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, Burglary Crew Drones, Canadian Speech Crimes, No Haiti Cannibals, Just Be Yourself, Inner Dialog, Don Lemon, AI Farming, Cognition AI, ChatGPT Robot Voice, Gender Pay Gap Hoax, White Male Discrimination, TikTok Ban Motivations, Vivek Ramaswamy, Rogue Prosecutors, 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
To Coffee with Scott Adams, the greatest thing that's ever happened to you in your entire life.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only starships have ever seen, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker gels or a styrofoam canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen right now.
Go!
Pretty good.
Pretty good.
Happy Pi Day.
As in P.I.
And, uh, you know what goes really good with pie?
Coffee.
Exactly.
Did you all watch the Starship launch?
Apparently it was a big success.
I got to watch it a little bit.
I tell you, it's never less exciting, is it?
Watching that damn starship go up.
The biggest thing that's ever flown in the history of, I don't know, the universe, maybe.
And I guess it was a big success.
There was some minor thing that they still want to get right, but as a test, it was a big success.
So congratulations to Elon Musk and SpaceX, because I have to say, the SpaceX launches are the thing that makes me feel best about being an American.
Does anybody else have that?
You watch politics all day, you just feel bad about being American.
Because that's just part of the output.
But when you watch a bunch of mostly Americans, I suppose, I guess they have to be American because of law, put a big damn rocket into space, makes you feel like maybe we'll be okay.
Maybe we'll invent our way out of this problem.
All right, I gotta make a small adjustment here.
There we go.
Much better.
All right.
You know, there's a thing I like to do about half an hour before bedtime for me.
I don't know if any of you do this.
Do you try to make sure that at least maybe 30 minutes before you go to bed that all your work is done and you're just not fussing with anything and you just put your mind into this, you know, this sort of glide path towards sleep.
And then something happens.
Exactly at the moment you were going to go to sleep?
Yeah, last night.
Last night I'm brushing my teeth.
I got my pajamas on.
I've done all my work.
I've exercised.
I'm ready to go to sleep.
Ding!
Message from the neighbor.
There's a what over my house?
Oh, there's a drone over my swimming pool.
Looking in my windows at 10 o'clock at night.
Suboptimal.
Well, it looked like it was either a hobbyist who was just checking out the neighborhood, or it was part of the burglary gangs.
The burglars look for entry through the backyard, and the neighborhoods are kind of irregular, so it's not obvious how you get in anybody's backyard.
But this particular drone seemed to have been casing the entire neighborhood, so now it has a full map of how to get into everybody's backyard.
And even who's home.
It even knows who's home at 10 o'clock at night.
Because if you're not home at 10 o'clock at night on a Wednesday, you're probably on vacation.
You know what I mean?
So I did get a video of it leaving my house and it was a pretty substantial drone.
Now who flies a drone?
Let me ask you this.
Who flies a drone on the highest wind day of the year so far?
It's like the first day there was like serious wind at night.
Who does that?
Yeah, we checked with the police.
It wasn't the police.
You know, in case they were looking for a suspect or something.
Nope, I suspect it was possibly, don't know, but maybe these Central American, South American burglars.
Because they've hit my neighborhood twice, and they seem to know how to get in the backyard.
And that would explain a lot.
So, if you hear that I've been killed in my house anytime soon, Probably that.
Probably that.
So the burglars have an air force now.
That's suboptimal.
But you know what was weird is that at night, when you're looking at a drone at night, your perspective is bad because it's dark out.
And so I see this thing over my house and I'm like, I can't tell if I'm looking at a commercial vehicle that's really far away, and that's why it looks slow or small, or if it's actually a drone that's right over my house.
It's actually hard to tell.
But I realized it was not a commercial flight.
I mean, it wasn't any kind of a Boeing, because I didn't see any of the parts fall off into my pool.
I checked the pool.
There were no parts that fell off.
So I ruled out a Boeing.
Kind of a plane, so that's how I figured out it was a drone.
Nothing was falling off it.
Speaking of Boeing, Unusual Wales is reporting on X that Boeing is unable to find the records documenting who worked on that plane that had the problem recently.
Well, interesting.
They've just lost those records.
Would you like me to predict the future?
Watch me do it again.
Sometime in the future, there will be terrible allegations against a large entity or person, possibly government, maybe a big corporation, and their records, which are normally kept regarding that situation, will be tragically lost.
And again and again and again, because apparently tragically losing your records, when law enforcement would like to look at them, happens all the time!
Well, I think those records are possibly with the Epstein client list and at least two diamonds from Hunter and Jim Biden.
It's all in one place.
Wouldn't it be funny if everything we lost was all in one place?
We just found it one day.
All right.
Well, you know, I guess I won't be flying any commercial airplanes to Canada.
But that's okay because there's a Canadian law that's endorsed, well listen, I guess it's up for vote, but it's endorsed by the Trudeau government and it would imprison people for life for speech crimes according to the Trudeau government.
Huh.
Would that apply to visitors?
I assume it would, right?
So if I travel on a Boeing plane up to Canada and somehow I survive the trip, If I open my mouth I can go to jail for life, and the only requirement is that somebody in the government has to say that in their opinion I violated some, I don't know, hate speech or something.
Half of the things I say are hate speech, according to somebody else, not according to me.
But according to somebody else, about half of what I say is hate speech.
So, certainly if that law passes, Canada would be a no-go area for me.
So, let's see, I won't be going to China, because I'm definitely on a list there.
Russia seems a little iffy at the moment.
I don't think I want to go to Mexico, because the cartels seem kind of aggressive.
Well, I'll probably just stay home and let the drones see me.
Speaking of Canada, the Toronto Police were saying that a good home safety tip, and we all need some home safety tips because a lot of crime lately, it seems like, but Toronto Police advise the Canadians to leave their car keys near their front entry to make it easier for the thieves to steal the keys so they can steal your car.
Do you think I'm making that up?
No, I'm not.
The advice is, apparently this crime is now so widespread that they need specific advice for people breaking into your house, physically breaking in, the front door apparently, and looking for your car keys.
So the idea is to leave them where they're easily stealable, Because that's the main thing they want.
So, so they'll come into the house, they'll steal your car and then they'll, you know, you'll live.
They just get your car.
So that's, uh, let's add that to the reasons of not visiting Canada.
Uh, speaking of Canada, the post millennium is reporting that the, uh, Canadian Supreme Court justice says, uh, don't use a woman to describe a rape victim.
They like to, uh, Call that person a person with a vagina.
So in the court system in Canada, you will no longer be called a woman.
If you're a victim of rape, you would be called a person with a vagina.
Person with a vagina.
Do you know who thinks this is a good idea?
Well, right now I would say something that would be so funny, and it would start with the letter C, and there would be four letters in it.
It would rhyme with punt, and I would never say that in this live stream, but God, it would be funny if I could.
It would be so funny.
Offensive.
Offensive, but also funny.
So I'm not going to say it.
I learned that from Trump.
That's a Trump tactic.
I'm not going to say it.
Some people would say that word.
I'm not going to say it because I'm above it.
I'm above it.
All right.
Well, I was deeply disappointed by an NBC News report that says the report of cannibals in Haiti are completely fake.
Possibly there was never even one cannibal.
Well, that's a big old disappointment.
Now how many of you thought that there was a cannibal problem in Haiti?
How many of you really thought there was a cannibal problem?
You know, I saw this story and it was naming names, and of course they were going after the right-wing, you know, group.
Ian Miles John was named, and Elon Musk is named.
And I'm reading the article, and the whole time I'm reading the article, the only thing I'm thinking, what was I thinking?
What was I thinking when I read the article about the right-wing people who say there's cannibals in Haiti?
Don't mention me.
No, please.
Don't put my name in this article.
I so easily could have been in that article.
And then I was trying to remember what I said about the cannibals.
Maybe you can help me out.
I think what I said about the cannibals was that I thought it was exaggerated.
You know, maybe there was one cannibal once or something.
So I don't think I, did I express that I believed it?
I'm asking you, because I actually don't remember.
Did I act like I believed there was a cannibal problem?
I know I did for joke purposes, but beyond joke purposes, did I take it seriously?
I can't remember.
Yeah, I think it was mostly jokes.
But I wasn't in that one.
There's a good thing.
Zuby, a good post today, I agree with.
He said, following most of the dating advice on social media is a surefire way to end up single and either childless, childless or with children from people you're not married to.
Exercise extreme caution.
So much bad advice out there.
Yes, that's true.
I was mocking the other day an influencer who happens to be unusually good looking and has a great voice and smarter than average.
And the influencer who is unusually good looking and charismatic and smarter than the average person and apparently, apparently, you know, knows how to succeed.
It's doing great.
That person's advice was to be yourself.
To which I say, Can't I try to be you?
Can't I try to be, you know, better looking and more charismatic and a little bit smarter and better at my job?
Can't I be a better version of me?
You know, if I were born that guy, I wouldn't want to change.
It's the worst advice in the world.
The worst advice.
Be yourself.
No!
Try to be a little better than that.
See if you can improve on that.
But anyway, the funniest comments were at my expense, and there's some user named Poochie who weighed in on the comments.
And said, you know, mockingly, because I joke about it.
So Poochie says, just be yourself, Scott.
Now, of course, Poochie is making fun of the fact that, you know, I make fun of people say, just be yourself.
But then after Poochie says to me, just be yourself, Scott, Shane Williams comes to the comments and comments to that.
He says about me, he says, he's tried that.
Do you want the spoilers?
I've tried being myself.
Do you want to hear how that worked out?
Now, my rule, when people make fun of me online, my rule is that it's either funny or it's not funny.
That's pretty much the whole filter.
That's pretty funny.
He tried that.
Do you want the spoilers?
Anyway.
Also, Unusual Wales is reporting that Senator Bernie Sanders is introducing legislation for a 32-hour work week.
Do you like that idea?
The 32-hour work week?
Now, I have mixed feelings about it.
Mixed feelings.
It's my experience that There are a lot of people who certainly don't, you know, kill it for 40 hours in a row.
And if you can get 32 good hours, as opposed to 40, where you're wandering around talking to your coworker, maybe it's better, but he wants to make sure you get paid the same for your 32 hours.
So I don't know, that can be good for some people, bad for other people.
Uh, I'm not sure I wouldn't favor it, but I would say if you're going to start banning, Amount of work, I would start with homework.
If I had to compare the two things, uh, yeah, and then you would get overtime pay if you worked 40 hours, correct?
So basically it's just another way to give somebody a raise.
I would ban homework for children before I would ban work week.
I think a lot of families are just ruined by all the homework their kids get because you can't have any kind of life.
Have you, have you experienced that yet?
You can't have any kind of a family life because kids are in school and then they come home and that's all the time they have is to do homework.
That's it.
There's nothing else left.
And in fact, how many of you have had this experience?
That if you were to sit down and have a family meal, it would take too much of the homework time away.
So your kid who's doing homework takes their plate and goes up to the room and you don't see him again until morning and you drive him to school.
How many have that experience?
The homework thing ruins family life.
It just ruins family life.
And it's one of the worst things in the world and it's not done for a good reason.
The, the, uh, apparently the science does not support massive homework.
You know, maybe a little, maybe a little bit just to make people responsible, but no, three, four hours of homework a night, that's not doing anybody any good.
Uh, there's a fascinating thing happening on the internet about people who have no inner dialogue.
Now, I have an inner dialogue, which means that I think in words.
I hear a conversation in my head, which is me talking to myself or somebody in there talking.
I think things through in terms of a hypothetical conversation I'm having with somebody on the topic.
So my internal state is just conversation.
It's just an ongoing, permanent conversation.
But there are people, and a lot of them, Who don't have that conversation going on, which for those of us who do, we don't know what that's like.
So there was one viral video of a young woman who said she doesn't have that conversation.
And it was really fascinating.
She was being interviewed by somebody who does as to what that's like.
And she described it as seeing shapes of sentences, but not hearing the words.
You're looking at the sentence as like a pattern, but not hearing it like it's people talking.
That's wild.
That is so wild.
But you know what it made me think?
The person describing the no inner dialogue was describing it exactly like a computer would describe its internal process.
It's AI.
So AI doesn't have a conversation that's going on on its head.
It simply produces what it needs on demand.
And the act of producing it is the first time it's turned into words.
But before that, it's just stored as patterns.
And the people who don't have the inner dialogue are operating just like AI.
They see a pattern, and it's not until it's the actual output that it's turned into words.
I see the words first, everything's stored in words, and patterns as well, I guess.
If you need any more evidence that we're a simulation and that there's some NPC-like stuff going on, well, there you go.
There you go.
Now, I'm not saying that some people are not real people.
I'm saying that it's exactly what you would expect if we were a simulation.
Right?
And that doesn't mean we are.
It's exactly what you would expect, is that some of the characters would have no inner dialogue.
Do you get that?
If we're a simulation, one of the obvious things you'd expect is that we're not all regular playing characters.
Some are scenery, and there's no reason that the scenery characters would have an inner dialogue.
The other thing that AI doesn't do well Is humor.
And I wonder if there's a crossover between the people who don't have a sort of a verbal dialogue in their head and the people who don't respond to verbal humor.
But they might respond if they saw somebody fall in a mud puddle.
Right?
So the people who see somebody fall in a mud puddle will laugh because it's visual.
But if you tell them a clever dad joke, they're like, mm, dad joke.
Puns are funny.
You know, the verbal part wouldn't hit.
Anyway, speaking of that, I saw Elon Musk being asked if AGI happened, that would be the super intelligent AI, not the kind we have now, but the real thinking kind, that if that ever happened, what would be the first question you would want to ask the AI?
And Elon thought for a while and he asked this question.
What happens outside the simulation?
So Elon wants to know who's running the simulation.
Now, I don't know that AGI will ever be able to answer that question, but it might have an interesting take on it.
Speaking of Elon, as you know, Don Lemon was going to be on X and Elon had helped him.
I think they helped him build a studio and they were going to partner together.
So Don Lemon has Elon on as his first, you know, wisely, as his first guest.
And after that, Elon basically said they're not partners anymore.
And I wondered, what could he possibly asked that would make you want to like just drop the whole thing?
Because it's a pretty big hit to the business model.
If the first notable person from the left who would have their own show on X, if that person gets fired on day one, it's a pretty big hit for what he wants to do business-wise.
But what was it?
So I've seen a few clips and some reports.
There's more to see, so I'd recommend you watch it when the full thing is live.
But apparently, the part I saw, Don Lemon was trying to get Elon smeared with the Replacement Theory concept.
They're replacing us?
So Replacement Theory is associated with racists, and so you could tell that Don Lemon just wanted to use Replacement Theory in his conversation so that he could smear Elon.
Now, it was so obvious that he wasn't just trying to find out what's true.
He was just trying to create a viral moment that smeared the person who was helping him.
The person who was helping him.
The person who was helping revive his career and giving him a new source of money, Don Lemon decided to destroy by smearing him as a racist simply by trying to get words in the same sentence so that it'll be associated with him.
And Elon, wisely, just said he wasn't going to even address the topic.
Because there's nobody in the world who thinks that mass immigration Is not going to have an impact, you know, on the people already here.
So, you know, it's a totally fake attack.
And then apparently also Don Lemon was going to make a thing about what prescription drugs Elon takes to sort of smear him as a drug user when there's no indication of anything like that.
So the whole thing was a hit piece and he was in sort of CNN mode where the idea is to get somebody destroyed to make some clicks.
Now that's very much what Elon's not about.
Destroying somebody's reputation to get some extra clicks.
So he just said screw you and he walked away.
Good.
Good.
Now I've got a question for you.
And see how funny you feel that you never thought of it.
Do you remember the so-called Fine People of Charlottesville event?
Do you remember what the so-called legitimate marchers were chanting, all on their own?
They came up with, the Jews will not replace us.
Is there ever been a real racist anywhere who thought that Jewish immigration was what could replace you?
So here's the funny thing.
The people pretending to be racist with their chant didn't even understand real racist enough to know that whatever racists have against Jews has nothing to do with replacement theory.
Those are completely separate topics.
The replacement theory is about people coming across the southern border.
What, is there a big Jewish immigration problem?
Now, how bad do you feel about yourself that until now nobody told you that the thing they were chanting couldn't possibly be a real racist chant?
Because there's literally no racist who has that opinion ever.
Not a single racist thinks that Jews are replacing Americans.
None!
And the news reported that, and it's been years.
It's been years!
And it wasn't until this morning, when I was thinking about this story, I thought, wait a minute.
Jews will not replace us?
When was that even, was that ever even in a conversation?
Is the KKK sitting around saying, you know what?
The real problem here is that massive Jewish immigration.
No, no.
So the people who were obviously running the op, now I do believe that there were real racists in the group, of course.
I also believe it was organized by, you know, some intelligence group or who knows, probably domestically intelligence group.
It looked like a fake op.
But the people who organized it and organized the chant, The fact that they didn't even know what white supremacists believe or think or care about, and they had to make up a chant and they missed it by a mile.
Are you blown away by this or not?
Are you just now realizing that the most famous chant in recent news couldn't have possibly been real?
It could not have possibly been real.
Yeah.
All right.
So that's funny.
Apparently Larry Ellis of Oracle and Elon Musk are collaborating, according to Rowan Cheung on X. Apparently they're working on something to use AI-powered applications for farms and helping to plan, predict, and increase agricultural output.
Well, Imagine AI applied to our food supply.
I don't know how many times I've said it until I'm broken record, but our food supply is completely a mess.
Not just the quality of it and the additives and all the things making you sick, but the amount of extra labor of getting a freaking potato from a field into my mouth The number of people and processes and changing hands and trucks and everything, it's insane.
It's just crazy.
So, I know that the Musks have been really into this whole food supply problem because Kimball Musk, brother of Elon, who's also a hugely successful entrepreneur, if you didn't know, has been working on indoor gardens.
I don't know if that, I think that startup is still there.
But imagine if you put robots in indoor gardens, which I think the indoor gardens could be underground.
I think I would use the boring machines to build myself lots of underground farms so they could be close.
Because if you do it underground, it's close to the people who eat it.
And it's also, you know, away from the bugs and away from the hurricanes and stuff.
So I think watching the Musks solve our food supply problem is one of the most exciting things.
And, you know, I got to say it again.
I've said it before.
Of course, when you produce, you know, multi, multi billionaires in our free market system, people are going to say, hey, our system is so bad because all these people are getting all the money.
But there are a few things that the poor do not necessarily appreciate.
Number one, whatever it is, at least for the entrepreneurial types, whatever it is that caused them to make that money in the first place, assuming they didn't inherit it, but whatever they did to make it, gives them extra powers.
And they are the ones that you want to have extra cash.
Because when Elon Musk has extra cash, he builds a spaceship.
When Kimball Musk has extra cash, he tries to solve the food supply problem.
Don't you want them to have extra cash?
I mean, they use other people's investments as well.
But they put a lot of their own money into it.
And I want the smartest people to have the most cash.
I want the smartest people, you know, the ones who actually want to do stuff, To have the most cash.
That's why we're all better off, you know, if they solve the food problem.
Anyway, so that could be big.
Rowan, also Rowan, John was talking about a company called Cognition AI.
They've got a new AI called Devon.
It's like an autonomous AI agent that can be a programmer.
So you knew the AI could give you programming code.
So if you said stuff like, you know, give me some code to do this or that, it could give it to you.
But now they've turned it into a full agent.
So it's like a person with a personality who's just, you can hire.
That's right.
You could hire the AI as a full replacement to a programmer now.
There's nothing it wouldn't be able to do.
That's the claim.
Now, I suspect they're not exactly there where it can do everything a human can do.
But the claim is they're right on the edge of it.
It might actually be better than the human already.
Don't know.
Speaking of that, ChatGPT also has a robot.
And if you haven't seen ChatGPT in a robot body, well, you got to see it because they've got the voice problem fixed.
So you know how robots always had the voice problem?
I am a robot.
Thank you for talking to me today.
Well, now thanks to AI and its ability to imitate voices, it sounds exactly like a human talking to you in a normal voice.
The only thing, and they've also solved the jerky robot motions, you know, that robots used to be all jerky and slow.
So they solved that.
It's, you know, it's a little bit slower than a human, but you figure that'll speed up.
The only thing it still does, is give you the awkward pause between talking to it and responding.
And I used to have a friend who would do that.
This was my conversation with my friend, and I never knew how to have a conversation with him, because it would go like this.
Hey, you know, did you see that news yesterday about what Trump said?
Yeah, I saw it.
And then I didn't know what to do after that.
Because there was such a delay between what I said and what somebody else responded to.
I was like, I'm not even sure we're in a conversation.
Might be just two people saying stuff.
Well, I've got a prediction about the future.
I believe that Cash money, the dollar, will disappear.
And it will disappear because it will have no value, because it gets inflated into nothingness eventually.
But we will replace that, as opposed to going out of business and dying as a civilization.
We will invent our way out, and it will look like this.
There will be, I'm predicting, a new digital currency that does not exist, that will be backed by the productivity of specific real robots.
So instead of having a currency that's backed by gold, used to be, and now is backed by, I'd say, the military, the United States, and the productivity of American workers, I think that one ended up being a total shit show, and inflation and debt has driven it to almost zero.
So you need something that represents productivity that you can base a currency on.
The perfect thing is robots, because the robots will take all our jobs.
So you don't want your money to depend on human productivity.
You're going to have to put it on something that's going to last.
So I think that we will all have micro shares of robots.
Meaning that you'll have 0.001% of a little group of robots.
So if one of the robots goes bad, you don't lose all your money.
You know, it's a sort of a diversified robot group.
And those robots would have jobs.
And they're producing things.
And you own a piece of that.
So, somebody's saying Ethereum?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
So I think micro shares of robots with a digital currency will be the future, because our regular currency will rot and become worthless.
Maybe we can even use the digital currency to pay it off in some kind of ratio.
Here's something that Naval Ravikant says.
You should always follow him on X for the philosophical big picture stuff.
One of the, well, I actually call him the smartest person I know.
Naval.
He said something similar in a post.
He said, it's possible the technology will decouple the store of value, the medium of exchange, and the unit of account.
Now that's a big statement.
But to put it another way, you're going to have to find value, and it's probably not going to be cash.
So I think the two things of value in the future will be a sheer ownership of anything that's robots, as well as owning land.
I think those are the only two things that will have lasting value, because they can't make more land.
Well, that's not even true either.
They can make more land.
Actually, I take it all back.
Because the ocean is wide open, you can just seastead it.
So we're probably at the point where we have the good technology for pure water and energy from a sea platform.
Probably you can make more land.
So I'd say share of robots is going to be the basis for money in the future.
All right, let me tell you a little story about my awakening.
In other words, finding out that everything in the world is fake.
Now this is not a complete list.
There's a whole bunch of other things I could put there, but I want to see if this tracks in any way with your own journey to figure out what's true and what isn't.
So I started out, I posted this in X, I said that I remember when I first found out that the gender pay gap is fake.
Do you remember when you first found that out?
You've been told for years that women are earning 80 cents on the dollar or whatever, and then one day you read something that says, no, it's totally made up.
Nothing like that's happening.
That they're just measuring apples and oranges, different jobs, different amount of hours, different experience.
And that if you normalize for all that stuff, it's the same.
Do you remember the first time you found that out?
And you thought, How could this be, like, the dominant thing that we talk about all the time, and also completely false?
Just completely false?
How is that even possible?
Like, it's a big eye-opener, isn't it?
Now, there are at least a few people watching this who are saying, wait, what?
You're crazy, right?
Is that some kind of right-wing thing?
Are people actually saying that the gender pay gap isn't real?
The gender pay gap has never been real.
It never was.
Now, I do think there was a time in history where it was real, but certainly in my lifetime, the statistics were always made up.
I've never seen one example of a woman paid less than a man for the same job in my whole life.
Never heard of it.
Never even heard of it.
All right.
And I know you're going to say, Scott, I know of this situation where there was a woman who was paid less than the average and they had to fix it.
Yes.
Do you know how hard it would be to find men who are also paid less than the average for the same job?
Easily.
Because if you took 100 men doing the same job, some would be above average, some would be average, some would be below average.
So therefore, men are discriminated against compared to men, right?
Because some are paid more than others.
Therefore, you should pay all the men the same, which would be the equal to the most that the most man has ever made for that job.
Am I right?
Because that's how math works.
Yeah, so that's how you get stuff like the ridiculous gender pay gap.
But soon after I figured out that was fake, I learned that racial discrimination against white males was the dominant form of racial discrimination in the United States by a lot.
It wasn't even close.
I remember growing up thinking, oh my god, it must be terrible to be black.
All the discrimination.
And of course there is.
Plenty of discrimination.
But not nearly as much as there is against white men.
It's not even close.
Now, a bunch of you are saying, my god, slap in your head, I can't even believe I'm hearing this.
That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.
And part of the reason I say it is so people will come into the comments and say, are you serious?
You're saying, let me see if I understand how crazy this is Scott, you're saying that today and even for a year or so, You're saying that white men were the most discriminated against group?
Come on!
Come on!
Seriously.
What evidence do you have of that?
Can you point to some evidence?
And that's called the trap I set.
And then I posted on X and say, anybody want to tell their story?
Because my claim is this.
There are 80 million direct witnesses.
And if you'd like some proof, Just walk outside, find any white man, say, excuse me, sir, have you worked in big companies?
If they say yes, say, are you aware of any discrimination against white men?
A hundred percent will say, oh yeah, God, yes.
Happened to me, or happened to my best friend, or happened to my brother.
Everyone.
A hundred percent.
And do you know what happens when I say a hundred percent of men have had the experience of 80 million direct witnesses?
People will say, well, that's a little anecdotal, isn't it?
Yeah, it's anecdotal until you get to about 80 million.
I'd say it's anecdotal up to a dozen.
If 12 people say, I say, well, that's a little anecdotal.
I'll even give you a hundred.
If a hundred people add that story, well, it's not really science.
A lot of people in the country, a hundred stories.
No, there are 80 million, 80 million direct witnesses.
That's not anecdotal.
And you don't need to do science.
You don't need to do science for something that is glaringly as obvious as the sun.
Do you know what I've never seen?
I've never seen a study that proves that the sun is real.
I've never seen one.
Why should I believe the sun is real?
I've never seen the study.
No, the sun is real because it's there every day and you can't miss it and it gives you sunburns.
Yeah, I don't need a study.
Later, after I learned that everything about racial discrimination is backwards, I learned that everything about nutrition science was fake and always has been.
Probably still is.
I assume it still is.
Nutrition.
One of the most basic things you need to get right, science-wise.
Nope.
It was always just made up.
Then it was about that time that people started telling me that we can accurately measure the temperature of the planet.
And then we can do better than that.
We can model it into the future so we can know the future.
Okay, that's one I didn't need to be taught that it's not real, because I did financial forecasting for a living, and it takes you about one minute of experience to figure out that all of your outcome is based on your assumptions, and that the model is just a way to launder the opinion you already had.
That's it.
It can do a few things.
It can't predict the future, but sometimes modeling will tell you what couldn't work.
So, for example, if you try to model it and every single assumption you make doesn't work, it loses money every time.
Well, that might tell you something.
But if the assumptions determine whether it makes money or not, modeling is just laundering your assumptions, basically.
So you can tell other people it's real.
And then I learned that police apparently don't shoot black men for no reason other than being black.
I've been told for years that that happened.
I thought they were just blazing away because they saw a black motorist and said, well, I'm a big, I just guess I'll start shooting.
Turns out that wasn't true.
And actually white men get shot more by, by the police, but black men do get roughed up more because they act exactly the same as everybody else.
They just get roughed up more.
Am I right?
We're still pretending that was real.
We're not ready to say that different groups might have different behaviors because they've had different experiences.
Do you know what causes you to have a different behavior?
Different set of experiences.
That'll do it every time.
Yeah.
So, but we're supposed to ignore that.
Everybody acts the same.
We're stopped by the police.
All right.
And Asians are pretty much just lucky.
Because with all their bad Asian behavior when they get stopped by police, they're always resisting.
And yet, somehow, with all that Asian-American resistance when police stop them, they don't get shot a lot.
And I can only attribute that to massive bigotry.
Some kind, I don't know.
Then I was told that the COVID vaccine could be created in months after failing to do so for decades.
And all I had to do was wear a mask until the cure was ready.
So that made me a little bit cynical.
Then I learned that our elections are not designed to be audited, which only means one thing.
Am I right?
I think it was Glenn Greenwald who was saying today that in Brazil, where there are over 200 million people, I think they do hand ballots and they're done in a day.
California is still counting from that election that was done not a long time ago.
So, no.
Our elections are designed for cheating.
Clearly.
They're designed to promote cheating.
Now, if you didn't know that, hello, it would be very easy to design it so you couldn't cheat.
Everybody knows how to do it.
I think in Brazil, this is what Greenwald was saying, the election is one day, and they do it on Sunday, and they get a massive turnout.
Is there any reason we have voting on a Tuesday?
Can anybody give me a good reason why voting is on a Tuesday?
Where do we come up with that?
That's crazy.
Alright.
Then I learned that it's not racist to say in public that black people have trouble getting IDs.
Because, you know, I thought that was racist.
To think that black people can't do something that every single other person can do in society.
And if you stop them in the street and say, was it hard to get an ID?
They laugh at you.
Like, what kind of racist are you?
That you think I can't get an ID.
Literally the easiest thing you can do in society.
So that was always a lie.
Still is a lie.
And now I'm told that the reason Democrats want to drop the requirement for ID before voting is to make the system more equitable.
Yeah, that's the reason that they want to have no ID.
To make a better voting system.
No, it's obviously for cheating.
Obviously.
There's no other reason for it.
There is no other reason.
It's just ridiculous.
All right.
So there's a pattern there.
So let's talk about the TikTok ban.
It's getting more interesting every day.
There are a number of theories about who's really behind everything.
Like, who is it who wants this ban?
And who is it who's trying to stop it?
So here are the players.
One belief is that our domestic intelligence people Want to control TikTok and they don't control it because China controls it.
And that the real play is to get it under American control so that our spooks can be in it and look for terrorists, but also look for good people doing stuff that they can punish, I guess.
So that's one theory.
The theory is that the so-called TikTok ban is really not a ban.
It's a play to get the product moved into American control, which would give our intelligence people control of it like they control everything else.
Do you think that that's really happening?
Do you think that part of the dynamic is our intelligence people wanting to control it so China doesn't?
Yes, of course.
Yeah.
It's not the only thing happening.
I'll get to the others.
But it's one thing.
There's no question that our intelligence people are in the other platforms or have been.
There's no question that they would like to have that information and they'd like China not to have it.
So yeah, I think that's just obvious.
It's just really obvious that our intelligence people don't want China to have it.
And if they could control it, they want it.
Another is that it's about Israel.
Have you heard that one?
That the TikTok ban is really about Israel.
Because there's just a gigantic difference between the TikTok hashtags about free Palestine, they're getting over 80 million impressions at one point, compared to the pro-Israel stuff, this is after October 7th, the pro-Israel posts were like 1% of it.
So there's something like 100 to 1 pro-Palestinian views on TikTok compared to pro-Jewish, or pro-Israel, I'd say.
And there's an audio tape of Greenblatt, who heads the ADL, saying that TikTok was a giant problem for Israel.
And the problem is, he said that the anti-Israel thing is not a left-right thing.
He said, if you think it's a Democrat-Republican thing, you're going to be completely lost.
It's a young versus old thing.
And that youth are way, way more anti-Israel.
And that TikTok is where that's happening.
So Israel, and anybody that they can influence in the American government, because the ADL does have some punch, and so do the lobbyists.
So Israel might want TikTok to have less influence over the youth.
So that could be part of the question.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think that China Caused that or was it happening on its own?
Why do you think there was a hundred to one pro-Palestinian opinions on TikTok?
Do you think that happened on its own?
Because the young people are so well informed.
They probably just came up with their own opinions being well informed.
Right?
No.
So there's a conversation going on among actual professionals in our government At the same time, they should be aware that there is a 100 to 1 bias about one of the most important topics right now.
A 100 to 1 bias.
Now, how in the world do you think that happened on its own?
Do you think that the youth on TikTok We're getting this from their other media sources in which they're looking at geopolitical concerns?
No.
There's no children looking at geopolitical concerns on CNN and then taking their opinion to TikTok.
That's not happening.
All of those opinions are created on TikTok by TikTok.
Do you think China has an interest in pursuing, let's say, the Palestinian point of view over the Israeli point of view?
Of course they do.
Because it would be divisive.
It's divisive.
So, of course they do.
So, I would say that the fact that the pro-Palestinian thing is wildly different on TikTok than it would be for somebody who is, A, not paying attention, you know, they might have a different opinion, or somebody who's just watching other media.
It's obvious that they put their finger on the scale.
Is there anybody here who doesn't think that China put their finger on the scale on TikTok for the Gaza situation?
To me, it's obvious.
Very obvious.
All right.
So that's another factor.
I don't think the intelligence group is the factor.
I don't think Israel is the factor.
There's also a bunch of people, and I'm in this category, I'd call us anti-China hawks, that if it's good for China, we might be automatically against it.
So I'm a China hawk, I guess, and anti-China hawk, and I'm in that category.
I don't want China to have a weapon that they can push a button and change our opinions on a geopolitical matter of great concern.
So that group.
Then there's also some folks who say that Facebook may be lobbying to get rid of it, get rid of TikTok, because that would get rid of the competition.
And then that traffic might come over to Instagram that's owned by beta.
And so that's part of it.
So I would say that all of these are true.
There's something about China, there's something about our intelligence people, something about what Israel and the ADL want, something about the anti-China hawks, and something about the competitors like Facebook.
So when you put it all together, you can see that it's like this weird stew where nothing makes sense.
It's because there are too many interests.
Just everybody's got their own little angle on it.
So let's see how that's working its way out.
Here's one way.
Some say the bill is a Trojan horse, and that the real purpose of the bill is to get control over American companies, so that if it had passed, the same law that used to ban TikTok could immediately be used to ban the X platform, as long as the government said the X platform was doing stuff they don't like.
But, Dan Crenshaw says that that same bill says it only applies to TikTok.
Now, what's going on?
I've seen language in the bill that, from my non-lawyer reading, looks like it's broad enough to apply to other places, and people who are far smarter than me say they looked at it and said, oh yeah, the real problem is this applies to all the American platforms as well.
But Dan Crenshaw, who's talking about this a lot, And definitely has read it, right?
Sometimes you say, well, maybe they haven't read it.
He's read it.
Why is he saying it applies only to TikTok?
What's going on?
I don't know the answer to the question, by the way.
Is he lying?
Is he misinformed?
Or is he the only one who's right?
You know, maybe I've been lied to because, you know, I can't say it on my own.
Maybe I was lied to.
Maybe it is a specific TikTok ban.
I mean, I saw the language that looked like it was not specific, but maybe it is.
I don't know.
So, that's weird, and I think this might have something to do with all these different interests.
So, let's see, Vivek.
He's talking about it again today.
And he says, here's the bill we really need.
So as you know, the House passed the proposed ban on TikTok, but the Senate is not a lock to pass it, at the very least.
I think it's almost guaranteed they won't.
So it won't become law.
But here's what Vivek says we need instead.
A bill that we need is to ban companies from transferring US user data to foreign adversaries.
We all agree with that, right?
It doesn't matter if it's a foreign company or a domestic company.
We don't really want them to give it to China.
So I think we're all on the same page on that.
So definitely we don't want our government or foreign governments to be leaning on the platforms.
Do you like that?
How many say that's a good idea?
for a promote. So definitely we don't want our government or foreign governments to be leaning on the platforms. Do you like that? How many say that's a good idea? Well, that'd be a great idea if you could do it. Could you do it?
No, of course not.
This isn't practical.
How are you going to stop China from pushing the heat button?
Did you stop them from pushing it about the Palestinian question?
No, you don't know if they pushed it.
And if you ask them, they'll say, we didn't push that button.
Oh, and then we say, well, cut it out.
We think you did.
And they say, we didn't.
We didn't.
Well, we think you did.
No, we didn't.
How in the world are we going to ban The Chinese Communist Party from telling ByteDance to push the heat button on a topic.
Yeah, I can't imagine that that doesn't seem practical.
But then the third thing, limit all addictive social media and kids under age 16.
Okay, that's not going to happen.
I think he used to say, it's just social media maybe, but he's added addictive.
If you add the addictive part, do you see the problem?
If you add addictive, it includes video games.
Because people are going to say, well, it's not the only addictive thing kids are doing.
If online addictive stuff is a problem, you better include video games.
If you include video games, you bring a gazillion billion dollars of money opposed to the idea, so they'll kill it.
You know, the video game people would just have too much money.
They'll kill it.
I just don't know it's practical.
What it is practical is make sure there's no Chinese company operating in the United States with social media.
That's practical.
But it wouldn't, as Vivek accurately points out, it would be giving sort of a pass to our domestic social media companies that might be in their own way as big a problem, in a different way.
So I would say that Vivek is 100% right on the philosophic level.
Philosophically, we should treat all the companies the same, and we should monitor their behavior, As opposed to just making laws, you know, well, let me say it better We should look at what they're doing not just saying this company or that company So that part makes perfect sense philosophically, but I don't see any way it can be done There's no practical way in the real world.
you could do it. But you could ban a company. You could ban an adversary. So that's an option.
All right.
There was one comment I saw from a user on X called The Hero.
Robert is his name.
So The Hero says, just see if this sums it up.
I'm kind of a student of language, you know, being a writer and all.
I love it when I see a short sentence that sums up everything.
All right, here's a short sentence about the TikTok ban that I think says everything.
Quote, really just need one page.
And the one page should say, quote, we ban usage of TikTok in the United States until they divest from the CCP.
And then Robert says, anything more is something different.
Is that the best, shortest way to say that?
I can say it again just because it's so impressive.
It's impressive by how short it is.
We really just need one page that says we ban usage of TikTok in the United States until they divest from the CCP.
Anything more is something else.
And that's what this bill is.
It's anything more.
So you know it's not about TikTok.
It's something else.
Whatever it is, It's something else.
So the something else's could include Facebook is lobbying, Israel might have a point of view on this, and our intelligence people would like to have more control over it.
So yeah, there's a whole bunch of something else happening.
And that's why it's going to get probably all that something else, and money is why it probably won't get passed in the Senate.
All right.
Gavin Newsom points out that the economy is doing great, more people working, more new businesses started, more manufacturing, higher wages, record highs in the stock market.
And the United States economy grew faster than any other nation in the G7.
Again, what is missing is at the expense of what?
How much stimulus did we punch into our system from borrowing?
If all these good things are happening because we borrowed too much money and we can't pay it back, this is the beginning of complete destruction.
If we can pay it back, and it was part of getting us to this better point, well, it was pretty genius.
We can't even tell the difference between good news and bad news.
Is this good news or bad news, that all these economic indicators are looking good?
Well, your common sense says it's good news.
But if we only got there by artificially pretending we had money we don't have, it's all going to look pretty bad pretty soon.
It's sort of like somebody who robbed a bank and they're living really well until they get caught.
We're like the bank robber who got away with it, but the FBI is tracking you down.
You know, that's our debt.
See, the FBI would be the debt in this analogy.
All right.
Trump knows that his first term, he got a lot of criticism for who he hired.
And in an interview he said that he didn't know anybody in the town, because he was an outsider, but now that he's more of an insider, and he met all the people during the first term, he would be in a much better position to hire better people.
Do you think that's going to happen?
How many people think that the only issue is that he didn't have access to better people, but now he does?
Well, one thing that might have changed is a lot of mainstream Republicans might be willing to take a chance on him.
You know, the first time you had a lot of mainstreamers who said, oh, he's too dangerous.
But I think now, especially because Biden looks like such a waste of oxygen, It's a little easier to back Trump if you're a standard Republican.
So, I think he would be able to hire better.
I don't know if it would be as good as you want it to be, but I do think, I think his point is that he should be able to hire better.
That makes sense.
Well, you know the PBD podcast with Patrick David?
He's doing a great job.
His business is really booming there.
Apparently, they're adding Chris Cuomo to their lineup on the podcast.
I think he's still staying with NewsNation, but Valuetainment is the broadcast.
Now, a lot of people push back on Patrick Bet-David.
A lot of people who watch his show are conservative types, and they're saying, what?
Chris Cuomo?
He's the Don Lemon of other people.
You know, don't let that monster on there.
He's just going to say things and he did that thing or there's something he didn't like, blah, blah.
I'm going to back Patrick, bet David on this big time.
Chris Cuomo is actually a perfect guest.
He's a perfect guest for that.
You know, the worst part about a podcast is a bunch of people who agree with each other talking about it.
That's it.
You put Cuomo on there, and you're at least going to get some different opinions, you know, and somebody who can professionally present them.
And I would like to suggest to you that Chris Cuomo is a lot more common sense-based than Demigod—what's the word when you're just on your team?
He's less a Democrat who has to prove he's a Democrat and everything Democrats say is good, than he is a person who just wants things to work.
So I know this from a long conversation with him personally.
So when I got canceled, I got to hear quite a bit about his point of view on things.
And I don't want to represent a private conversation, but I will tell you that you have him wrong.
I will tell you that you have him wrong.
And that you should probably give him a chance.
Because the fact that he's willing to go on that podcast at all, knowing that he would be the odd man out, that tells you something.
You know, he knows how to put on a show.
So some of what he does is showmanship.
And you know, his personality is one that not everybody's going to respond to, but that's everybody.
So, um, I'm going to endorse him for the show.
I think you should watch it.
And I think it's going to be good.
And I think that, uh, Patrick bet David made a really smart move.
I hope it works out.
There's a billionaire Australian guy, Clive Parker Palmer.
Who's going to build a perfect recreation of the Titanic and make it available for people who want to go on the Titanic.
I saw that in the Daily Loud Expo.
So it's going to set sail in 2027.
The happiest people about that were the icebergs.
The icebergs said, bring it on.
Well, I'm not sure I would get on the Titanic.
I think I'd rather Just fly in a Boeing?
Well, no, I don't want to fly.
All right, well, I got lots of choices.
The walking is looking good.
Well, speaking of things that are doomed, not just the Titanic, Rasmussen says that 55% of likely voters who were polled rate the government at poor and stopping illegal migration.
81% of U.S.
voters say it's important to them that the government stop illegal immigration.
So the fact that it's not being stopped tells you it's about something else.
It's about the cartels working with our government, basically.
Charlie Kirk reports that Georgia's Governor Brian Kemp He just signed a Senate bill that creates a panel of Georgia lawmakers that can discipline and potentially remove state prosecutors that are bad.
So that could include Fulton County D.A.
Fonny Willis.
Now that's interesting.
That seems like a good model for other states, at least if they're red states, to create a special panel Just for removing rogue state prosecutors.
Because if you did it with, I suppose somebody could just fire them.
But if you did it that way, it's going to turn into a whole racial thing.
So it's probably good cover to have some kind of committee doing it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this brings us to the conclusion of the best live stream you'll see today.
And did I miss anything?
Did I miss any big topics that happened today?
Um, how is the judge not removed her yet?
Well, they're still deciding on that.
We're talking about Fonny Willis.
I, I have a, I'm starting to think that those charges are going to be completely dropped because I don't think any real prosecutor would have brought them anyway.
And there must be at least one real prosecutor in Georgia somewhere.
Who's smarter.
That's funny.
Who's smarter, Duvall, Chamath, or Vivek?
We've got some real smart people there.
I don't think I'll pick a favorite.
Those are all... Once somebody's smarter than you are, you can't tell who's smarter among them.
That's a good general rule.
If you see two people who are definitely dumber than you, you could tell which of them is smarter of the two dumb people.
But as soon as someone is smarter than you by 1%, it all looks like magic.
You can't tell.
If I saw two of the smartest physicists in the world debating, I can't tell which one's right.
So as soon as they're smarter than you, you can't tell.
That's why your dog doesn't know you're smarter.
Yeah, we talked about Don Lemon.
By the way, I think I changed my opinion.
When I heard that Don Lemon was going to have a show on X, I thought, oh, he's going to get away from that CNN model of, you know, just character assassination and stuff.
But I guess it's a sticky model.
So after seeing how he handled Elon, I would never agree to go on there.
Because the fact that he just used the opportunity to smear him by association, There's no way.
There's no way I would put myself into that.
Yeah.
He does not seem to be an honest broker of the truth.
And doesn't seem to be trying to be.
Can't read his mind, but from the outside it looks like he's not attempting to be honest.
Elon invited Lemon Zuckerberg Show to continue on the platform.
Yeah, I think he's still going to be on the platform, but maybe with less support.
Drone update?
I don't have an update.
I just got a video of the drone that buzzed my house at 10 p.m.
last night.
Somebody said that you could track where a drone had been, that they all have to be registered in some way.
I don't know about that.
That doesn't seem true.
All right.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, on the—let's see, we've got—oh, we've got 5,900 people watching.
