obvious choice, but we'll see.
The competence crisis is real.
Apparently there's this case going on to see if Trump should be denied being on the ballot in some states.
So Colorado is looking at that.
And Colorado Supreme Court Judge William Hood III said in the process of discussing it, And judging it, he said, quote, in some ways January 6th seems like a poster child for insurrection.
In other words, indicating that the judge believes that insurrection is largely obviously proven.
Now, is that bad news?
If he thinks that the insurrection is sort of obvious?
Well, it's bad news for this judge, because it makes him look like an idiot.
How exactly is it obvious that an unarmed trespass is anything more than, at best, delaying a process for a few hours or a few days?
Yeah, maybe the Supreme Court has to look at it.
That's it.
That was the highest level of risk.
Eh, short delay.
Supreme Court looks at it.
Rules.
How does a judge not understand that?
This is an incompetence problem, isn't it?
Am I wrong?
To me, this looks like basic competence is just missing.
Yeah, we'll see.
Now here's what I think about Trump's language lately.
So I think Axios was pointing this out as well.
So he's used language that his critics are saying, hey, that's very, well, it's not Hitler-like, but it's Hitler-adjacent.
Well, that's not quite dictator talk, but you're getting real close.
Well, that's not exactly what the Nazis say, but it reminds me of them.
So is he doing the dumbest thing in the world by allowing people to frame him as a dictator?
It almost looks like he's doing it intentionally, especially when he said that he would only be a dictator for one day.
He said, quote, We're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling.
After that, I'm not a dictator.
So just one day.
I'll just be a dictator for one day.
After that, not a dictator.
Now, when I first heard it, my first reaction was, oh, why are you doing this?
Like, this is just the worst idea.
His biggest problem is that they're going to call him a dictator.
He knows that.
So why would he use language That most of us would recognize would make you be labeled a dictator.
Why would you do that?
Well, I have a hypothesis.
I don't know that it's true, but it goes like this.
He might be playing what I call the narrow ravine strategy.
Now, this is one I have used myself in the past.
You might recognize it from some of my past.
The narrow ravine means you allow your enemies to bunch up in a place where it's really easy to, you know, shoot down and kill them.
So basically you're herding them into the most vulnerable place for them while they believe they're winning.
So the thing that gets them into the narrow ravine in the first place is they say, aha, we've got you trapped.
You're going to be trapped in the narrow ravine.
And then they chase you down the narrow ravine, but you've got all your people in the top.
And they shoot down into the narrow ravine and kill him.
So it's basically a trap.
The narrow ravine trap.
So we see him saying things which are making his critics say, oh, salivate, salivate.
He keeps saying things that's going to make it easy for us, easy for us to take him out by labeling him a dictator.
And so they're like, all right, we've got our plan.
Everybody, everybody.
Here's our plan.
We're going to go full dictator on Trump.
He's making it easy.
He keeps saying all these dictator things.
And he is.
What's another reason he might be doing it?
Well, I think he may have given you a little wink and a nod when he said he would be a dictator for one day just to get a couple of things done.
And here's what I think he's telling you.
He's going to milk it.
Because there's nothing easier, in theory, this doesn't mean he'll do it, but in theory, there would be nothing easier to persuade than to persuade people that he wasn't a dictator.
It could be the easiest thing.
And the way you would do it is by mocking it.
You just make a joke out of it.
Did he make a joke out of it when he said, oh, I might be a dictator for one day, just one day?
Yes.
Yes, he did.
That was literally making light of it.
He never gave it weight.
If he had said, dictator, why, I'm in favor of free speech, and you guys are against free speech, and here are my three other reasons why I'm not a dictator, and what would the audience hear?
Dictator, dictator, dictator.
Well, you're very defensive, aren't you?
You seem very defensive about this dictator thing.
Why are you so defensive?
Why does this attack Really get under your skin.
You know what?
Why are you melting down over this?
It must be true.
It's the way you're reacting to it.
Right?
That would be the mistake.
It's also the way a classic politician would respond.
I'm no dictator.
The other side might be acting more like dictators than me.
Let me give you these laundry list of reasons.
Doesn't work at all.
But what are they reporting about it?
They actually, Axios literally reported It was a wink and a nod.
The news actually picked up that it was a wink and a nod.
Now, a wink and a nod is not mockery, but it's a signal that it's coming.
Oh, it's coming.
I think that he's playing the narrow ravine followed by the mockery cannons.
I think the mockery cannons are Are just on hold.
And once he gets the Democrats to fully commit, and it might even be months from now, I mean, it could be next summer, just let them just call him a dictator while he's leading in the polls.
Because as long as he's leading the polls, everything's good.
Gets his nomination over the summer, and then goes full mockery cannons on the only thing that they've accused him for for a year.
And they're going to say, shit, shit, shit, it's not working.
And they're gonna have to come up with something new at the last minute, which is always a tough, tough thing.
So I think he's leading them into the narrow ravine on this dictator thing.
Because, objectively speaking, if he eventually mocks it, and then people start looking at, you know, the opposite evidence that maybe it's the Democrats who are the power-hungry people.
To me, it's...
Looking like it might be a really strong play, but there's a lot of assumptions I make.
My first assumption is that he's fully aware of what he's doing and that it's a narrow ravine play.
I think the wink and the nod about Dictator for a Day does tell you that he's not going to take it seriously and that he's going to keep it in that frame.
And if he keeps pushing that frame, it's going to be glorious.
It's going to be glorious.
All right.
Meanwhile, I guess there are more voting machine company lawsuits against, I guess Smartmatic is going after Mike Lindell for his claims about their machines.
They're going after Newsmax, and then Dominion is also going after Newsmax.
So all that action might happen over the summer, which would potentially be embarrassing, I guess.
But the other thing is embarrassing for Trump, I suppose.
But the other possibility is that there will be a lot of discovery.
Why is it that nobody's required the voting machine companies to show us their code?
See, this is the part I don't understand.
Maybe somebody can explain this, if somebody's a lawyer.
If I'm a lawyer and I say, If I've made an accusation that your voting machines cheated and then they sue me because there's no evidence that they cheated, which is the case, no convincing evidence that I'm aware of, doesn't Mike Lindell have every right to make them show all of their proprietary software?
And if they don't show their proprietary software, doesn't he win?
Because he makes a claim that they can't disprove without showing their software.
And they can't do that because it's proprietary.
The worst that they could prove is that he hasn't proven his claim.
But I think in order for him to be guilty, they have to sort of prove that it's not true.
Do I have that right?
That in order to prevail, they have to prove His claim is false.
How do they do that unless they open themselves up for a full audit?
That's never gonna happen.
How do they prove that they couldn't have changed it without being detected?
Unless they show every part of their system.
There's a possibility that these voting machine companies are being encouraged by the Democrats to do what they're doing.
Because it looks bad for Trump.
It's a possibility that the people who least want these lawsuits are Dominion and Smartmatic.
They might not want to do this, but they might have a lot of pressure from people who make decisions about what voting machines get put into what areas.
In other words, their customers might be pushing.
The customers meaning Democrats.
So, here's what I would look for.
I would look for the answer to this question.
Does this open up the machine companies to greater scrutiny than they would ever agree to?
It's a big question, isn't it?
I don't know the answer to it, so I'm looking for actually maybe some wisdom here.
All right.
Now, here's interesting news.
Apparently the Saudis and France are talking, sort of privately, about how to figure out what to do with Gaza after the fighting stops.
Now, do any of you remember I said the best solution might be to get Saudi Arabia involved in the end state solution?
And that maybe it's part of a larger deal to normalize relations?
Did I say that in public?
Am I imagining it?
I did a fact check.
I did say that in public, right?
And it looks like it's happening.
To me, this was the most productive possibility.
Doesn't mean it'll work, but the most productive possibility is that Saudi wants to do a deal, presumably, in which, you know, they normalize relationships with Israel for purely financial, basic, obvious reasons, right?
It's just in Saudi's best interest.
And I think they have a leader that could get it done.
So, if they're looking to make a breakthrough in the larger peace for the area, which the Saudis would like, don't you think the Crown Prince would like to elevate his status in the region by being a peacemaker?
Can you imagine anything that would be better for Saudi Arabia and better for the Crown Prince than to be seen as the person who finally pulled something together that There's nothing.
There's nothing that would be better for Saudi Arabia.
Nothing.
In my opinion.
But I'm not very good as an expert of the Middle East.
But to me, it looks like it'd be the best thing.
So that might be productive.
We'll see.
But the initial offer looks like a loser.
The rumor is that what the reported plan would be, or at least this is maybe the working conversation about what it might be, is they would strip Gaza of arms.
Which, I don't know if that's even possible.
Do you think you could keep heavy weapons out of Gaza, even, no matter how hard you try?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Set up local governance.
Well, what is local governance?
What is local governance?
Because there's no way that Israel's gonna, you know, abdicate control.
So, does that mean that they have a local government, but the security is still handled by others?
Because it's who handles the security who is in charge.
So that part is unstated.
And to unlock Israeli prison doors and let 5,000 prisoners in.
And that maybe this has to do more with normalizing relationships with Israel.
That might be the big play here.
Anyway, I don't know if any of this will be useful, but it's exactly the right conversation.
And to me, it looks like the most fruitful path.
There are 50 interns who are now put together a letter, interns in the White House, against Joe Biden's handling of Israel and Hamas, and says that they're ignoring the pleas of the American people, blah, blah, blah.
How many, oh, there are 40 interns, not 50.
How many interns are there in the White House?
Are there more than 40 interns?
That sounds like a lot of interns.
That sounds like too many, doesn't it?
All right.
So I love this because it's another example of I'm guessing that these interns are very diverse.
You want to make a guess?
You think the interns are a little extra diverse?
They probably have some DEI Some DEI, let's say, objectives when they got their interns, and now they have 40 of them that object to the administration that hired them in a pretty significant way.
So it makes me wonder if they think that worked out for them.
So we'll see how that goes.
The Texan, which is a publication, reports that, I guess, Texas, the Attorney General, Texas Attorney General, is suing the government for weaponizing censorship against The Daily Wire and The Federalist.
The Daily Wire and The Federalist, I guess, are the, would they be the plaintiffs?
Do I have that right?
In other words, in order for the suit to have meaning, there has to be victims.
I think they would represent the victims.
I think that's how it works.
And the idea would be that the Democrats put together a censorship architecture of these fake cutouts, etc., and influenced social media companies for the purpose of censorship.
What do you think about this?
I think this has a good chance.
Because as far as I know, the factual basis for this lawsuit is well demonstrated and now public.
Meaning that, you know, from the Twitter files and basically everything that Michael Schellenberger is doing, and Matt Taibbi, and Congress, I think they have enough evidence to make this case.
I think they do.
So this will be interesting.
Texas to the rescue again.
So we'll see.
you.
We shall see.
I think that's important.
All right.
Yeah, Mike Benz is the best voice on the, what do they call it?
The censorship industrial complex.
I call it the brainwashing industrial complex.
I think censorship Well, that gets to the constitutional question the best, you know, because the government can't do censorship.
I think that if you want to understand it on the sort of commonsensical level, it's not a censorship.
On the practical level, it's brainwashing.
They don't just want some people not to talk.
They want to change what you think.
And so brainwashing is the scarier crime.
The censorship is sort of how you get to the crime.
But the crime is the brainwashing.
It's just that the constitutional part is the censorship.
All right.
Censorship or deprogramming?
Let's see.
I'm being prompted to talk about Congressman Thomas Massey.
All right, let me tell you what I've learned.
So Breitbart, and Joel Pollack in particular, was giving Thomas Massey some heat for a meme that used Zion as part of the meme.
And I said to him, well, I said to here, I don't really see where that was anti-Semitic.
So here's the counter-argument.
So if you want to understand how anybody would see that as anti-Semitic, here's the category.
That that language is more commonly used by, let's say, the worst racists on the right, who believe that the word Zion is closer to a global Jewish conspiracy idea and not what the dictionary tells you, because the dictionary just says it's about Israel statehood and supporting it.
So I looked at all the definitions and the definitions were all the same.
It's just about Israel being a state and supporting it.
So I thought, well, what's wrong with using that word?
If every definition is a perfectly innocent definition, what's wrong?
But all words mean something in context only.
Would you agree?
Words don't have just Meaning out of context every word in fact That was a big point in my book reframe your brain.
One of the chapters makes a big point of this words take on Meaning beyond the word so you can look at the dictionary and there will be the base meaning But that's not everything the word means right we we put power into words and
And because a certain group of people have used that Zion word as part of their ultra anti-semitic narrative, that anybody else who uses it is, whether they like it or not, is taking on all that weight.
So we could argue all day about the specific definition of the word, but it does have the effect of giving some Let's say, giving some oxygen to the worst anti-Semitic parts of the country.
So, if you want to stop somebody from giving oxygen to the worst people in the world, you call it out when they use the word, just so people know there's sort of a line here.
I'm just telling you both sides.
If you want to know what side I take, I take the side of Thomas Massey.
Because he used the words the way the dictionary uses them.
He's a nerd, and nerds use words the way the dictionary uses them.
And I think that's the whole story.
Now, but is it also fair for somebody to point out that you're getting real close to that line that you don't want to give any oxygen to?
Yes.
It is absolutely fair to point out that those words carry more meaning than the speaker may have intended.
That is fair.
But I'm always going to side with the free speech if you're using an English word in an English word way to make a point that's not racist.
I'm OK with that.
But I'm also OK with warning somebody that they're getting close to a line.
That's OK, too.
Can I agree with both of them?
I'm going to agree with both of them today.
All right, but largely because I like both of them personally.
Have you ever noticed how hard it is to disagree with somebody you like?
All right, so I love Joel Pollack and I love Thomas Massey, so I'm just going to agree with both of them and move on.
All right.
Did you watch the Squid Games?
No, I've never seen the Squid Games.
It doesn't look like something I'd like.
like, I don't know.
Yeah, all right, I'm seeing lots of reactions here, but I think we've done the job that we wanted to do today.
Oh my god, more than, more than enough.
YouTube, thanks for joining.
I enjoyed, enjoyed you, and we'll see you tomorrow.
