The Joe Rogan Experience - #874 - Scott Adams

Episode Date: November 17, 2016

Scott Adams is creator of the Dilbert comic strip and the author of several nonfiction works of satire, commentary, business, and general speculation.

Scott Adams, ladies and gentlemen, here we are. Hey, Joe. Good to see you again, man. Good to see you again. I met you decades ago. Do you remember that horrible story? I don't remember a horrible story, but it was on news radio. What was the horrible story?

Do you remember my humiliation that day? No, what happened? So for those of you who weren't with us on that set, I had a small line, just one line, on news radio because it was an episode that mentioned Dilbert. So I was invited as a guest. And you were giving the line before my line. So I just came in and they said, Joe's going to say this. Joe, say your line. And you turned to me and you said your line.

And they said, when he says that, you say your line. And, of course, I'm panicked because I don't do this, right? I'm not an actor. So the scene starts and it's one of these scenes that runs continuous from beginning to end. It's not like a movie where you cut it every 10 seconds. So you have to do it right all the way through. Right. And we get to my, my line and you're turning the other direction. So the line I'm waiting to hear, instead of hearing it clearly, like in practice, when you were facing me, I hear, oh no. And I think to myself, I don't know what his other lines are. So I don't know if that sounds like my line or is that,

should I go? And I said to myself, 50, 50 chance, right? I either, I either ruined the scene by saying something the wrong time, or I ruin the scene by being silent when I should have been talking. So I said, I'm going to go with silent. And I just stood there in silence. And everybody got really quiet. I don't know if you remember what you did, but it's burned in my mind. You were very nice that day, but you just sort of slowly turned around and looked at me. And meanwhile, all the other actors sort of slowly turned around and looked at me because I was the source of the problem. But I have to admit, I was impressed because then all the actors went back to square one and did the entire scene through again perfectly.

I mean, it's very impressive if you're not an actor to watch how many lines a bunch of professionals can do without screwing up any of them. It was an awesome kind of an afternoon. Well, NewsRadio was a very unusual show in that there was a lot of changing stuff on the fly. Like the writers would come in and then rewrite a line like on the fly. Like they would do one line, they would do one take, and then Paul Sims and Josh Sleep and all these guys would get together and they'd go, okay, let's try this.

Let's try this. We'll go back. But then when Scott turns to you, now say this. And then we'd have a totally new line for the next scene. And so we'd have to like be standing over by the elevator going, no, that's not going to work. no, that's not going to work. No, that's not going to work. We'd come up with a bunch of different ways to say it and then just run with it on the fly.

Oh, man. People don't realize how hard that is. It's not that hard, honestly. It's not coal mining. Well, you have to have the right kind of mind for that memory. Yeah. It's sort of like when a musician can do 50 songs from memory. Yeah.

And I'm thinking, I could do seven notes, and then I'm good. That's all I could remember in a row, and after that, I'd just be guessing. Well, if you think about how many, just think about language itself, how many words you can access just instantaneously, just pull them up from your memory.

Yeah. It's just, that's what you do all the time. And if you all the time were reading sitcom scripts, you just get used to that sort of flow and how things go. It's not that's what you do all the time. And if you all the time were reading sitcom scripts, you just get used to that sort of flow and how things go. It's not really that. Everything looks difficult if you don't know how to do it. Exactly. Exactly.

People say that about my job as well. It's like, how do you do that? It happens to be the one thing I can do well. And I can't do most things well. But one little thing I can do well. You know, and I can't do most things well, but one little thing I can do well. Well, one thing that people have a hard time with the sitcom world, especially the old school sitcom world, is the audience. Like performing in front of the audience is a weird element, you know.

Did you feel that? Well, you know, I do tons of public speaking. So in that environment, I like the energy and I like all of it. But usually if I'm speaking, I know exactly what I'm going to say. And, you know, even if I mess it up, it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be specific. But that was a frightening situation. So keep in mind also that most of the actors were stars. You know, they were pretty big names.

And so I was meeting everybody. So I was a little bit starstruck and, you know, I was completely out of my element. And that completely blew the scene. You know, just me, it was like all me. There wasn't anybody else. It was just me. It sounds like I fucked up. Sounds like I was looking in the wrong direction, which is totally possible. No, you were, we were standing in line. So you had to be facing the way you were. Oh, oh. So I was looking at you during the rehearsal or something. Yeah. The set, the setup was we were standing in line to get coffee. And so during the practice, you turned to me so I would know exactly what you were saying. But in the actual thing, we were in line, so you were talking to somebody else.

Right. I get it. I get it. I get it. Yeah, man, I don't remember that at all. It's so funny how one person can remember something and it's like a big moment. And then another person would go like, I just erased that. I knew that i met you and i remember oh scott adams is cool i like that cartoon and then all of a sudden it's over you know it was that it was you know there's

no other memories in my database i had a totally different experience that day well it's also i did 100 of them or 98 or whatever the hell we did so It's a weird thing as you get older, too. There's memories that I just have scrubbed. I'm like, no room for them. I got new data coming in. I got to make some space. It's like cleaning out your garage. So there's nothing scarier than getting together with your siblings after you haven't seen them for years and you start talking about your childhood.

And one of you will be telling a story like, do you remember the time? It doesn't matter what it is. I jumped on a zebra and I ran across the zoo and they yelled at me. And the other sibling will say, that wasn't you. That was me. I was the one on the zebra. It'll be such like a, you know, a memory that you couldn't forget. Right. But you did. You actually wrote yourself into a scene. You weren't even there. You were watching and you wrote yourself into a scene. You weren't even there. You were watching. You wrote yourself into the hero scene.

That does happen with people. Human memory is really flawed. It's really flawed. Well, if you want to go real deep, real fast, you just gave me the good opening. I am a proponent of the we are all a software simulation view of reality. And that would also explain why memories are so screwed up. And the explanation would be that the past doesn't exist until you need it. In other words, the past writes itself on demand because if we're software, you wouldn't have everything in the universe pre-programmed just in case you needed it. It would take too much resources. I might have to spark up a joint for this episode.

You just went real deep real quick. I was hoping. I was hoping it would go that way. Do you want some? Do you smoke the weed? I could do it for the first time. I'd be willing to try it once. Well, I don't know if I want to give it to you for the first time.

I don't want you to freak out. You don't smoke pot at all? The truth is I've smoked pot once. Ever? It was in first day of college, but I never stopped. So that's really just once. Oh, I understand. So you smoked pot all the time. So you did it once and you just kept going.

I'd be willing to try it a second time, is what I'm saying. I understand what you're saying. Okay. So, what has like... What has life been like for Scott Adams during this election? You came into the, well, you're obviously always well-known for being the creator of Dilbert,

but along this election cycle, all of a sudden, I had people that I was in contact with that were saying, you know, Scott Adams is a Trump supporter. And I was like, what? Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, is a Trump supporter? Because everyone assumes you meet someone and they're in the creative business. You're in a creative business. You write a comic strip.

You would assume that you would be a left-wing guy, like almost immediately. Well, I'm neither left nor right. I'm sort of all over the place. My views didn't match either of the major candidates on anything. So you're a free thinker? I like to think I'm right and everybody else is wrong. I would like that too. No, I'm actually, my larger philosophical grounding is that, is informed by my experience as a hypnotist. I'm not sure if you knew that.

No, I didn't know you were a hypnotist. So in my 20s, I went to hypnosis school and became an actual trained certified hypnotist. Wow. And one of the things you learn as a hypnotist is that the world is backwards to the way people normally perceive it. So normally you see the world as, hey, you know, 90% to the way people normally perceive it. So normally you see the world as, hey, you know, 90% of the time people are irrational and doing rational things. Right. But 10% of the time we just go nuts and we do stupid things and it's because something happened that sparked it, right?

That's the normal view of the world. The hypnotist's view of the world is opposite. The hypnotist says that 90% of the time we're completely irrational and we're just making rationalizations for why we did things after the fact. 10% of the time we're rational, but that's only when there's no emotional content to the decision. You know, you're balancing a checkbook or something, you know, trying to pick up, you know, the best route to someplace. And so that's how I see the world. And so when I look at either the Trump supporters or the Clinton supporters, to me, from the hypnotist perspective and someone who's studied persuasion for decades, I use it in my writing. I see both sides as completely ridiculous. Both of them are grounded in complete absurdities.

They're just different. But nobody knows why they're deciding. The real reasons that people make decisions are fear, identity. You know, they have some aspiration. They've got something they're trying to solve. There's something they're trying to work out. But the reasons we give are usually completely false. And the grounding for this is that if you think about evolution, I assume you believe we evolved. Yes. There was no requirement in evolution that we ever understand our environment the way we imagine we do. And here's an example of that.

You could believe that you're a monk. You're reincarnated from a 10th century monk. Like Steven Seagal. Does he believe that? Yeah, he's like a Buddha or something. From an actual... Yeah, like he actually got it bestowed upon him by some Tibetan character. All right, so let's use Steven Seagal.

So Steven Seagal can be standing in a grocery store next to, let's say, a Muslim who believes that his prophet literally flew to heaven on a winged horse. Those two people don't live the same reality. But they both buy groceries. They both go. They cook it. They live. They survive. So it turns out that understanding your reality at an actual, you know, I really know what is objectively happening and I get it and I've got a mental model that's quite accurate.

We don't need any of that. So it would be deeply unlikely that we evolved such a specific skill that's completely unnecessary as far as we can tell. We do need to know that if you run into this wall, your head is going to hurt. So there's some basic stuff. But we're probably all even interpreting that experience differently. So there's no reason to think that the way I think of it is the way you think of it. So I see the world as this big irrational ball, and I use the hypnotist persuader skills to back up and try to deduce what's really driving things. And when people said I was a Trump supporter, what they meant was, they may have only seen part of what I was talking about, I was writing about his skill as a persuader. And what I mean is that I noticed in him the skills that I've developed over decades for persuasion, but at a higher level than I've ever seen,

meaning that he is the most persuasive living human I've ever experienced. And I mean that in terms of actual technique. You know, he's full of technique and it's all the time. I'll give you some examples of that. First time I noticed it was the very first debate when Megyn Kelly was asking him the question about the insults he had allegedly said to women. Not allegedly, he said them. was asking him the question about the insults he had allegedly said to women. Not allegedly, he said them. And this is a setup that any other politician with this setup is totally trapped.

Because they can either try to, like, deny they said it, and then somebody has a videotape and that doesn't work. Or they can say, oh, I didn't mean it. There's almost nothing you can say. You're just trapped. And that would have been the end of his campaign. The first debate should have been over. And if you remember, do you remember what he said? No, I don't.

She said, you said this, this, and this about women. And he smiled. He sort of looked at the audience, it looked like, or the camera. And he said, only Rosie O'Donnell. And the audience erupted in laughter, completely unexpected, out of place, inappropriate, provocative. And what I noticed was that Rosie O'Donnell is a visual image that everybody shares, right? You've got a picture of her since I say the name. And for his base that he was catering to, it was an unpopular image and one that would just suck all the energy away from the question, which was toxic.

And really, you know, you can't touch the question. You just have to suck all the energy into another part of the room and wait for the time to run out. And that's what he did. And it became the headline, blah, blah, blah. Certainly it highlighted the things he said about women maybe more than it would have. But the way he escaped that got my attention. And I thought, that doesn't look normal. All right, that's operating at another level. And so I looked for more examples of it. And you could see it everywhere. And it was especially clear by the time he started saying,

well, the other visual things he does is he says, build a wall. And you can just imagine a wall. When he says, we're paying too much ransom to Iran for those soldiers, he says, we paid 400 million or whatever the number is. He goes, imagine that money piled up. It'd be so much money. It would fill this room. You can't even imagine that big pile of money. He always goes for the visual because we know that the visual part of our brain is the dominant part. And if you can get its attention and get it on your message, it talks the rest of your brain into anything you want it to. When he talks about ISIS, he goes visual also. He doesn't say they are bad people whose religions, you know, has been

distorted to the type of thing you might hear from Hillary Clinton. He says they put you in cages and they drown you in the cage. They chop your head off. I mean, you can see that. You're playing the movie in your head. So everything he does gets more attention than everything everybody else does because he puts it into a provocative picture. So that was the first thing I noticed. Then when he got to Jeb Bush and he needed to defeat Jeb because he was the strongest competitor. So if he couldn't get past him, there was no point. And he went after him strong and he went after him fast and he went after him with a low energy kill shot. That's why I call these linguistic

kill shots. It's not just an insult. It's not just a clever nickname. And we saw Clinton try to come up with clever nicknames that had no purchase whatsoever, like Dangerous Donald. It just didn't work. But look at Low Energy Jeb. Here's how it's engineered. It's engineered for confirmation bias, meaning that you want the future to make this look like a better nickname every day. And you want it to match his physicality. So before I ever heard low-energy Jeb,

I had a good impression of Jeb Bush. I thought, when you looked at Jeb Bush, didn't you say to yourself, this guy looks like a cool character? No. No, but he looked like he was an in-control, calm, reasonable, exactly the person you'd want if the nuclear question came up, if there was some big decision, Jeb Bush isn't going to get excited about it. He seemed like a competent CEO.

Competent CEO, exactly. And as soon as Trump said low energy, could you see him any other way? He was low energy and he will always be low energy. And Lion Ted. No, Lion Ted. Lion Ted was beautiful. Lion Ted, because you knew that because he's a politician, sometime in the next several months, he's going to say stuff that you can say is a lie, whether it is or not. Right. It doesn't have to. But more importantly, Ted has a physicality about him that unfortunately he's got beady eyes. And I've said this before, that if you're going to cast a movie and say, oh, we need a guy who looks dishonest,

it would be his face. Right. And unfortunately, I mean, I don't know if he's actually dishonest. I'm not going to make a judgment. Who came up with the Zodiac Killer thing? Was that a Trump fan or was it Trump himself

that started saying that Ted was the Zodiac Killer? I think that probably started with a fan. So the other thing that- That was fucking harsh, man. He'd be giving speeches. Are you the Zodiac killer? People would scream it out. Imagine having to deal with that.

And did your father kill somebody? Yeah, yeah, yeah. His father was, maybe his dad was the Zodiac killer. Is that what the, because the Zodiac killer was like the seventies, right? Might not be old enough. Crooked Hillary. Crooked Hillary, same thing. Crooked Hillary is a brilliant one. So she wasn't physically, you know, as limber as a young person. So you could imagine her sort of a little bit crooked physically. And you knew that there would be stories coming out in which people could say, well, there's another example of that crooked physically. And you knew that there would be stories coming out in which people could say, well, there's another example of that crookedness.

Did you see, but you thought of that in a physical sense, like the way she looked? All I thought about is corruption. I heard crooked Hillary. I saw her like with like a burglar's mask on, trying to sneak away with bags that had dollar signs on them. Yeah, that's what I saw. You know, if you look at any one of these individually,

his nicknames, you could say, well, it's sort of random. He just got lucky. But if you look at them all, these individually, his nicknames, you could say, well, it's sort of random. He just got lucky. But if you look at them all, they all have that physicality. They all have the priming so that confirmation bias will kick in. Whatever you see after that will just fit the label because it's the first thing you think of. Well, he's a performer. You can say Donald Trump is a businessman.

He most certainly is. He most certainly is a real estate investor. But he's been a public figure for decades. And when you're a public figure, you're a performer. He's performing all the time. And he's also, he likes to win. And so when he's engaging in people, he makes it personal. So he's gotten very good at what's called playing the dozens.

You know what playing the dozens is? Tell us. It's an insult thing you know like you can like one guy like guys in the hood in the inner cities this is it started out as a black term but it's essentially like a version of your mama contest like some guys are way better at your mama jokes they're way better at playing the dozens they're way better at shitting on other people around them and it's for the entertainment of each other. It's a huge thing amongst comedians. We shit on each other constantly, left and right, but it's generally encouraged and we all enjoy it. But when a guy

has decades and decades and decades of this, like Donald Trump at a very high level, because he's known to be a billionaire investor who puts his name on everything. Everything is still Winbeck, in which I talk about developing systems for succeeding. And one of the systems is to, and you do this too, stack together what I would call ordinary skills until your stack is different than anybody else's. So in my case, I'm not a great artist. I didn't take any writing courses, but I'm pretty good at drawing and I'm pretty good at writing and I'm a little bit funny. So I put them together and I can do a comic strip because it's rare that you get somebody who's, let's say, in the top 10 percent of three different things. But it's not hard to be in the top 10 percent of things if you're if you're going after them. So if you look at Trump, he wrote a book on negotiating.

So he knows business. He knows negotiating. He knows public speaking. He has a sense of humor, a really good one. He's quick book on negotiating. So he knows business. He knows negotiating. He knows public speaking. He has a sense of humor, a really good one. He's quick on his feet. Now he knows politics, you know, from both the inside and the outside. He knows Twitter. You know, I could probably go on.

And you would say if you looked at any one of those things, he's not the best you've ever seen. You know, he's not the best public speaker, the funniest person, et cetera. But there aren't many people who can do all of those things in the top 10%. As a public speaker, I don't think he's nearly in the top 10%. I'm just being honest. I think he has a very poor efficiency of words. he repeats himself when it's not really important. And when he repeats himself, what I usually see is like someone searching for the next thing to say. You know what I'm saying?

Like he'll say, you know, I'm going to be honest with you. I'm going to be honest with you. Okay. I'm going to be honest with you here. He'll do that in a way that is not, it's not efficient. It's not efficient, but it's persuasive. And that's why sometimes, but it also repetition repetition sometimes sometimes and sometimes it's clunky yeah i feel like he i feel like there's a lot of times where it's his style to do that and he's

done it before but even like in delivering lines you've got to know when to not talk. Here's a perfect example. When he said that he called the president of Mexico up and they had the conversation about the wall, and he said the wall just got 10 foot higher. He's like, yeah, that's what I said. That is what I said. He repeats that. He should have just let it hang.

He should have just said the wall just got 10 foot higher. They would have went crazy, and he could have walked back and forth and just sucked it in, but he kept talking. See, that's not the best speaker. Obama, I feel, is a way better public speaker, way more efficient with his words, way better control of the sentences that he speaks, but it's more professional. I think you're judging on a standard that I probably wouldn't use. So I took the Dale Carnegie course, teaching you how to be a public speaker. And their course taught you zero technique. It was a course on public speaking in which they taught you nothing about technique, the things that you're saying he's doing. Not necessarily technique.

Well, let me just finish this off. Okay, sure. I'm sorry. What they taught you is just confidence. And if you were happy and confident, you would almost always do well, even if you make a mistake, you're just confidence. And if you were happy and confident, you would almost always do well, even if you make a mistake, you're just correct. So he strikes me as the confident Dale Carnegie type of speaker, the person who's selling an emotion. It's an experience. You're not going there really to get information. It's not really, you know, well-crafted jokes you're looking for. You're going there to feel something. And you can't

deny that 30,000 people in a stadium with red hats on, they were feeling something. So in terms of delivering an emotion, top 10%. Interesting. Well, I think that for absolutely one thing you could say is he knows how to do the Donald Trump thing. And the Donald Trump thing is very different than the rest of the politicians thing. The Donald Trump thing is not humble. The Donald Trump thing will tell you about his past successes and use them to tell you how he's going to be successful in the future. The Donald Trump thing, when confronted with certain things,

like the thing about him saying something about Hillary lacking stamina and then he goes off about having a winning temperament. I have a winning temperament. There's not a lot of people who could do that in that sort of a political form. Like if, say, Mitt Romney was running for president, he starts saying, I have a winning temperament. They'd be like, oh, Mitt's gone fucking crazy, right? I mean, you remember how Howard Dean got knocked out of the race just for screaming?

He just screamed at a rally, and it was over. The wind came out of the balloon. But you know what Howard Dean got knocked out of the race just for screaming? He just screamed at a rally and it was over. The wind came out of the balloon. But you know what Howard Dean did wrong? What? He only screamed once. It's true. It's all about contrast. Well, he also didn't make fun of it.

You know, he should have come on and he should have done something to make fun of it. He should have had a speech where he talked about, so I got a little carried away, folks. You know, like he hid from it. It feels like he could have fixed that. Yes. Yeah, I had that feeling at the time. Well, the problem was it was contrary to what he was selling. He was selling this buttoned-up package deal, and in the middle of that package deal is a fucking pro wrestling fan screaming from a suplex.

Like Hulk Hogan suplexes the Iron Sheik. I mean, that's what it was like. I mean, that's not the guy where you want to have the button. So if you heard of these studies, and I think this has been replicated and fairly reliable, that if you want to addict somebody to something, let's say this, you know, your show, if you gave them a really good product every time, it actually wouldn't be as addictive as if once in a while it wasn't good and they had to sort of like wait and anticipate, oh, there's that good one again.

Right. So unpredictable rewards are far more addicting than predictable. So Hillary Clinton, who rewards you every time, but it's just about the same, is not going to be nearly as addicting as Donald Trump, who disappoints the fuck out of you. You're like, God, I was just starting to like you. Why did you say that that way? Right. And then two weeks later, he comes out with something.

You say, shit, I love you again. And, you know, so it's he's got that addictive pattern going. Well, I'll tell you what. Once all that grab the pussy stuff got out of the way, he was doing a lot of speeches in the rundown the last few days. And I watched a few of them on television because I almost felt like, even though I knew I was going to vote, I almost felt like some sort of a spectator. Like this cannot possibly be real, to speak to your software simulation idea in the beginning that a lot of people share, by the way. It's not just crazy Scott Adams and me. But there's a lot of folks out there that

think that we're living in a simulation right but as he would give these speeches and there were some of the speeches he gave where there was these moments are you like if someone could tell that guy to keep it at seven like where he's at right there and talk like that always and avoid all the crazy shit but man the crazy shit is what you get. Like that's the thing about people like Trump or like any powerful super dominator type character like that. You're going to have some flaws. A lot of them. Look what he kept saying all the time.

He was always saying he was the energy guy. Energy guy. Look at my crowds. The other one has no stamina. This one's low energy. He knew the facts guy, energy guy, look at my crowds. The other one has no stamina. This one's low energy. He knew the facts didn't matter. He knew the policy didn't matter. And by the end, I think everybody agrees they didn't.

I mean, by election day, not a lot of people were saying, well, I sure like that TPP stand. I mean, nothing like that was happening. There was no issues. No issues. It just came down to which one you hated the more. Well, there was one issue though, that was real. And that was amongst feminists. There was amongst women who were willing to exonerate Hillary on all the weird shit that she had ever done involving women. Uh, all the stuff that she had done involving deleted emails and, you know, and i had heard people even say that people

were giving her a hard time because she's a woman on her health and i was like you are out of your fucking mind if you believe that she's falling asleep when she's standing up that is bad that is so bad if that was anyone close to me anyone close to me i'd be like you're not going to be president we got to get you healthy. You're fucking blacking out while you're standing up. And it's not just once. She fell down once in 2012, got a serious concussion, and was fucked up for six months. Me as a person who's terrified of brain trauma, that freaks me the fuck out because I know the repercussions of brain trauma.

I know the impulsiveness that it bestows upon people. It's a horrible curse that's happened to a lot of people I know. So I knew there was this weird delusional thing where people didn't want to address the fact that her health is poor. And then it was revealed in one of the WikiLeaks emails that she had suffered from some sort of a, not a stroke, but a seizure in 2015. Like that's's a fucking year ago. Like, what is happening? Like, you got to, but nobody wanted to talk about that. And there was this strange air that she's not being treated fairly. I'm like, here's treated fairly. She is a person who deleted 30,000 emails after she got a subpoena.

She's an older, rich, white woman. If she was a 40-year-old black guy and she deleted 30,000 emails after subpoena. She's an older, rich, white woman. If she was a 40-year-old black guy and she deleted 30,000 emails after subpoena, they would just shoot you. They would just come over to you. They would kick down your fucking door and cuff you and drag you off to a cage somewhere. So how weird is it? Am I right-winger? What's going on here? How weird is it that we went through that entire election cycle and so many people like you and like me were saying, I'm not sure she looks healthy enough.

She's definitely not healthy. Now, she, of course, met all the standards of past presidents. But what person ever interviewed her and said, look, there are a lot of questions about your health and asked the question this way. Can you look the American public in the eye and tell us there's no major health problems that you haven't disclosed? I would never ask her a question like that because I don't think she'd ever give you a real answer. The same way with the FBI. But you could tell by the way she evaded it whether she was lying. She's a wizard at that, though.

That's her shit. That's her shit, man. That red cape where the bull just goes flying by. You can always tell a liar. That's her shit. That's her shit, man. That red cape where the bull just goes flying by. You can always tell a liar. Liars will say something like, so if you said to me, Scott, have you ever had any major health problems? I'd say, I have met all the requirements of the presidency. I'd say, oh, no, no.

I'm asking you a specific question. Is there anything not disclosed? And then I say, Donald Trump hasn't disclosed any more than I've disclosed. That's a person who's hiding something. Otherwise, they look you right in the eye and they go, I swear, I'm great. Everything's good. I promise you nothing's going to come out later when I'm president. You will not be disappointed in any way. Because nobody can say that if they think they're going to get bitten in the ass in a year and a half when they collapse on the white house lawn my point was in saying that is that if you just if you anyway described her health issues that you would somehow be a sexist and that the idea of her gender and being the first female president which obviously would be very historic

right huge issue huge huge honor um that that that was a part of what they were voting for. It became a part. Her gender became a part of what they were voting for. And so that was an issue. Let me give you the the the positive spin on the same topic. CNN published 24 pundit explanations of why Trump won unexpectedly. 24 different theories about why we didn't see it coming in the top 24. None of them were. She's a woman.

So couldn't get, you know, couldn't get right. Not in the top 24. All right. So if we may pause for a moment from piling on Miss Clinton, I got to say that the whole breaking the glass ceiling thing, she fucking did that. That's toast. There's no six-year-old born today who says a woman can't be president. That's not even in their worldview.

That's so not true. I'll find you five, six-year-olds that say it right to your face. I'll bet not. I get a bunch of them together. Can a woman be president? I get some boys together. I give them candy, high-five them. You can trick them

That's true. You know talk wise into anything for candy That's just I I mean, I know what you're saying though I know what you're saying that she got as close she won the popular vote right as far as current count, right? But who are you seeing saying? Oh if you know it was sexism that didn't get her elected feminists feminists that I know I mean, there's a lot of people that actually believe that. And you know what, man, there's a whole spectrum of variables. And if someone's thinking about, if they're hovering over, you know, if they're looking at Gary Johnson and Hillary Clinton, maybe they're like, never Trump. Maybe they're one of those people. They're like, one of these motherfuckers is going to get my vote. They might start thinking, man,

I don't know if I want a woman president. That's absolutely a factor. Have you heard anybody say that? Yes. And what do they say? A friend of mine. She's a yoga instructor. She goes, bitches are crazy. I don't want a woman running this country. That's for real. That's a real statement. I mean, that's a human being

who was just talking to me and we're friends and no one was around. And do you think that she would vote on that? Yes. I think there's many people that would vote on that. But there's many people that will like, fuck this man. I don't care what Hillary did. I don't care if Hillary's got a bunch of rape victims

buried in her backyard. That's a woman. She represents women. And probably Donald's got more. You know, there's that attitude too. There's a lot of people that would only vote for a woman if given the chance. Yeah, I don't know how you'd net it down

because I think it was a net positive. There's 300 million people in this country plus Mexicans. I don't think you really can net it down like that. I just think there's too many of us. I think that's one of the things that we learned from this really important lesson when it comes to polls. They're not real anymore. They're not real. You're not talking to me.

You're not answering polls. Jamie doesn't answer a goddamn poll. Look at him. No one you know answers polls. It's such a small sampling of people. And the people that answer polls, they don't have anything better to do than answer a fucking poll. Right? That's not good.

It's a jury duty problem. Yeah. It's exactly what the problem is. So I think we learned that definitively. These polls do not work. Well, if I could defend Nate Silver for a moment. Who's Nate Silver? Who's that guy again?

He does 538 website, the best statistician on politics. Well, it's not his fault. He's worked with the data he has. Well, but he was also within 2%, I think. Was he? Yeah. Pretty good. So at the end.

But, you know, they always converge toward the end. You know, they start out wildly ridiculous. And then when it's clear that it's going to be one way or the other, all the polls start coming toward the end because they want to say, well, at the end, I was only 2% off. Jamie and I were watching this video clip of the Young Turks calling down the election yesterday. And at the beginning of it, they were 100% convinced that Hillary could not lose. You know, there was one guy was saying, you know, Hillary can't lose like she like literally it's mathematically. And then by the end, they were fucking screaming and swearing. It was like, wow, these numbers that people like count on, like 84 percent say this, 15 percent.

Try to imagine my life. I don't know if you know this, but a year ago, more than a year ago, I predicted that Trump would win with a 98% certainty in a landslide. It went at all. I was one of the few people who said it early. And this is because of the way he was so persuasive? Yeah, just based on his talent. But this was pre the Rosie O'Donnell thing, if it was a year ago. I think it was over the summer that it was like August last year that the first debates were.

I think you're right. But that wasn't a year ago, right? That was a little bit more than a year ago. Whatever. We're splitting Harrison. Okay. So back then when I predicted it, you can imagine the heat I took because it was such an unlikely pick. And how many people just wanted to dance on my grave for being wrong.

And they're angry at you. And angry, yes. Going over to Amazon, giving me bad book reviews because they didn't like what I said about Donald Trump. So that moment when I find out that I haven't wasted my whole year, because it would have been a terrible year to be so wrong for a year. And then there's like no payoff whatsoever. It was like the worst gamble ever.

Right. Bad risk management. But then to have it come through just the way I predicted it was this amazing, amazing moment. You only get a few of those in your life. Well, he did really win by a landslide. So you were off by that. A small electoral landslide. Oh, electoral.

Yeah, I guess so. Electoral, he won by quite a few points, right? But it wasn't. It was pretty close up until how many hours in? As soon as you started. Doesn't matter. Yeah, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

Here's the thing that I think is important to make a distinction. And this is what I recognize on you when I watch some of your periscopes. You just weren't making a moral judgment of him as a person. And that's what people expected. People expected a line in the sand to be drawn morally. What you were doing was talking about all of his traits. You were compounding all of his positive traits and what he does well. And then people got mad at you for bringing, like you're analyzing it.

Say if you're a scientist and you take a plant that you find in the Amazon, you're like, well, what does this plant consist of? Let's break down the parts. You were kind of breaking down the parts of what he does and what he's effective. And it didn't seem to me, I'm like, this doesn't seem like a guy who's like, there's a few guys out there that are like rabid, rah-rah Trump supporters. And some of them were super transparent. There's a few guys out there that I'm watching them and I know what they're doing. What they're doing is they're latching on to the Trump train.

They're latching on like really shamelessly where they tweet about Trump all the time now. Well, they never give a fuck about him a while ago. Like over the last six months, they've jumped on this because they recognize there's a tremendous amount of loyalty and momentum behind being a Trump supporter and a fan because it's a tough stance to take. So guys that are already marginalized, already kind of like fringe and people think they're kind of maybe creepy. They're like, fuck this. I'm going full creep. And they jump right in. It's kind of it fringe and people think they're kind of maybe creepy. They're like, fuck this. I'm going full creep. And they jump right in. It's kind of it's real transparent.

Interesting. You know, obviously, that's just my take on it. They might actually be really Trump supporters and they're super excited. But I sense some disingenuous behavior out there. Careful, careful, Trump train. You might have some hobos on your fucking wagons. I mean, you might have some hobos on your fucking wagons. You know, I think what's different about this election and about Trump in particular is that it used to be we were electing a leader, right?

Someone who would be a role model and all that. I think he threw that all out the door and social media throws even more out the door. And what I mean is I think the public is the leader now. I mean, I think no laws get passed unless the majority of the public wants it to get passed. Anything that gets a little out of line, social media just throws it back in line. And more than ever, I think we hired an employee rather than a leader. I feel like I hired a plumber, you know, someone who's just really good at a specific set of skills, negotiating, you know, maybe doing something with the budget, whatever needs to be done, secure the borders. But it's sort of like picking a lawyer. I don't care what he's doing in his personal life. He's not my role model. And by the way, which of our kids are looking to 70-year-old

men as their role models anyway? I mean, I don't know if that happens a lot anyway. But I think he really is going to be the first sort of people's president. You see his policies changing in real time. The example we talked about earlier when he misspoke and he said women should be punished if they get an illegal abortion. It turns out that the law and both Republicans and Democrats think that's crazy because it would discourage, you know, it would encourage the wrong behavior. And so only the doctor is punished. But you saw him change his opinion in 24 hours just by being a little more informed and hearing that the public was all on the same side.

So that's interesting. So he'll bend with the breeze and you're not going to call it flip-flopping, which is what the common political term is, right? Right. In the political realm, it would be flip-flopping and he has no moral backbone. But you're saying it's receptive to the public's desires. He's a business person. In the business realm, it's more like A-B testing, which is you're rapidly testing things, you see what the response is and you adjust if you don't get the right response. But that's also like one of the criticisms of him is that he talks off the cuff without really having researched or thought deeply about these subjects. And when you're talking about a guy who's supposed to be the leader of the greatest

country the world's ever known, like that guy should probably not do that. I'm going to put a different filter on that. Okay. From the persuasion filter, since facts and logic and policies and stuff don't matter as much as you want, when you see him ignoring things that you just think, man, a reasonable person would not say that, a reasonable person would not ignore that, he ignores things because they don't matter. You think he's ignoring something very important and he would perform better if he did what you imagine is the right way to act. I don't think so. You don't think it's important to not arrest women who get illegal abortions? No, I'm saying... But you know what I'm saying? Like, that's an important thing to pay attention to, right?

If you have an opinion on it. Well, what I'm saying is that the things you would need to know to be a president, and let's say Hillary Clinton knows them all. Let's say she's a 10 and a 10 of just knowledge. If he's a 6, which probably is even generous, there probably isn't any decision that he won't have advisors who are filling him in. I see. He becomes informed as he needs to know it, exactly the way a CEO would run something. Okay. So this is not really related to that one particular subject.

No, that was just an example of him changing when he became more informed. He didn't stick to an old opinion even as the facts changed. Right, right. And he's done the same thing with Obamacare as well, right? Met with Obama and said, okay, maybe there's some things about Obamacare that we might want to keep. So what he does, we call pacing and leading in the hypnosis persuasion. It's not called bullshitting?

No, and here's how it's different. What he does is he agrees with people emotionally first. He gets you on your side emotionally. So if you're really concerned about immigration, for example, he doesn't just say, yeah, yeah, I'm concerned about that too. That would be sort of a Hillary Clinton approach, being less concerned than you are, but, you know, I got other priorities. He's way more concerned than you are, but, you know, I got other priorities. He's way more concerned than you are. If you're a little bit worried about immigration, he's worried about, you know, ISIS coming over here and putting people in cages and cutting off heads.

And my God, there's a hordes coming over the border. So he's so on your side that when he changes toward the middle, and you knew he had to because you have to do that when you get in the general election, that his side was not feeling betrayed because they're saying, well, if he's changing the specifics of his policy, it must be because he looked into it. And that's what's practical. That's interesting. That's what's practical. So they're willing to go with him if they feel that he's on their side emotionally. So he always sides with people emotionally, goes as big as possible, uses hyperbole. He says he does that. And he also gives him room to negotiate back to the middle.

And everybody says, my God, I'm happy now. You're negotiated back to the middle. Wow. That's interesting. It's interesting, but why do I feel like he's just getting lucky? I feel like he's doing a really shitty competition. Hillary Clinton is a terrible example of someone who should be running the country in so many ways. And she beat him in the popular vote.

You know what I mean? She's got a lot of dirt on her. So she beat him in the contest they weren't having. Right. There was only one contest. That's true. And he won that one. That's true.

What's hilarious is in 2012, he was saying it was a rigged system because of that contest. I mean, he was talking about the popular vote. What year was it where it went to Al Gore? What year was it where Al Gore won the popular vote? But, or was it, did Kerry win the, no, Kerry never won the popular vote, right? It was just Al Gore. Al Gore won the popular vote. Against Bush, right?

Yeah. By like a half a million. Yeah. So every year there's going to be this conversation. Anytime the vote voters close. But what you see is that Trump doesn't care about, let's say, the consistency or what somebody would say is being a hypocrite. I tweeted this recently that the least persuasive thing you could ever say in politics if you're trying to change somebody's mind is, that person's a hypocrite.

In all of history, that's never changed anybody's mind. Nobody ever said, oh, slap my head. I didn't realize that happens on both sides. You mean about a politician? About a politician, yeah. Yeah. Well, we accept a certain amount of bullshit. But we also accept that they used to say one thing and now they say another and it just seems so normal. It's in the baseline.

Don't you think that being the president is an impossible job? It's impossible. It just doesn't seem like anybody can really do it. It's both impossible and the easiest job in the sense that the office of the president and all the advisors and all the public opinion is going to force you down to just a few possible options. And those two options, you will not have enough information to know which one's better. So anybody guessing among the last two options that they've narrowed it down to, there's a little bit of luck involved, I got to say. And how so? What do you mean by this?

Well, you have to match the personality and the time, right? So you could have a president who was just terrific in wartime but weren't much good in anything else. So they'd be, you know, next thing you know, they're on Mount Rushmore. But you have Obama whose primary job was winding down two wars and basically cleaning up another mess and, you know, keeping us from a larger problem, larger problem, the economy melting down. So Obama is really the presidency of things he prevented that could have been worse. But I would put him in the top 20% of presidents. So my view of him is very positive. And I think even Obamacare is a genius, persuasive move, even in its failure, because he set it up that way. And he said that publicly. He said, I'm going to launch it ugly. I'm paraphrasing. I didn't get exactly what I wanted in this law. But once it's out there, it'll be impossible for politicians to pull back

coverage. They'll just have to fix it. So where are we today? Everybody's saying, Obama, total failure without Obamacare, because we're going to keep the good parts. Keywords, keep the good parts exactly as he fucking planned and said so publicly. He said it. He said it publicly. He said, I'm going to do this ugly wrong and you're going to have to fix it because it's going to be the only choice you have. And that's what that's what Trump's going to do. He's going to fix it. So what is he going to be the only choice you have. And that's what Trump's going to do. He's going to fix it. So what is he going to fix? Probably he's going to keep the main parts and probably shift some money around from something.

I'm not sure the fix looks like a miracle fix. I don't know that that's in our future. And I'm no expert on Obamacare. Well, there's this weird thing that we've done now with uh with trump that i've never seen before we've we've narrowed them down to chants and slogans like i talked in this podcast about i was uh in new york city at the time of the protests because i was there for the ufc and we were walking from the gym to the hotel and we just got caught in this wave of people screaming

With really fucking crazy signs man. There wasn't a whole lot of love and compassion on their signs That we were talking about this before the podcast started that the left has become something very different. It's like this really aggressive Insulting shaming and even the call for. Like there's people with rape Melania signs. It's like this is crazy. Yeah, there's pictures of them online. So the big question is, since I have one foot in the all right world because I sample everything over there, but I'm also watching CNN and regular media, and these folks live in completely different realities

because they have different information because they're looking at different sources. So within the conservative side of things, it is understood, universally understood, that the protesters are professional and they're paid by Soros. And by the way, I'm not saying this. I'm saying what their view is. On the other side, people think it's a true grassroots movement. And so the view is completely two different worlds. Well, there may very well be some people that have been paid to protest, but there is absolutely a bunch of people that are protesting because they're upset.

I mean, they might be fluffed up a little bit. I don't know. But there's definitely people that are just young people that are pissed off or old people that are pissed off. There's people that are just upset. The question is whether the protests would have lasted and spread and been as well organized. People love a good protest, Scott Adams. It's fun. You feel like you're doing something. You're blocking Wilshire. Fuck you.

People, you know, this guy. I mean, what I was saying about it boiled down to a slogan. Like there's a bunch of not my fucking president, you know, like that kind of shit. Like Donald Trump, KKK. Like they want to like yell out things that they associate with him, which I've never seen before about a president. Yeah. So I write about this extensively. So the best persuasion is fear, right?

So in the beginning of the election, Trump had the best persuasion because he was saying the terrorists are coming in. You know, I'll stop them. There's criminals coming across the border. Clinton was talking boring policies and they experienced. So she didn't have a chance against, you know, you're going to die tomorrow. Right. By summer, she obviously had some professional help, meaning somebody who's a cognitive scientist or a professional persuader. And she started using the term dark all the time.

And all the surrogates used it at the same time. It's dark, dark, dark. And she started coloring him as a huge racist dictator, dangerous to the world, and the most dangerous thing in the world. Because if you're worried about terrorism, you're really worried about somebody else getting killed. Because you're not really thinking you get killed by the terrorists. You know, even if it's pretty bad, somebody else is getting killed. But Clinton painted a picture to make you afraid of, you know, the nuclear holocaust created by Trump tweeting something at 3 a.m. and hitting the button accidentally. And so that was the ultimate fear.

So she really had that going. And when she lost, she had all these people activated who would have been instantly deactivated if Trump had lost. But there's no deactivation on the bomb now. She created this societal bomb that is these protests and the way people feel. These people literally believe that Hitler was just elected, you know, a version of Hitler who will – and I actually saw today a journalist talking about, you know, concentration camps and that sort of thing. camps and that sort of thing. I believe nothing even remotely like that's going to happen or, you know, I would obviously be on the side of the protesters. So it's not their view of the world is that the Trump supporters know he's a racist and they install them because they want him to go do racist things. Trump supporters know that even within their ranks, it's like, I don't know, 2% people are actual racists. And I've never met one like

the hardcore kind. I've never even met one. I bet we can introduce you to some people if we just asked around. Yeah. I think it wouldn't be hard to find one. Yeah. Alonzo Bowden had a very funny line. He said, not all Trump supporters are racists, but all racists are Trump supporters. So what we have here is a situation where the racists are living in their own little world and they think they actually got their guy. Right. Most Trump supporters, just like, hey, less taxes. They're thinking they like his personality. They'll just like something about him.

And the Clinton supporters think that Hitler actually got elected. So they're acting on that. So what's happened is that Clinton has somewhat accidentally, because she thought she was going to win, at which point this whole problem goes away, somewhat accidentally created this gigantic societal bomb that there's no way to diffuse. But a number of people, including me, are trying to figure out how to literally de-hypnotize people who are in this illusion that World War III just started. Whoa. It was very disturbing to me. One of the big ones was when she was confronted about the DNC hack

and her e-mails and all that stuff, the hacked emails from her server, where she diverted attention by saying that it was Russia that did this and that there would be repercussions. And then she said, even possibly militarily, like that's the worst diffusion of responsibility ever. Like we're talking about you deleting emails after a subpoena, and your argument is that the Russians got those emails and we should bomb them. I mean, that's literally what she's saying. That was crazy when she said

there would be repercussions militarily. To fucking Russia. Like, what Russia? We're not talking about invading Puerto Rico. It's fucking Russia. Like, you're saying there's going to be military invasions because someone stole your email. talking about invading Puerto Rico. It's fucking Russia. Like, you're saying there's going to be military invasions because someone

stole your email that wasn't secure. I'm going to defend her. Please do. I'm going to surprise you a little bit. Oh, boy. Here we go. We should have a drink. Do you drink? I don't anymore. Anymore? When did you stop? It just gave me sinus problems.

I stopped several years ago. I feel much healthier. All right, dude. No pressure. What was I talking about? You were going to defend Hillary Clinton because I was saying that we were going to attack Russia because of emails. It's kind of crazy. So the way leaders talk with each other is, you know, this is my red line.

Don't think this is serious. That's not the same as saying, if you got my email, I'm going to bomb you tomorrow. There is a certain amount of seriousness, which you must convey, which is separate from what are you actually going to do. So she was conveying a 10 out of 10 maximum code read seriousness, if you got my fucking emails. And it changed the course of our republic because that's where she was at, the legend. Now, I don't know if any of this happened and there are smart people who said maybe the Russians were in

or some Russian hackers were involved. Well, here's the problem. There's no evidence that the Russians did it. Not only that, the FBI and the CIA don't think there's Russians, don't think the Russians did it. Like it wasn't something that there was any definitive proof. It was, find out who, Jamie, see if you could pull this up.

Who believed that it was Russia and who didn't believe it was Russia? Because there was some very prominent security people that were hired to investigate. Zero evidence it was Russia. So it was just a diffusion. And you could tell that it was a planned diffusion because of that White House correspondent's press dinner. She made a joke about riding a horse with Putin. She made this Russian joke. So there's this theme.

And it was a shit joke, too. Whoever wrote it should be slapped. It was terrible. Terrible. Like the way it was set up was it was if somebody if somebody pitched that around the joke writers table, you know, like it was it like it was Tony Hinchcliffe and, you know, Jeff Ross or they'd be like, no, no, no, that one's not going to make it. Don't do that. That's a terrible joke. It's just not a good joke. And she, you know, didn't know how to deliver it either. And it was just a clunky extra attempt to connect Putin and Trump because people are scared of Russia. But it was so shitty and ham-handed that it just didn't work. And everybody knows there's no fucking evidence. I mean, there's no evidence that Russia's doing anything.

None. I think the Russia thing took her from a serious statesperson, the most experienced person who ever ran for president, to a little bit ridiculous. Yes. She got desperate. I suppose. It's a desperate move. She didn't have any other options.

She went code red. She started talking shit back. She started making things up back and connecting him to, like, it was just, the whole thing was so sordid to me. That was the most unfortunate thing about it. When you do see all this stuff on TV, one thing that you can't deny, it might not affect you and it might not affect me, but there are certain people that foul the tone of the leaders of this country. a pussy in a tweet at 1.30 in the morning. That sets the tone for the country.

And it's going to make some people very happy. There's some people that love to talk shit. They love to insult people. And they're like, fuck yeah, open season. The way I described it, I said political correctness took a missile to the dick. Because that's what it was like. This is the guy at the top of the totem pole. And we can relax our standards now.

And all the things that have been annoying you about people nitpicking about behaviors and insults and you know safe words and safe spaces and all that stuff's kind of gone uh yeah i mean yeah so it does affect the way people think and behave right there's almost nobody who won't use the word pussy in public now do you do you do you remember so many months ago when that just wasn't a thing that's so true you couldn't say that that's so true it became like a constant like dinner table talk like people sitting around talking saying grab the pussy yeah and it's coming from women it's not even it's not even not even been my girlfriend it's so true it's so true that is so true that's interesting yeah well you know i think that we go one way and we go the other. And I think that people get tired of too much left and they want some right.

And I think that's why we went from Carter to Reagan. That's why we went from Bush to Clinton. I just think that's what we do. I think it's what we've always done. And I think people are tired. I also believe, and I've said this publicly, I think the whole Caitlyn Jenner thing had a big effect. Because people were like, what in the fuck are we doing? That's the athlete of the year.

This is woman of the year for Glamour magazine. And then you see her on the Ellen show and she doesn't believe in gay marriage. And you're like, this is madness. We're accepting madness as being okay. We were accepting madness as being okay. And I think because of that, like, we're so accepting and so sensitive that anything involving gender gets a fucking free pass on all of its ludicrous aspects. Like, she's a ludicrous person. But we gave her the free pass because she used to be a man and then she became a woman.

And she fucking doesn't believe in gay marriage. It's so crazy. And when Ellen asked her about it, she was like, well, I'm kind of a traditionalist. Like, what? What the fuck did you even just say you're a traditional girl Holy shit, this is crazy, but we're not supposed to say anything. We're supposed to just accept it Well, there's people at home all across the country Throwing their fucking beer cans in the kitchen just what the fuck are we doing? What are we doing? And I think there's this reaction when things go way too far left.

When there's 78 different gender pronouns that you have to learn. When political correctness takes some crazy path where you're removing the General Lee's Confederate flag from the roof and pulling it off a TV land. We gotta get this fucking... Things go so far left that

there's an automatic slingshot effect and they start going right again. I'm okay with getting rid of the Confederate flag, by the way. I think they could have. Well, you know, it does represent bad things to people. But can't you just like fucking go in there and CGI that shit or something? Or is it okay to have it in there because it represents the past, right? Like you could go to, you can go watch um al jolson videos on youtube

and you can watch them here's my take on that people don't ask a lot from other people but you so you have this confederate flag bunch of people like it because it's like oh it's the past it's the south so you know you want to respect that people like what they like but another big part of the public is just really, really offended by it. Like, not in a normal offensive way, like, you know, oh, you said a bad word. But like, you know, the deepest pain the country has ever experienced, you know, the slavery. So if you can't allow your fellow citizen, you know, that little bit of respect, It's like, yeah, this is really inconvenient. I wish I could keep my Confederate flag, whatever.

But they're not asking a lot. That's just not a lot. That's true, unless you own the Dukes of Hazzard. You're like, where's my fucking money? What the? Are you kidding me? We've played it for 50 years. What happened?

Well, it represents not just slavery, which is one of the most awful things that has ever happened to human beings. The other awful thing is war. It represents war, civil war. So the two most awful things, slavery and war. It represents both of those. It represents a war between two groups of people on the same land mass over slavery. It's a war between two people in the same two groups, people on the same landmass over slavery. So it's death on top of horrific in capturing and enslaving of people. It's like everything bad.

And I hate to be insensitive, but they weren't the winning side. True. So they did lose. But what's interesting is it just a few decades ago, whenever the Dukes of Hazzard was on TV, it didn't bother us at all. That's really fascinating to me that they were allowed to have it and it wasn't an issue. But I don't know. I don't. Yeah. Maybe just people weren't thinking about it that way. But once you start thinking about it, isn't that fascinating that it wasn't an issue, but we were all aware of it. All of our issues are psychological. I mean, you know, once you got food and nobody's shooting at you.

Right. Your problems tend to be mental. Yeah. Yeah. Unless that whatever that image is, is provoking violence. Right. You know, like the Nazi flag you can't have. They lost too. But you can't have that one. We won't give you that one.

Right. Yeah. And again, it's like people don't ask a lot. Yeah. That's just not a lot to ask. But isn't that fascinating? Like the English came when we had a war with England. Right. For independence. They killed a lot. That's just not a lot to ask. Isn't that fascinating? The English came, when we had a war with England, right, for our independence,

they killed a lot of Americans. You could have an English flag flying high, nobody gives a fuck. You know? That ended so politely, though. Did it? I mean, I think the British, they lose territory better than anybody. Well, they'll give you their sword.

Well, we conquered much of the world, but okay. This one didn't work out. You put up a good fight. Good for you. Good for you. Take your country back. It is interesting, though,

that there's some people that would argue for the Confederate flag, but almost no one would argue for the Nazi flag. Well, it's probably somebody does, but yeah, I know what you're saying. Right. I mean, the Nazis, I mean, it couldn't have been that everyone in germany was represented by the nazis right

there's never a group there's never 100 compliance and group mindset of any fucking country it's never existed right it's just not how people are so we give the germans a pass because they were a part of that whole nazi flag thing but when we look at the Confederate flag, like if you're down with that, you have to be it has to be like the two core things. One, you're at war with the North and two, you believe in slavery. That's it. You know, it can't just be I'm a Leonard Skinner fan. But, you know, images, images like I said in the very beginning, visual persuasion is the strongest. It is. You just don't want to look at that thing if you're on the wrong side of that part of history.

I was thinking about that once because I went to Chichen Itza, where the Mayan pyramids are in the Yucatan. And when we were driving, it's like a long drive to get to the pyramids. And as we're driving, I saw this giant Coca-Cola billboard. I said said how bizarre is that symbol like that symbol so etched in the consciousness of most people in the modern world but to see it in the jungle was just so strange it's just this giant thing that represent i mean it's like instantaneous representation was it new or was it left over from the Mayan civilization that had it before? It was newer than that.

Symbols are very strange. We accept them and they have become a normal part of our society. When you drive it down the road and you go oh what kind of car is that? And you see the bow tie, oh it's a Chevy. Like these symbols like the instantaneous recognizable symbols. Have you noticed how easily boys can recognize the model of a car? Oh yeah. There's some kind of weird gender specific skill. Oh, I don't think so because Brian Callen doesn't know jack shit about cars. Brian Callen could recognize like a Tesla and a car maybe he's owned, maybe, but it would have to be in the last couple of years. He doesn't know shit.

I've never met a grown man that's like a manly guy who knows less, cares less about cars. But still, if you said, what's that model car? He probably wouldn't know. He'd see a Mustang and think it's a Camaro. Okay. Trust me. I guess. Just brutal.

I've had conversations with him. It's a fucking 69 Mustang. You can't tell? You look at that, that doesn't say that's a 69 Mustang to you? Turn in your goddamn America card. Turn it in, boy! Like a 69 Camaro. Okay, you see a 69 Camaro.

You should fucking know what that is. You should just know as a man. I wouldn't know a 68 from a 69. You should look at the headlights. The taillights are different. Everything's different. The 68 have the same boxy taillights that the 67 had whereas the 69 is lengthened a little bit wow the 69 is the year that's the right year i'm gonna change my name to caitlin and no you don't have to maybe she knows a lot

about cars that was the other thing about the caitlin thing that drove me crazy she killed somebody knocked someone into traffic knocked some lady in the traffic because she wasn't paying attention the lady went head-on into that drove me crazy. She killed somebody. Knocked someone into traffic. Knocked some lady into traffic because she wasn't paying attention. Lady went head-on into traffic. Someone slammed into her and killed her. A Hummer. One of the last Hummers in America. Slammed in her and killed her. And it never gets discussed. She does talk shows. And instead of talking about

this horrific accident that cost some fellow human their life, she talks about gender. And nail polish. Wow. Yeah. Exactly. i did not know about this you didn't know about that yeah you didn't know see that's that's a big part of the problem i've been mad at caitlin uh since since uh she was bruce because i happened to be on a flight one time across country and bruce at the time was in the seat in front of me and and leaned his seat all the way back and i couldn't use my laptop for five hours.

God damn it. You're mad about that, but couldn't you lean yours back and you'd have more room? It doesn't really work that way. Right. Couldn't you put your laptop in your lap? Like an actual laptop?

That could have worked. You could have done that. If I was right next to you, I'd have fixed this whole thing. If only I thought of that. You're harping a grudge. The lap. You're like, I'm glad he's a chick. He fucking ruined my typing.

This is why it's called the laptop. Yeah, it sits on your lap. But then your balls get really warm, and they say it kills sperm. So it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. You know, for some people, they'd be just heating them babies up all the time. If it was a long flight, I might want to kill a few just to take the pressure off. Just to relax. My friend Ari Shafir always gets mad at that, too.

People lean back on him because he's so big. He's like 6'3 or something, 6'4. He's super tall, so he's got these goofy-ass stork legs, and you can't fit him under the seat anyway. God, I feel sorry for tall people. Anytime they try to travel anywhere outside their own house. Even in cars, you know, you get in someone's car sometimes and your legs are jammed up. I'm like, I'm fucking five eight and my legs are jammed up.

What does a giant person do? Yeah. I'm trying to think like, what would be my equivalent? Like how small would a car have to be so I could feel like what a shack feels like when he gets in a car. He has to take seats out and put seats in the back. Have you ever seen what they do to cars for him? Really?

Yeah, he's had some custom-made cars where they literally take the seat out of the front and install it in the back. Because, I mean, that's not that much. Look, you know, you think about it. He's seven feet tall. So just think about how much more length you're dealing with his arms his legs and then his the height like I bet they would have to lower the seat down so you could see better out of the windshield otherwise he has to kind of bend down every time he's driving I just have this vision of him with a

Miata and sitting in the trunk I bet he can't drive a Miata I bet he can't I bet there's no way that seat can get far enough back. You just strap one to each foot and skate it. Well, what he could do is just have the steering wheel. He's so rich. He could have the steering wheel put in the middle and then push everything back. No. Forget that idea.

But I know for sure they had one of those custom TV shows, custom car shows where they do things for people. Maybe it was West Side. What is that one show? West Coast Customs. Maybe it's that. One famous company. So they took a car and they put the seat in the back for him. Probably still needed extra room.

It sounds like something you do for TV. Yeah. We got to put the seat in the back. Maybe. Because I got a feeling he seat in the back. Maybe. I got a feeling he drives regular cars somehow. Maybe. There's probably some cars that he can't drive, though. Like one of those

old Porsches. Little tiny ones. Probably most. Yeah. Anyway, point being. It's terrible to be a tall guy. Bruce Jenner leaned back and fucked up your day. All went bad from there. You know, and look. There's nothing... He's nothing, I mean, he's not a terrible person. She's not a terrible person.

He's not the worst human in the world. It's just like when this gets paraded out as being like this very important point, well, as soon as it gets paraded out and you make a big deal and you want to go on all these talk shows, you want to talk about yourself and, well, they have to examine you as an actual person and not just stop at gender You know I'm saying like you need like there's there's a lot of representatives like for instance The the woman who created Sirius satellite radio and also I believe she invented GPS

she was born a man and Had a sex change and I met with her and had an interview with her about her um her she made a robot she's super fucking smart like crazy smart and is working on artificial intelligence and programming this woman um this like it's a head of her wife bina like she married her when she was a man and then became a woman. They stayed together. And Bina is like this artificial intelligence thing that she's consistently updating. As technology gets better, she updates it and gets it more and more intense.

If you want to focus on someone who's a transgender person, maybe that would be a good example. Instead of just concentrating on a guy who used to be really good at running and now lived with a bunch of materialists on a good example. Instead of just concentrating on a guy who used to be really good at running and now lived with a bunch of materialists on a reality show. Not just running, but a combination of skills. Yes, a bunch of shit. Decathlon. Which have no purpose in real life.

Yeah, I mean, no one's really into the decathlon. Sorry. I'm sure he's awesome, but nobody gives a fuck. That's why he doesn't. Any of those sports where there's no professional side of it, there's probably a reason for that. I say that, but then that's not true because of wrestling. I think wrestling is a great sport.

It doesn't have a professional venue other than fake wrestling. Do you ever think about how weird it is that people can get invested in a team? Yes. Why? Why do you care so much about your team? I think about that all the time. Do you really? Yes, all the time. We talk about it all the time. It's a tribal thing People love being in a group they like being on team Trump. They like being on team Hillary, you know

There's there I saw I was watching so much tribal behavior Leading down like arguments between people on Twitter. It's like, you guys are crazy. Like, what are you doing? You're arguing with people you don't even know. And I look at their timeline. I'll look at their timeline. They're arguing for seven, eight hours in a row. You could be doing so much to improve your life

instead of like insulting Hillary supporters or insulting Trump supporters. They're all, it's a weird, natural thing. People join teams. They join tribes. They have groups that they like. But it makes sense when you're looking at, say, your ethnicity, because probably biologically we're primed to prefer whatever looks like us, right? You know, you're just naturally primed for that.

Do you think that's true? Explain black guys and Asian chicks. Ready, go. I'm done. Exactly. I'm out. It's over. I'm out. It's over. Explain black guys and Asian chicks. Ready? Go. I'm done. Exactly. I'm out. It's over. I'm out.

It's over. But in general. Anyway, so it makes sense if you're looking at like big groups or a country or something, but a sports team is such a random collection of rules that why you could be emotionally invested in that. I've tried because it seems like such cheap entertainment. Well, I want to. You live a wonderful life, Scott Adams, you're a wealthy, successful man. And for some people, there's not a whole lot to look forward

to. And this is not obviously I'm not using a broad blanket to paint all sports fans. But I think that there's a lot of people out there that look to the success of their team and they get happiness or sadness from that. And if you're in a team, like if you're in Cleveland and they kick ass and win the world title, I mean, they have the world heavyweight champion of the UFC lives in Cleveland too. Like you get some Cleveland pride, you know?

Well, that almost works until you consider that there are like Raiders fans. Right. They just keep losing and losing. Raiders is a different thing, though. And they've got to be thinking, this will not make me feel good at the end of the year. Yeah, but Raiders is like, I'm a badass. Raiders is a weird one.

Because Raiders is like rap music. I'm a thug. I don't give a fuck. I'm a Raiders fan. It's a different thing. Raiders, that's a whole different animal. And then the Cubs fan, Cubs fans up until this year were like the loyal, hey, I'm not really in it for the wins. I just love the Cubs.

Meanwhile, the Cubs are new every year. It's a different fucking person. Right. Yeah, that's what's crazy. It's a totally different group of humans than the Cubs from five years ago. How could you love the Cubs? These aren't the same people. Yeah, and then the team can just go to another town.

It's nuts. Yeah, it's fucking nuts. It's like the L.A. Rams. How did we get the Rams? What the fuck happened? What are we doing here? You know, like, and then what's going to happen to the Raiders? Are they going to go to Vegas now? Are the Raiders fans going to follow them over to Vegas?

You know, sometimes they don't. Sometimes people get mad. Teams leave and they get pissed off. Vegas seems like a good fit though doesn't it yeah but it was all created because i mean all sports teams in this country essentially were a response to war being over and people thinking with real good reason that men at least need war they need some form of war to develop character and to build strong, like strong, definitive nations almost need to unite and bond with war. And the concept was like, well, if we can't do that, let's figure out some sort of a game that they can play. And that's where football emerged.

Do you think that was conscious or it's just what was conscious? Yeah, no, it was. Yeah, it was actually discussed. Like it's been discussed and there's been a lot of historians that have concentrated on leaders that have talked about the importance of conflict and the importance of war and the bringing the country together and the support of nationalism, the support of loyalty and honor and pride, like all that, a lot of it has to be connected with consequence and loss. Yeah. I like that line of thinking. Well, there was a Radiolab podcast about when they invented football that went into this pretty much in depth.

God damn it, I think it was Radiolab. I'm pretty sure it was. It was either – I don't know how else it could have been. But it went into it pretty in-depth about the creation of football and how it was originally put together. So that would explain why sports that are just clearly dangerous are still legal and popular. Is that it, Jamie? Yeah. That's it.

American football. Yeah. See if you can make that a little larger for my shitty eyes. Scroll up there. Yeah. Okay, 1879. Yeah, that's right. It was made in the Carlisle Indian School, formed in 1879 to assimilate children and the grandchildren of Native Americans who fought in the Plains Wars.

Fields the most American team of all. Oh, yeah, this was about these American Indians that were fucking kicking ass playing football. There was another one that said the ghost of football past. That could be what you're talking about. Maybe. This was the one that was about this American Indian team, though. It was really interesting. So football was invented by Native Americans?

No, no, no, no. There was just one badass team. Here it is right here. End of the 19th century. The Civil War was over. Frontier was dead, young college men are anxious. This is it. What great struggle will test their character? Then along comes a new craze, football. A brutally violent game where young men show a stadium full of fans just what they're made of. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, the sons of the most powerful men in the country are literally knocking themselves out to win these gladiatorial battles. So that's when it came up.

And then the Carlisle Indian School, they were beating the fuck out of all the white dudes. Surprise. Interesting. Yeah, I think. And then I forget. I think they all assimilated. I forget. Yeah, a lot of the rules came because the Indians kept beating everyone.

So they said, okay, make it a new rule. And they're like, all right, we're going to change this and beat you again. Native Americans need to make a comeback. They had a lot of cool ideas. I think we fucked them over by giving them casinos. We made all their towns Vegas. I've got a small amount of Native American in me. Can you get money?

Not a profitable amount. What do you need, like 16% to get money? You need like a certain amount of Native American in me. Can you get money? Not a profitable amount. What do you need, like 16% to get money? You need like a certain amount and you can get some cash. I think it's even maybe less than that. Really? To qualify for whatever. I'll have to look into that. It might be the worst thing you could do to some people.

Just tuck them away in this little patch of land, isolate them from everybody else and they're watching the rest of the world change around them in some sort of a strange way. And they're Americans, but they're not. They're in some sort of a weird territory that they have ultimate control over, and they start having gambling there

and doing whatever the fuck they want. Very strange. But in some ways, what were the other options at the time other than giving them territory? Probably pretty ugly options, I'm sure. It's dark. You really stop and think about the genocide of the Native Americans in this country and how rarely that comes up.

And there's no flag, which is really interesting when you, obviously there are some flags for some nations, but there's no one thing that represents our war with them. There's no offensive symbol other than like a few sports teams, right? Like the Redskins or the Braves. Or both my high school and college were both the Warriors. Warriors is not specific to a nationality or ethnicity. Well, the logo was.

Logo was, yeah. Yeah, it's weird, man. It's real weird. The fact that it was only a couple of hundred years ago is really weird it's a blink of an eye how long do you think people are going to live now it's a good question because i'm thinking i'm good for a hundred at least oh okay but you personally yeah i think you're probably you look healthy but a kid born today thousand years old they're gonna be able to read minds.

Well, it depends also upon what a person becomes. Because I have a feeling they're going to come up with legs that are artificial that work way better than your real legs. Like, I have a bunch of friends that have, like, fake hips or fake knees or, you know, they've had surgery and they've had a bunch of stuff fixed. I know a lot of people that have had hip replacements, like maybe a dozen. So I've figured out that if I create enough public information about me, you know, there's enough times I'm recorded, like I'm being right now, enough of my writing is in the public, there's enough video of me that after I die, I could be recreated in software almost in full because you would have my everything from my personality, my sense of humor, my choice of words. So some future program could just go to the Internet, Google my name and take all those sources and bring together an actual physical hologram that walks and talks like me 100 years after I'm dead. hologram that walks and talks like me 100 years after I'm dead. Well, Jamie, you were just telling me about some software that they've developed that

you can take someone's... Someone can say, like, I could make a statement. Scott Adams is a really cool guy, and I always love hanging out with him. And they can move the words all over the place, where it's a jumbled sentence, and it doesn't make any sense, and then change the inflection, and it sounds perfect. Like, listen to this. We'll play some of it here. it's called adobe voca i'll see if i can get this okay and and uh i kissed my wife and my dogs okay how can we let the dogs out

this might not be a great example of it. No, this is terrible. Yeah, it's like a five-minute video where they just shoot. He's called Photoshop for audio. Oh, okay. So it's manipulating audio in a way that people aren't used to or have even seen up until they've just shown this kind of demonstration. So the point being, if you could automate this, if you could put this inside some sort of an artificial intelligence structure that knew when to inflect when to have a question when to like or maybe you would be a tech guy you're talking up speak you know what

up speak is right I love up speak because it's so fuck it's it's this weird thing that these tech dorks do where they sort of talk in this really weird unpredictable way and they all do it and basically it makes you seem like you're sensitive and intelligent and on the ball and it's a weird fucking little sneaky thing that some of these tech guys do where it takes you a while to go oh you're not smart at all you're fucking crazy but you talk in up speak you know they've decided to take on the persona of a tech person someone is really into I believe in Android. Android's the future.

They have this weird thing that they do at the end of each sentence. They go up. I'm not sure that exists outside of Los Angeles. Or California. Silicon Valley. It's huge in Silicon Valley. I think it's more prevalent in Northern California than it is in Southern California. It's almost

like they're halfway an an NPR sort of radio personality, halfway that and halfway a strip club DJ. It's like they have this thing going on where it's a fake voice, and they're talking about technology. That's all I'm going to hear now. Now I'm going to hear that. Oh, you'll hear it. I'll give you some audio of people.

There's a bunch of people that they speak, and it is an accent the same way a New York accent or a Boston accent is. Like you can recognize, oh, that's a tech dork. Like it's a non-original tech person who's speaking in this weird. You want people to understand that you're a tech person. So you're speaking in a, it's literally a tech accent. Upspeak. I might try that. It's really fascinating.

Women can do it too. It's super important. You know, like there's almost a woman upspeak that you'll see occasionally on daytime talk shows. Where like a bunch of women will sit around and they'll be on a show. And the woman, or it's all audience. The audience is all women, and there's all women on the panel, and then they're cooking or they're talking about clothes. And what the women's upspeak is sentences don't end. They just sort of stop talking.

Do you ever know somebody who didn't have any way to end a story? Yes. And they would talk forever? They just keep going. And they would talk forever. They just keep going. And then during the time of early cell phones, when one person was talking, the other person couldn't talk. You didn't realize it all the time, but it really was one way communication. And somebody would start and I would start yelling into the phone, stop, stop talking. Bang, bang, bang, you know, let me in. Let me in. Well, what I mean

by sentences don't ever end. It's not that they stop talking, but that they don't have it. Like if I said to you, hey, Scott, it's three o'clock. We should probably wrap this up in about an hour. Instead of that, they would say, hey, Scott, it's three o'clock. We should probably wrap this up in about an hour.

And then they just keep going. And then someone else chimes in. What about 4 o'clock? Is 4 o'clock a good time? 4 o'clock's a good time. 5 o'clock's a good time. 6 o'clock's a good time. What about 7?

Can we do it at 7? 7 is fine. We can definitely keep going. And there's no end. There's no, this is my laptop. My laptop is black. Do they hear it themselves? They love it.

They love to talk. Women get together. Do you think that if you meet somebody who has heard this podcast and they talk like that normally, would they be unable to talk to you? No. Because they'd be too self-conscious. No, they'd be fine. They'd say, he's a dick. And also, I wouldn't do such a good example.

No, they'd say, he's a dick. I think that's what they'd say. I think he's a dick. I didn't give the best example of it either. But I think what it is is that's how they enjoy talking. I think they've had to edit their conversations because men get tired quicker. We just don't want to talk as much about certain stuff. Like, Jesus Christ, get on with the story.

Finish it. When does the story end? But women get together. They love it. They can just keep going. A lot of them can at least. You're reminding me of the worst advice anybody ever gave is be natural. Be yourself.

Because what the hell does that mean? Who are you? If I were myself, I'd be like sitting here naked, masturbating. Really? Well, maybe not right here. But that was a terrible example. Sometimes that would be you. Let's go back.

Get rid of that. But that would be you sometimes right and that's that is yourself but it's like yourself varies depending upon your company depending upon the environment depending upon the circumstances we're all acting all the time we're adapting to every situation yeah and you and you also want to be different sometimes so it's not even necessarily an act it's like like, you know, someone says, hey, Scott, show me that fucking crazy handstand you do. You're like, that's not me right now. Right? Right. Yeah.

We're always adapting to the situation. Yeah. But there's women that are like men, too, in that way. The women want other women to shut the fuck up. And they want men to shut the fuck up, too. They're like, god damn these people with their long-ass boring stories. It's not necessarily gender specific. But it seems to be like women on talk shows during the day that are cooking

do you ever have people who can't tell when they've gone on too long yes maybe me right there and i and i and you look at them and you think do they not know I'm giving all the signals of stop? Yeah. You know, in the corporate world, you'd always have a pen in your hand. If somebody came into your cubicle and you wanted to leave, you wouldn't put the pen down. So you'd turn toward them, but you'd keep the pen in your hand. Right. And to signal them that you were there for them, you'd put it down and you'd turn toward them. But if you turned with just the pen, and I'd be like, dude, the pen.

Do you not see this pen still in my hand? There's a weird thing that people do to you if you're on the phone. Well, you're on your cell phone. They will come up to you because the physical presence trumps whatever you got going on digitally. So you're on the phone.

You might be having a really important conversation. Someone goes, hey, man, Scott Adams. Hey, how you doing, man? And you're like, I'm on the phone. Hey, I having a really important conversation. Someone goes, hey, man, Scott Adams. Hey, how you doing, man? And you're like, hey, I'm on the phone. Hey, I just want to tell you I really love Dilbert. Why are you still talking, you fuck? You know I'm in the middle of another conversation. You've decided this person isn't here.

Fuck them. You say, I want your attention. I'm right in front of you. I can touch you, Scott Adams. Dilbert's my hero. I love you. And behold, you're our shoulder. But you get the celebrity thing that I don't get because I'm invisible.

Like you're visual. You're visual. You're on Periscope. I knew exactly what you look like. You and 7,000 people on Earth. I think it's more. I think they're shadow banning you. I like that term.

We found out. We were talking about that the other day. Hillary for prison. Remember when we were saying rape Melania was actually a hashtag, but Hillary for prison wasn't? That's not what people were saying. What people were saying was they were shadow banning that Hillary for prison hashtag, meaning if you put hashtag Hillary for prison, someone could search it and find it, but if you put it, it wouldn't show up in other people's feeds.

I don't know if that's true, though. Has that been proven? I'm having a real tough time with what's proven, because lots of people are sending me my own stuff and saying, here's proof that you have been shadow banned because look at this page and compare it to this page. And I always look at them and I go, I'm not really a lawyer. I can't tell they're my own. Here's how you find out. Very simple.

You're a wealthy man. You have two laptops. You make a second Twitter account. Don't use it for nefarious reasons. Don't get on and start shitting on people under egg 59 or whatever the fuck you would call it. But you start a laptop. You follow you. You follow a few other people just for a goof.

And then you sit there and you watch your timeline. Well, no, I do know that people are not getting my stuff. But here's the thing. You could find out yourself. You could tweet from another computer as Scott Adams says. So you do Scott Adams says. You're following you on another computer

that's in a different account. And you watch. Have you done that? No, but I'm saying that other people have done that and they send me the screenshots. People are crazy. They just want to talk to you, Scott. They want to be your friend.

They want to talk to you when you're on your cell phone. Hey, man, I love Gilbert. Who are you talking to? You don't you don't fucking I'm right here, man Why didn't you try it yourself? um, I Guess I wasn't that curious cuz I'm on I talked about it. You have to be curious I kind of like being shadow banned. Do you like being shadow banned or you like the idea of you being shadow banned? I like that definitive proof that your shadow banned I like I like the thought that I might be so dangerous to the minds of America that there's a major

corporation who's actually making a conscious decision to say, whew, America has had a little bit too much of this guy. Let's dial him back a little bit. I kind of like that. If Twitter didn't have a history of banning people, you know, like the Milo thing, Milo Unopolis, that was a big mistake. Oof. Big mistake. Because they didn't ban him for anything that, like, you could, like, put your finger on.

They banned him for influence and other people were saying mean things. But you looked at the stuff that he actually said, man, you can't ban him for that. That's just not fair. Well, certainly not compared to everything else that's on Twitter. Not even compared to things that Leslie Jones wrote, you can't ban him for that. That's just not fair. Well, certainly not compared to everything else that's on Twitter. Not even compared to things that Leslie Jones wrote. You know? Yeah. I mean, the person that he was supposedly attacking and what he was doing was he was targeting a piece of art.

And he critiqued it very harshly. But that's what he does. And he's very wise with his choice of words. He's very snippy and bitchy. And that's his persona. And that's what he's put together. He's very wise with his choice of words. He's very snippy and bitchy. And that's his persona. That's what he's put together. He's a lovely guy. I've had him on the podcast a couple times. I enjoy his company. He's a fun guy.

But god damn do people get pissed off at him. It's kind of hilarious. And so when that whole thing went down with the Leslie Jones thing, I absolutely didn't agree with all the people that were being mean and insulting to Leslie. But that's kind of what happens if you put yourself out there with a piece of art, right, that people don't like. And all he did was say that they were all ugly.

You know, he was saying that it's a bad feminist film because all the men are buffoons and all the women are saving the world. And he's like, it's preposterous. It sucks. It's not good. And the women are all gross. And that's what he said. And he's like, it's preposterous. It sucks. It's not good. And the women are all gross. And that's what he said. And, you know, for that. Was it the last part?

Like, was all the trouble? Well, it was, I mean, the fact that he was saying they were unattractive, he was saying that not just to be bitchy, but also in a point. It was like he made a point. He's like, they've decidedly picked people that were unattractive to make this sort of feminist point that these overweight women can save the world. That they're the ones who are going to like, they're targeting, and that's why

all the men are buffoons. It's sort of revenge. Like the idea being, if you wanted to look at it broadly, the idea being that these are the type of women that the guy like, the Thor dude, what's his name? The guy who was in that movie? The really handsome fellow that plays Thor? Chris? What's his name? No, Chris is super, oh? The really handsome fellow that plays Thor? Chris? What's his name?

No, Chris is super... Oh, no. Captain American. Is he Liam Hemsworth? Is that the guy? Oh, Hemsworth. Hemsworth. Chris Hemsworth, right?

It's one of them. Am I right? Or is it Chris, the guy who plays Captain Ameri... It's Hemsworth. Let's just call him Thor. Okay. Thor is impossibly beautiful. He's a beautiful man.

He's super handsome. He's big, fucking perfect body. And of course, in this movie, he's a fucking moron. I mean, he is the dumbest guy that's ever walked the face of the planet. He's preposterously dumb and then becomes the villain at the end. So he represents like this unattainable goal of like having this gigantic, beautiful man be attracted to you. So they've turned him in this complete retard. Like if this was a woman in a movie, it would be one of the most offensive portrayals of a woman ever. And I'm sure it's been done.

I'm sure it's been done. Right. Especially like in the old days. Like, I mean, there was how many fucking dopey secretary roles were there in the world. Right. So he was that the male caricature of that. But there's not a single other male in the movie that wasn't a complete buffoon. Every male is a failure and ultimately

gets killed and dies. Every woman saves the day. And this was Milo's point. So in most forms of entertainment, you need the dumb one and the smart one. There's always going to be that contrast. And in earlier times, there were other people you could poke fun at and society would say, oh yeah, we make fun of that. And the wife was the dumb one in the 50s. And now some of it is just what target can you get away with? So there's a little bit of that. It's like, who's a soft target? Nobody's going to complain. And men are the current target. If you look at commercials, almost all the commercials are the woman is the smart one

and the man did something stupid that she had to fix. Every sitcom. Every sitcom. But I mean, even in the 50s, that was the case. Like the Honeymooners. Ralph Crampton was a fucking moron. His wife is the one who's always keeping him calm. Right.

He was always to the moon, Alice. He was threatening to beat her. Right. And his buddy, his buddy was this fucking idiot, too. And his buddy's wife was keeping him in line. Yeah, that was true for the honeymooners Yeah, I mean that any couples sort of comedy the man is a buffoon married with children Peg's always wanting sex Al's just all fucked up. He's trying to get away from her He hates his life everything falls apart on him his daughter's acting like a little hussy, right? I mean, that's the whole thing.

This poor guy, his life's falling apart. The guy's never okay. All those movies, the guy's a buffoon. All those sitcoms, the guy's a buffoon. That's what people like to see. Yeah. But, you know, I'm looking at Elvis right behind you. That's a different animal, baby. Come on.

So there were a lot of movies where it was Frank Sinatra. Charles Bronson. Maybe you were a lot of movies where it was Frank Sinatra. Charles Bronson. Maybe you have to go back further where the man was the competent one and the woman was always losing her high heel. Oh, there's plenty of movies like that. But in sitcoms, in the sitcom world, in the comedy world, it's pretty much always the man's a buffoon. Yeah, I think that's fair to say. For a lot.

You know, King of Queens is another one. Kevin James is always ridiculous. His wife always had to figure everything out. For a lot. You know, King of Queens is another one. Kevin James is always ridiculous. His wife always had to figure everything out. He was ridiculous, but how did he get this hot wife? Because he's on TV? He's on TV. I mean, this is, I mean, we're going back to the Twitter thing. This is the problem with censoring people, is that if you don't like what they stand for, you know, you're not really like they were looking for the reason to pull the plug on him.

It wasn't a good one. So it left people like, what? That? Like that? Him saying that. And then when you pull up things that she has said about white people, that she has said about other ethnicities and some of the she's like literally said get someone like someone tweeted something matter she's telling people to get them that's like it's targeted harassment right like that is like actual targeted harassment and the idea that she's doing it in revenge for

someone coming after her i understand but in the position that she's at like she's a huge celebrity for her to actively say go get this person like that is the clearest example you're ever going to see of targeted harassment. So if that doesn't get punished in any way, shape or form, like you got to say, well, why is it because she's female? Is it because she's black? Is it a combination of those things? Is it because she represents what you think is like liberal, progressive mindset? And then he represents this alt-right that people are terrified of and hate he represents

the gamer gate which gave birth to the alt-right like gamer gate allowed people to realize like hey there's actually some intelligent people that are tired of all this bullshit that these feminists are trying to push down our throats and intelligent people that are coming together and go no laura croft is not the fucking bane of civilization. It's fun to watch her run around with her tits jiggling, shoot guns at things. It doesn't mean you hate women. It just doesn't. And women were playing that game, too, and saying the same thing. And this portrayal of these people as being these ugly, misogynist monsters,

the backlash of that is what gave birth to Gamergate. And a lot of Gamergate was harassment, targeted harassment of women, horrible stuff, right? But I think as you were saying, when you're talking about Trump supporters, there's a certain percentage of these Trump supporters that probably are racist. It doesn't mean they all are. Like, what is the number? Is it 2%? Is it 4%? There's a certain percent that are probably absolute misogynists. What's that number? I don't know what that number is. But there's also some other people in there, there has to be, that are reasonable. Because if you look at the number of people that voted for Obama, and you look at the number of people that voted for Trump, a lot of those people are the same people. Well, actually, if you look at Romney's vote compared to Trump, I think Romney,

Trump did better in most ethnic groups. Yes, he did. Just across the board. They didn't trust that white dude. And what was the problem with Romney? He just didn't have the policies they wanted to write. It was also the Mormon thing. Well, yeah, it was also the Mormon thing. The Mormon thing was pretty big, I think. I mean, he believes one of the wackiest strains of Christianity, which he even called Christianity. Well, we don't know which parts of it he believes, literally.

Well, we know that his dad was actually born in Mexico. Do you know the whole story about that? I don't. Oh, I'm going to school you, Scott, because this is wonderful. Please do. Mitt Romney comes from a faction of the Mormons that were so hardcore that when the United States banned polygamy, they went, well, fuck this. We're moving to Mexico.

So they moved to Mexico. So Mitt Romney's dad could never be the president of the United States because he was born in Mexico. He was a Mexican citizen. They have these giant compounds and they have to fight off the drug cartels. And there's more than one gigantic compound owned by Mormons in Mexico. They literally have carved out their own camps down there, and they're armed. And they did this vice piece on them where they interviewed them and went over there and talked about it. And that is the whole reason why Mitt Romney's dad's Mexican. I mean, literally Mexican.

Born in Mexico. Mexican citizen. Yeah, look at that. Mitt Romney's Mexican roots. His father was born in Mexico, and he could choose dual citizenship. That is interesting. Yeah. How did I not know that?

How did you not know that? I'm not sure it matters or anything. Well, I'm obsessed with Mormons. So that's how I found out about it. I've been obsessed for a long time. So did you do the deep dive and look at all the stuff that they believe in? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

The seer stone. Like Joseph Smith in 1812 found magic tablets that were the lost work of Jesus. And only he could read them because he had a magic rock. And he was like 14 at the time, which is fucking hilarious. All this happened when he was 14. This is when he first concocted this goofy ass story. And apparently where he lived, it was fairly common for people to come up with this kind of con. Really? Yeah.

I mean, he wasn't like the only one doing this. It was, I read that somewhere. His just stuck? Yes. My source is, I read that somewhere and I misremember it now. So I'll say it in public because that sounds pretty authoritative. The thing about Mormons though, they're really nice people. I like a lot of Mormons.

I'm friends with quite a few Mormons. I know a lot of Mormons. I'm friends with quite a few Mormons. I know a bunch of them. And like in general, they promote a lot of camaraderie, a lot of community. They're very friendly. The people like in the Mormon church, like the friends that I know that are Mormons, they go to church on a regular basis. And it's almost like this community gathering of super polite people that agree to be super polite. I've said the same thing. And I don't know if it's because they don't drink and, you know,

don't have coffee or something, but I don't think I've ever met a Mormon. I didn't really like. They're nice people. They just all seem great. Just almost like it's okay to believe wacky shit if it works for you. I've never met one that really believed the, you know,

the deeper stuff. Oh, my friends wear the underwear. Seriously? Yeah. They have friends wear the underwear. Seriously? Yeah, they have to wear the underwear. But that's not a belief so much as a custom, wouldn't you say? Yeah, well, they're a little hypocritical, right? Like, you're not allowed to drink coffee, so this dude drinks energy drinks.

Monsters, those fucking giant ones, he pounds those things. And, you know, you're not supposed to do drugs, but you can get away with it. If the doctor prescribes you Xanax, you're allowed to take that. Because it's not in any of their books. They didn't have Xanax back then. Nobody mentioned it. Xanax is a loophole. You just can't pound booze.

So you just fucking pop pills and freak out all day. That's a good compromise. That's a good religion is flexible. Well, they're nice people. They're really nice people. Like, I'm a fan of the Mormon people, like in general. I think what they believe is nonsense, but maybe they don't really believe it. Maybe you're right.

Well, like I said, I've never talked to one who actually believes the stuff that's really out there. Yeah, I mean it could easily just be they enjoy the community aspect of it and the bonding of it and they believe in God and maybe they just let all that other stuff slide. That's totally possible. That feels like it. I mean, I don't know. It feels like it. You know if they die, they get their own planet? That is a perk.

You get a whole planet. You know what? I die. When I die, do you know what I get? What? Shit. Dude, that's not true. I decompose.

I'm going to get you in tight with the Mormons and you're going to get a planet because I like you. Have you ever seen the Osmond Brothers album, where they all have, it's like named after the planet that you get? What the fuck is the, or named after this thing that they believe that makes you get all these planets, like this place that you go where you get your own planet. But in the Osmond album, the Osmond family album, whatever the fuck it is, they all have like their own little planets. And it's inside like the album jacket. Like you open it up, there's like planets.

It's hilarious. It's really fun. But again, perfect example. Donny Osmond and Marie Osmond. Very nice people. I'm going to shop around for a new religion because they all have different afterlifes. And I think you have to compare them. You do.

Because the planet thing sounds pretty appealing. Well, imagine if we go back to your original idea that this is some sort of a software simulation. And that's why your memories are so wacky and nothing sticks. And imagine if you literally are choosing by virtue of your decision to join a certain religion, what your afterlife will be. Like if you're in a video game and there's like a bunch of different doors, you have to figure out which one's the right door to go through. And you go through that door, it's a totally different adventure. What if we really are a software simulation? And just like you say, the software allows you to pick an afterlife and you do actually,

I mean, that's what you're actually experiencing. Because if we're software, that would be totally practical. If we're software, that would be totally practical. And that simulation theory thing is a mind fuck, because you don't know what we're talking about. Here's the rub. The rub is one day, without a doubt, if we continue, if we don't get hit by an asteroid, if we don't get swallowed up in a super volcano or a tsunami or an earthquake or something crazy, human beings will reach a point where if you look at the exponential growth of technology,

we are going to be able to create an artificial reality that is indistinguishable from regular reality. If that's the case, how will we know if we're in it? We won't. So how do we know if we're not in it right now? I'll take the math one step further. By the time there's one of those, if it's a perfect simulation, the simulation will create another simulation and so on. So it's turtles all the way down.

So this is actually what the scientists say. They say that the number of original species will be one, and the number of copies will eventually be gigantic. It could be thousands, billions, trillions. So the odds that you're the original copy, the original, might be one in a trillion. Hmm. If that's real. That's the big if. But it's an if that if not possible now or if not reality will one day be. Yeah, we can't tell where we are in that cycle if we're a simulation.

We don't know if there were hundreds of simulations before us. There's no way to know. Well, there's also the very slippery aspect of consciousness where we shut it off every night and then turn it back on in the morning. And we assume that our memories when we wake up in the morning are all accurate. We assume that we really did, you know, wake up November 17th, 2016 in our bed, put our clothes on with this database of life experiences leading up to that point. But how the fuck do you know it didn't just start? You just woke up and you might have been installed with this goofy life memory that you might have started this life this morning. Yeah.

If you look into physics, we know, and when I say we, I mean people much smarter who are physicists, know that things don't really exist until you observe them. I mean, what the hell does that mean? That's a tricky thing that people say. That's not necessarily true. You know what they mean by that? That when you observe something, in the act of observing it, you change it. No, that's a different concept.

Right. But knowing that something's true, like that's the tree falls in the forest, right? Is that what you're saying? The observation changes it so that the change thing, maybe we are talking about the same thing. Right. But the observation really only changes it when you measure it. That's what, it's the measurement. Like when you know they do those particle tests, those are off.

Have you ever talked to a physicist about that? Observing is enough. You don't have to, it doesn't have to technically be measured. Well, how do you observe it if you're not measuring. Well, just looking at it. Like looking at what? Seeing it or seeing any sign of it. Right. So anything that's an indication that it must have been is enough to solidify the past. Well, if you never observed it before and then you are observing it, how do you know that there's a difference between the two results? I don't know. We even know what I'm talking about I have

no idea the way it's been explained to me by a friend of mine who's actually a physicist he said it's often there's a lot of a woo-woo that's tacked on to this but when you're talking about these measurements that people say like that in the act of measuring something and looking at something you change the result he's like that is much better interpreted by the measurement itself, the actual act of seeing something or recording something or interfacing with it in some way to get a reading changes the result. He's like, that's much more likely what's going on.

There's no real evidence that looking at something changes it because if you weren't looking at it before, how do you know if it was different? Whoa. Well, that was good. That's crazy, man. That's not the way I understood it, but I'm also not a physicist, nor do I have a friend who's a physicist who can explain it to me. I get confused at these things because they're often repeated,

and they're repeated by people who haven't looked into it, and it gets me worried. It's one of those things like the wage gap thing. Do you know the wage gap argument versus reality? I do. I've looked into it deeply. It's one of those things like the wage gap thing. Do you know the wage gap argument versus reality? I do. I've looked into it deeply. It's a crazy one because really smart people will tell you women make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes. And that gives you the impression that they're working side by side in the same factory and the woman's making 79 cents and the man's making a dollar. That's not what it means. What it means is overall men make $1 to 79 cents that women make because of career choices, because of jobs, the different jobs that they choose.

If you're going to make the argument that it's more difficult for women to get those jobs, that's a different argument. And you might be right. But that's not when you're saying the wage discrimination gap. When Obama says we have to change wage discrimination, like, whoa, what are you talking about? Like, do you think that an engineer should get the same as, you know, a person who works, you know, whatever, fill in the blank, some, you know, typical female job. But like when it comes to science and engineering and a lot of those STEM sort of subjects, men sort of gravitate towards them.

Men gravitate towards riskier jobs. Men are more likely to die on the job. Men choose different paths because of testosterone and their gender. And to deny that seems kind of silly. But so when they start talking about this gender gap, which everybody throws around all willy-nilly with no research whatsoever, they really believe that you're talking about two lawyers working in the same firm side by side. The man makes a dollar. The woman makes 79 cents.

It's not real statistics. How many times have you been in a conversation with somebody who believed in the 79-cent figure, and then you explained it to them, and they said, oh, no, I don't think that's the case. Then you showed them a link. You proved it beyond any doubt, and it still didn't change their mind. Well, they won't accept the fact they could have been wrong about something because they've attached their identity to being correct. Right.

It's a huge problem with anything gender related. The gender thing is that the idea is that women have been suppressed and they have for sure. I mean, women didn't get the right to vote until the 20th century. Right. That's kind of crazy. You know, I mean, we went through a long time in this country where women couldn't even vote. So absolutely, they've been suppressed. And absolutely, there's a lot of things that brought them out of that. First of all, birth control,

like the ability to choose whether or not they're going to be pregnant. The law's changing, discrimination law's changing, people's perceptions of what women are changing. All those things are absolutely real. But you can't lie about numbers. As soon as you bullshit people, then they have reason to disbelieve you about everything. So if you start bullshitting about the wage gap, and this is not saying that it's not more difficult to be a woman. I think it is. I think it's more difficult because I think men are pieces of shit. And there's a lot of violent, dangerous, creepy men that probably want to rape you. And I would hate to be a woman in that sort of a scenario.

So I'm not denying that it's probably more difficult in our society because of a lot of shitty men. It's more difficult to be a woman in that sort of a scenario. So I'm not denying that it's probably more difficult in our society because of a lot of shitty men. It's more difficult to be a woman, but you can't lie about numbers. As soon as you start, as soon as you start pretending that women get paid less for the same job across the board, you ruin the whole argument because now we're not dealing in reality. Now we're doing the same thing where we're not looking at Caitlyn Jenner as like a human. We're looking at it as a gender identity hero. You know, like, well, what about as a human? Like we're supposed to celebrate someone or not as a human being, as a total package. We're not doing that. And this is where we're treating the whole subject with blinders because it pertains to gender. We can't look at the reality of it. I would generalize that to say that nobody's ever won an argument with data.

It almost just never happens. Because the problem is that people just say, well, your data is wrong. And that's the end of the conversation. But isn't that less and less the case now than ever before? It should be. But I'm actively in conversations with people in which I can show them all the data that I want. It makes no difference. Humans or Twitter people? Even, yeah, regular people.

People in the world. In real life, yeah. But, you know, there's a broad spectrum of people in the world, right? When you're talking about people that you respect, your peers, colleagues, fellow cartoonists, I mean, you're talking about them or are you talking about...? Are you talking about...

Regular, you know, educated people. I've never seen anybody change their mind on that topic, that specific topic. That's a weird one. Yeah, that's a weird one. I've seen people have some pretty heated discussions about it, too, and completely uninformed. If people don't have an emotional lock on the topic,

then you can move them with data, just because they don't care. It's like the topic, then you can move them with data. Right. Just because they don't care. It's like, oh, there's better data. Okay. But people are so dug in on that particular topic. It's very insidious. It's very insidious.

Because I think it, like we were talking about with the Hillary Clinton thing about lying about Russia. As soon as you lie about that, as soon as you lie about something, well, I'm going, what the fuck? I'm sure you've seen it. The Director Comey video where where compares what Comey said Versus what Hillary is saying he said and it's like holy shit Like you're just lying like you just keep lying like this is a crazy moment Where are you seeing this because it didn't exist until recently where you had this YouTube? Phenomenon where you can watch and get millions of hits on these videos where it shows the reality versus what you're saying and

When you when you soon as you throw a non-reality into it I know that you're dealing with it from a team perspective like you're just trying to manipulate Whatever the facts are or wherever the argument is to get your team in you don't really care What's true you women get paid less period you fucking piece of shit? You don't really care what's true. Women get paid less, period, you fucking piece of shit. 79 cents to a dollar. Read the facts.

And, you know, you can't even argue with it. You can't even bring it up. But that's everything all the time, if there's any emotional connection. We just think that, you know, logic and data and, you know, arguments matter. But they're just so rare. And if you disagree also, you're like so happy to be a man. You must be so happy to be a man. You must be so happy to be a man. You think men are the only ones who could run this world.

You think men don't discriminate against women every step of the way. It must be really nice to have that white male privilege, Scott Adams. The sarcasm as a replacement for reason is probably the most annoying thing in the world. And I've been, you know, the sarcasm has been raining on me for a year for writing about Trump. But yeah, it's exactly what you said. It's like, so, and then Trump will get elected and then he'll just make everything good. And then there'll be just unicorns, right? Yeah. That's a weird argument that people love to put words in your mouth and then force you to defend them. I talk about the word so as a tell for that whatever is going to come next is a hallucination. So if you say to me, it doesn't matter what you said, you know, I went to the store yesterday. I would say, so you abandoned your children.

And you know that whatever comes will just won't make any sense oh my god that's hilarious that's really funny yeah you can definitely do that i mean that's the art of persuasion right that's hypnosis that's who you're into do you have a pocket watch do you have one of those no that's not part of the process weirdly enough but it is in cartoons and movies yes was it ever i think there was one movie that's well-known in the history that this one movie, I don't know what it was, showed somebody using a watch to hypnotize, and then it just became a thing.

But it was never a thing within the hypnotist world. Was there ever a moment during this whole campaign where it was getting really crazy and people were angry about so many different things. How about when all those women came out en masse, right? There was this en masse. How do you say that? En masse?

There was that one time where all these women were coming out and saying, Donald Trump, try to grab my tits. And Donald Trump, and some of them were pretty innocuous. But it was all together, like a coordinated effort. Was there ever a moment where you're like, what the fuck did I do? Why did I come out in support of this guy? Like, what did I, the hate that I'm getting right now? That was the moment that I switched my endorsement to Gary Johnson. Oh, I remember that. And my reasoning was because Gary Johnson only touches himself. And that's something I can

respect in a leader. No trouble there. But that was tongue in cheek. It was tongue in cheek, but I was also getting out of the blast zone. Right. Because remember, I was never supporting him based on policies. Right. I was just talking about his persuasion. But was there ever a time where you thought I should probably make a moral distinction because I'm getting caught up in this wave of angry white people and their misogyny and racism and all the, I mean, the worst aspects, right? The 2% that we already discussed. And you get caught up in this association game that people are doing when they have

this us versus them little battle going on. Did you ever think like, what the fuck, man? What did I do? Not in those words, but I'm fortunately in a situation where I have what I call fuck you money. And I can kind of take some risks that you wouldn't take earlier in your career. And one of them is the risk to say whatever I think is useful and necessary and I want to say. And so that is a huge risk to be associated with anybody unpleasant. But at the same time, I self-identify with being ultra-liberal.

Like liberal people seem a little too conservative for me. I'm sort of left to them. That is interesting about you, and I definitely wanted to get to that because you're not a right-wing guy. You're very reasonable, and that's what I thought was so fascinating about this. I'm like, and it actually makes sense. Now you say it, you have fuck you money, so why shouldn't you just speak about whatever attributes,

positive or negative, you might see. And when you look at it, almost like you're looking at a puzzle. You know, well, look at this piece here. This piece is going to go right there. And see, there's an opening here. It's weird. There was a space for this of somebody who didn't have a team. Yes.

And it's part of the reason I don't vote. I don't join a party. You didn't vote at all? No. Isn't it ironic? It would bias me. Oh, I see. As soon as you vote, you join a team. But you're like a Klingon in this world? You're just roaming through the streets and the people make the rules and you just abide by them.

How does that work? You're a non-participant in our democracy, Scott Adams. Are you secretly Canadian? Yeah, I'm a Californian, so I didn't think it mattered that much who I voted for. But I also think that staying unbiased is important. So I'm just not a joiner. But what about other things? Like you could always write in a presidential candidate if you want to do that.

But like voting on things like legalizing marijuana, things that are really important. I mean, that's, you notice I go right to that. Forget, fuck the death penalty. But there's a lot of important issues you could vote on, right? Yeah. But my take on that is that the people who think they understand those issues almost never do. is that the people who think they understand those issues almost never do. And the few that I could understand well enough, like legalizing weed,

it was going the way I wanted it anyway. According to the polls that thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win. See? Well, these polls. There's a problem. Yeah, the weed polls were much more accurate. There was a bigger gap there. The weed polls were more accurate. Well, they are for sure. It won by a landslide, but I thought it was important. I felt like if I was going to vote,

I mean, the voting for freedom, wherever it is, wherever it's possible, especially freedom, it's not, you're not hurting anybody and you're removing the possibility of being locked up for something that's not hurting anybody across the board, whether it's pot or whether it's wearing dresses. I'm for that. I would be just as enthusiastic about a transgender law. If someone made it a law where a man couldn't become a woman, you know, and we were fighting against that, I would be as enthusiastic as I am about almost, almost as enthusiastic. The pot thing to me is, it represents, it's a freedom issue as much as it is anything

else. I put this in a different frame. So, you know, in the birth of the nation, there was this debate about states' rights and, you know, what's the federal government do? And the idea was that the more local the government, the better they understood the people and stuff like that. But fast forward today with the Internet and more, and the states are like little laboratories. So we can watch, hey, how'd it go in Colorado? So we don't have to argue on principle or morality anymore. We're actually beyond that because we can measure, we can A-B test with the states. So with everything from abortion law to weed, you can say, hey, let the states do it and let's just make sure

we measure it. Make sure we have a real thing that matters that we can say if it reaches this level, it worked. If there's crime, it didn't. And I think that's the direction we're going, which is insanely useful because it takes all of the emotion out of it. It's like we don't have to wonder if it's our right to smoke weed or anything. Just see how it worked out.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I also think that it's that too. I think the morality and ethics play a part of it as well. I think it's like letting- For the first state. Okay. But after that, you can just see what happened. Man, I don't know. Because that means in the 49 other states, you leave open the possibility that people are going to be locked up in jail for nonviolent crimes that don't hurt anyone.

And that seems to be a giant ethic. Temporarily. Even if it's temporarily, it could ruin their life if you have a felony. I mean that the law is temporarily bad. But it's still there. It's still there. That's not optimal, right? It's not optimal, and the consequences are too grave.

You're taking away people's freedom. So to me, it becomes primarily a freedom issue. The same way it would be if men wanted to wear dresses or if women wanted to wear combat boots, and all of a sudden we said we can't have that anymore. Well, you're giving two examples that I consider easy, the weed and the gender thing. Those are easy. Those should be available to everybody. I agree. Okay. So let's go with one that's hard. Which would be? Automated cars. Oh, I love that one. Yeah. How about this one? Good example. Like when we get to a certain point

in time, will we lose our freedom to be autonomous? Will we lose our freedom to be able to drive a car and be able to steer and trust you to hit the brakes when you're supposed to? Oh, all of your autonomy is going away. It's going away. So think about this. I blogged about this today. Suppose you had a fitness band and it was like the future, not a long time, five or 10 years. And it can do everything from tell you when you should take a sip of water because you're dehydrated and knows what kind of food you should eat and when, knows when you should sleep and it tells you how. In the beginning, you're going to say, oh, good suggestion. I'll either do that or not.

But eventually you're going to see that their suggestion is better than whatever the hell you would have done on your own. And you're just going to start following the app. And eventually that app is going to be completely controlling your life while you have the sensation that you're deciding. Maybe you, dude. Not me. I'm a rebel. I'm out there.

I got to make my own choices. I'm going to rip off that Fitbit. Yeah, man. Fuck that Fitbit. I'm running free. I'm going to run, and when I feel tired, I'll stop or keep pushing because that's what I do. Push harder.

Hashtag push harder. I know what you're saying. I agree. I know what you're saying. I agree. I think also people like when things become, when you have less stuff to talk about or think about, you know, and as soon as you get in your car and your car drives itself, well, now I don't have to think about that anymore. I was going to invest in alcohol companies, you know, companies that produced and manufactured alcohol. Because you could be drunk in your car now? Because self-driving cars are coming. Right.

Right? And the day they do, 80% of the reason not to drink just goes away, which is how do you get home? That's a good point. Yeah. Do you think they'll have no steering wheel at all? Like, what if everything goes wrong? I think it'll have a steering wheel

because, you know, you have to get it, like, off the road. Right, but then if you get drunk, you're like, fuck it, I could drive. You want to drive even though it's autonomous, right? You'll be too drunk to program the address in. You're like, I don't know if I can drive. And you just start driving. Good point. We don't have that problem with Uber.

You know, no matter how drunk I am, I never try to come out from the back and... Yeah, but it's not right in front of you. Also, with Uber, you're too busy trying to figure out whether the guy driving you is a serial killer. You need a little breathalyzer on there to get control of the steering wheel. You need to be able to take a swab and run it through a machine to find out what kind of DNA this fucking creep has. Have you ever gone through security lately and they do the little swab? Yeah. And they burn it in the machine? And I'm thinking, what does it know about me? How much can it figure out for me? Because from your odor and your DNA or whatever the hell they're looking at,

they could probably know a lot about me. Yeah, they definitely could. Well, that's the big argument about those fingerprint scanners on cell phones, that they're slowly but surely accumulating a database of fingerprints of all the people in this country. Yeah, that's scary. Slowly but surely, the boundaries between people and data are eroding. So let me ask you this. So in the news today, I don't know who said it. It wasn't Trump himself, I think. But the discussion of a Muslim database. Did you hear

that? The idea of collecting names, I think of only the people who are non-citizens coming into the country, which raises, you know, every kind of Nazi concentration camp alarm and should. Nazi concentration camp alarm and should. But do you think we don't already have that list? Good question. Don't you think that somewhere in our big data, which they can't tell the citizens, and in fact they can't even tell the politicians because there are probably only a few people who know,

probably a few people in the government who know what we know about citizens. But the idea that there's anybody coming into the country and we don't have a really good idea of where they are at any time, I mean, if they have back doors into everything from, you know, the credit card processing companies to, you know, all the other big cell phone companies, they have a working profile on everybody if they want to.

In other words, they have to push the button to run the program. But if they wanted to know your religion, they wouldn't need to have you fill it out on a form because they could check your credit card and say, hey, he buys gas next to the synagogue or the mosque or whatever. And his friends are these because they do the same things at the same time. Big data already knows your religion. If someone wants to track down all that stuff, the thing is, who is the someone? I have a friend that's always worried the government's looking into his email and following him. And this is what I always say. How many people are they doing this to?

There's hundreds of millions of people. How many people work in the government? How are they doing that? Here's a good story. If people think, oh, they're following me, man. Listen to this story. The guy who broke into the White House, do you know about that story? The guy who ran through the White House, I had a bit about it in my last Netflix special, because this is where progressiveness got us, this ridiculous idea that

everybody's equal. They left a woman guarding the door of the White House by herself. This is a true story. The guy hopped the fence. He was crazy, PTSD'd out, out of his fucking mind, veteran. Ran across the lawn. The guy who was in charge of monitoring the grassy area where this guy ran across, took his earpiece out and was on the phone with his girlfriend. So this guy was like having a conversation with his girlfriend while this guy's running across the lawn. The guy gets to the front door. The alarm system is down because he kept fucking up. So they just shut it off. So they left a girl by herself at the door with no alarm or a guy just ran across the lawn. Then you find

out about the guy. Well, the guy turns it turns out, was arrested just a couple of months before this with 800 fucking rounds of ammunition. Like four rifles, two handguns, a machete, an axe, armed to the tits with a fucking map of Washington, D.C. With an X where the White House is. They weren't watching that guy. Like they weren't even watching him. Like, we are dealing with way more incompetence than we would like to believe or that we would care to admit. So that was a case of a criminal investigation

that the law enforcement people didn't coordinate, right? Well, it was both that and complete arrogance and not having an alarm system on not having more than one person guarding the lawn not having more than one person at the door having a woman at the door like by herself with this fucking giant soldier comes running through and knocks her to the ground and runs around the white house see this is a perfect example so since that never had happened before, like, you know, probably, well, maybe- In 100 years.

1812 was the last time it happened before that. Oh, wow. Or 1912, excuse me. So you're never really ready for the thing that hasn't happened. I always think about if nuclear war broke out, like, let's say Russia and the United States decide, all right, it's on and we're going to launch. I don't think they'd work. The bombs? The bombs.

Because we've never done it before. Like, we've only tested, we've tested the bomb and we've tested the missile, but we haven't tested the missile on the bomb and the chain of command and who puts the codes and, sure, we've tested all the parts. Imagine it was all fucking Fugazi scheme and, like, there's nothing even in those things. Just taking that tax dollars and using it for satanic rituals and flying on private jets everywhere. Did you read all that stuff, the Podesta stuff that came out in the WikiLeaks emails about all the weird rituals they were going to? The spirit cooking involved sperm and blood.

What in the fuck are they doing? sperm and blood and what in the fuck are they doing like i don't like to believe when when alex jones goes on to his fucking crazy they're all satanists every one of them they're all worshiping satan you know you go well alex jones is crazy he's going crazy obama is a devil literally a devil in hell and you go alex jones out of his fucking mind and then you see this podesta thing where you know some they're're doing Satan rituals like this. Or at least went to it, went to watch something called spirit cooking. Well, but you heard the their explanation. I did not.

So the explanation was the woman who I guess was the hostess says, oh, yeah, it does mean those other things. But we've sort of, you know, cutely just generalized it to whatever we're doing. So the spirit cooking didn't mean any of that. I don't buy that. I don't buy that for a second. Well, I'm not sure I buy that they were all getting together to eat blood and sperm. Well, why are they even talking about it? My friends and I, we never get together and talk about eating blood and sperm.

It never comes up. No, they didn't talk about it. Well, somebody did. Well, the email just said, do you want to go to the spirit cooking thing? Right. But then when you find out what the spirit cooking is, it involves blood and sperm, right? Well, it's one of the things it means. So does every good party, by the way.

It's not a party until somebody bleeds. Somebody bleeds and somebody comes. I didn't look into the explanation because to me it's one of those things that I don't want to know any further. one of those things that I don't want to know any further because it's too fun to think these wacky fucks are out there jizzing in a bucket of blood and drinking it and throwing it on themselves. That's more fun to me than knowing a rational explanation. I think the best moment of the whole year was related to that. It was Mike Cernovich was tweeting about it the most. And I realized that, I think it was the Washington Post ran out like a piece by piece sort of explaining why it wasn't what it was.

And I thought, where have we come to the point where Mike Zernovich makes the Washington Post defend how much sperm Podesta ate? It's like, no, no, it was way less sperm than you think. That's hilarious. It's a couple of drops. That's all you need. That's hilarious. It's a couple of drops. That's all you need. That's all you need, a couple of drops. It's a symbolic thing.

This is totally unrelated, but did you see the real sports from this week with the Bikram yoga guy? No. Did you see Brian, what's his name? Brian Gumbel. Thank you. He did this Real Sports, you know, one of his episodes. He had this woman go and investigate Bikram Chudnoy, I think his name is. He's the guy that's the lead of Bikram Yoga.

And apparently, like, he's allegedly banged a bunch of chicks that work there and, you know, sexually harassed them, allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. Keep saying that. But they were saying, he was like, why would I do that when women will pay $1 for one drop of my sperm? He was saying they pay-

Yeah. He was saying there's thousands of women signing up to fuck him, and that four of them committed suicide because he wouldn't fuck them, and that people are willing to pay a million dollars for a drop of his sperm. Well. They're out there, folks. That's a good argument. There's some crazy fucking people out there. I would have defended myself differently.

I would say, well, the women who come here for yoga, they're very flexible. That's some money laundering right there. Someone's paying a million dollars for his sperm, for one drop of his sperm. That's a guy who's selling drugs, trying to get rid of cash. He's trying to move some money around. That's what he's doing.

Well, I mean, it's the ultimate telecommuting job. It's like, I can't come to the office. I'll be at home today. My quota's a gallon today. Well, one drop. I mean, you got a lot of drops if you're healthy and if you eat eggs and drink milk. My point being that there's a lot of fucking crazy people in this world. And this guy, Podesta guy, being involved in this wacky spirit cooking thing.

I'm not shocked. I'm not shocked. This yoga guy, this guy that you think of as being like peace and satnam and namaste and we're all gonna flow together and realize we're all one he's like i they pay one million dollars for one drop of my spam he's talking he's crazy and he's the the head of this yoga organization which we all think we immediately associate yoga with peace and love and happiness. And he's talking about all these women that accuse them of like being human trash and pieces of shit. And it's like,

whoa, like think about how Trump responded to like the allegations again against him versus how this yoga guy responded way worse. He should have gone with a nickname. Yeah. Lying yoga Hose. I don't know what we'd call him. But my point is that

there's some crazy people out there involved in all sorts of weird stuff where you would never imagine. Well, it also gets to the fact that... I just tied that together pretending I had a point. But it kind of goes to the point where we'll never have a nice person who's president

again. Oh, I don't think that's true. No, it's because the only reason you thought anybody was nice is you didn't know enough about them. But that's not true. There's nice people, right? You're a nice guy. Why don't you run for president? Right. I'm a nice guy. But if you were to dissect my entire past, I would look like Satan incarnate by the time they got done with me. entire past, I would look like, you know, Satan incarnate by the time they got done with me. Maybe now, but I think within the next four years, by the time Trump is on a second term, if he decides to run again and if he wins, right, which would be crazy, right? Two term Trump. Woo. That's a shirt. I see it. I see a bumper sticker now. Two term Trump. Two term Trump.

Two term Trump. Look, if you guys start chanting that shit, I want credit. OK, I came up with it. But I really could see that by that time it would be way more difficult to just. First of all, we're going to have to acknowledge that you can't just edit little pieces of someone's life and make some sort of an absolute definitive statement on who they are based on out of context statements and things. statement on who they are based on out of context statements and things. And also this idea that like something you did in 2001 somehow defines you in 2016. You're the same person. Right. Isn't the point of life to improve? 100%. Like you say, Trump did X terrible thing 30 years ago.

Right. And I think, and now what's he doing? He's trying to do things good for the country. Isn't that like the arc we're all supposed to be on, where you used to be kind of not a good person, but you're getting better? Well, we would hope that you used to be a really good person, and now you're a god. That's what I'm looking for. Know anybody like that?

I want someone who was perfect in the 90s and has now transcended humanity and is ready to lead, because that's what we need. We can't have people leading anymore. We need a real guru. You want to go the full cult, turn this nation into a cult. Well, we'll see. We'll see what Donald does. I don't even want the full.

I think we have a completely unrealistic expectation as far as someone who would put it. Like JFK, right? Perfect example that everyone always uses. If he was running today, he'd be picked apart. Clinton, another perfect example. If you look at him on paper, as far as policy, take out the Monica Lewinsky scandal and just look at like what he's done, what the economy was like during his time and make your arguments plus or minus that he, you know, how much of it was because of him, how much of it was he was in a lucky spot as far as being a president, right? There's those arguments. But you look at him like that and you go, well, oh, there's this guy who was a great guy.

But then you've got Jennifer Flowers and Apollo Jones and this and that and all these different – then you have a totally different idea of who this guy really is. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, right? Yeah. somewhere in the middle, right? Yeah, and the technology for forming opinions that are incorrect about your opponent is just better than it's ever been. Because now they can test that stuff in real time.

They can put out several ads, see who clicks on what, and test the persuasion. So the best persuader of 25 years ago was an amateur compared to the best persuader in 2016. I wonder about that because I think that JFK was a fucking magnificent persuader. Have you ever seen JFK's speech about secret societies? No, but I would agree he was great for television because he was great on television. Well, he had an incredible speech about secret societies and the importance of not having secret societies in government.

And it was really like to this day, it's one of those ones that conspiracy theorists love to bring out and go, this is why they killed him, bro. This is why they killed him. Because, I mean, it may very well be that. was talking about the importance of transparency amongst the government and amongst the people and how dangerous it is to hide secrets and have secret societies. And it's incredibly, it's incredibly brilliant. And it's amazing because you couldn't imagine a president saying that today. It's like, do you remember, I believe it was Eisenhower that had the speech about the military industrial complex before he left office? Yeah, it was Eisenhower. Right.

It's an amazing speech. But it was a speech that he gave one night that no one ever saw again until the Internet came around. Like it wasn't something you were played in school. It wasn't something you were even aware about probably until YouTube came along. And then you watched that thing on YouTube where Eisenhower saying, we must be fearful of the military industrial complex. You know, he was basically saying there's a whole machine that wants to go to war. They're looking for excuses to go to war. And he named it.

You know, he called it this thing. That is, you would never fucking see that today. You would never see that. What Kennedy did and what Eisenhower did, it's almost like they've buttoned down those holes. They found out where those issues were in the difference in what the people that are actually running the government want to direct and to project versus these mouthpieces. These guys like Eisenhower or Kennedy. So now it's sort of the military, industrial, mainstream media conglomerates because they all seem to be on the same side right now.

Sort of, but aren't they on different sides? Like Fox is different than CNN, right? Well, Fox is sort of by itself. I was watching Fox and CNN back and forth before the election. I would watch Fox for like an hour, and then I'd switch over to CNN for an hour, and I was getting schizophrenic. So have you seen how reality has bifurcated? So if you switch between Fox and CNN, on Fox, the Trump transition team is doing a terrific job picking real adults, blah, blah, blah. You go over to CNN, it's in chaos.

There's just this big clusterfuck going over there. Everything's falling apart. The country's going to fall apart. They have access to the same information as far as I know. And those are two completely different views of reality. Yeah, there's two completely different views of reality. Yeah, there's two completely different views of reality. Also, I've gone to some liberal sites, websites that are urging people to contact the electoral college and block Trump's rise to power. Like, what?

Is that even possible? And how isn't that anti-democratic? Like to have a few people contact the electoral college, which is like you're talking about like the representatives, like every state picks a representative. That representative is supposed to represent the state. They almost always do. But they have this sort of weird hidden power where they could kind of change the like if California voted for Clinton, but they said, fuck that Trump. Like if someone actually did decide to do that, some crazy delegate. Trump. Like if someone actually did decide to do that, some crazy delegate.

Yeah. So apparently that power is intentionally built in just to prevent a monster from being, you know. Didn't work. Elected. It didn't work. Didn't work. But that's what people are saying. Like let's, let's, but that would be, there would be a revolt in this country.

If they ever did that, good Lord. If they think it's bad now, the divisiveness and the angst and this fucking weird line in the sand across, I mean, it's almost Civil War style between the right and the left right now. Well, some of that might be exaggerated by the media as well. Could be. Or accentuated. Yeah, accentuated. They're blowing on that fire.

Yeah, would the protesters be out there if it wasn't on television? Do you what what is your opinion on the protest? Do you think I mean, I've seen ads where they said they would pay people 35 bucks an hour to protest. Is that true or is that bullshit? I don't know. I would I would say low credibility. I had heard that you can't Snopes things anymore because Snopes leans towards Hillary. Yeah, I hear that too, but—

Where do you hear it, though? From Snopes? I don't know. Alt-right forums? So I would say that one is grain of salt, but there certainly are things that are subject to interpretation. For sure. So you've got to figure there's some bias everywhere. Yeah, I wonder if people are really getting paid to protest.

It seems like a good gig if you're broke. Fuck. It's just assumed to be true on the right. Of course. They think that this is proven in lots of different ways. Well, when I was in New York, maybe there was thousands and thousands of Oscar-winning actors wandering through the streets. But honestly, to me, it didn't seem like anybody was acting. It didn't seem like anybody was a paid performer.

Well, they wouldn't. Most of them could be naturals, but you'd need a core that gets everybody excited. You know, there's got to be a core that shows up and then other people can... Or is it that the people that are willing to take that $35 an hour, they hated Trump anyway, and this gives them an excuse to make some cash while they're hating Trump.

What is this here? No, someone wasn't paid $3,500 to protest Donald Trump. It's fake news. Created by Paul Horner, who posts fake news on a variety of websites. Oh, how dare you. He took credit for the fake news. Well, that makes sense. His followers don't fact check anything.

They'll post everything and believe anything Horner said, referring to then Trump campaign manager Corey Lindowski. Horner said his campaign manager posted my story about a protest getting paid $3,500 as a fact. Like, I made that up. I posted it in a fake ad on Craigslist. Here's a screenshot of the since-deleted tweet. That's funny. So I'm glad I said low credibility before you showed that. Yeah, that makes sense.

That would have been really embarrassing. The amount of money you'd have to have to pay thousands of people, $35 an hour. Well, that supports the George Soros is behind everything, which I'm pretty skeptical about. Yeah. What about that Peter Thiel billionaire character that funded the lawsuit against Gawker? Isn't he in some way, shape or form a part of the team?

He's part of the Trump universe. I don't know if he's technically on the transition team. It's all very interesting. It's very, well, there goes the anti-gay thing. Have you seen any evidence that he's anti-gay? That Trump's anti-gay? I'm not sure what they're even looking at, except that he picked Pence as his running mate. And Pence has some stuff in his history. Yes, he does. He has some stuff that I tweeted the other day that Rachel Maddow was highlighting, that he was saying that instead of giving money to AIDS research, you should give money to educate gay people about the risks of their behavior. Yeah. So here's what I think is going to happen. If you want to put this in the positive perspective,

the vice president will adopt the president's policies, at least in public. By the time Mike Pence, you know, might run for president or something, my guess is that it will be hard coded. In other words, this gives him an opportunity to evolve to where the country would find him more acceptable anyway, should he want to do that. And it's sort of what I call the fake because. It gives him an excuse to do it without being a hypocrite because people will say, yeah, you had to do that because he's your president. Oh, now that's just your policy. So my guess is that Trump is moving a lot of people to the middle because that's where he is. Hmm. But that Pence guy, he's not very persuasive.

I just really have a hard time seeing him as being a guy that's going to run for president someday. I think he might. Really? Yeah. I think as a pick, I'll say that I'm no fan of his history with gay rights stuff. I'm not on that team. But as a personality on TV, like he's really good at interviews. He really sticks on point.

And he only had one thing he needed to do, which was win a debate against the other vice president, Tim Kaine, which he did. He's trying to hide his emails, though. Well, yeah. I'm sure they would all like to hide their emails. Have you seen that, though? That was the latest thing, right? Yeah, he's like, no. Yeah, like they want access to his emails.

He's like, fuck that. So, you know, we're waiting for that shoe to drop. Who knows? I mean, there's going to come a time when I think we're probably all going to have access to all of our emails. I mean, I think you're going to have to come to the conclusion that when you're, and you should now, really, you should think when you're sending an email, you should assume that this is not really private. I kind of do already.

Yeah, first of all, because someone on the other side who gets the Scott Adams dick pic, go, we'll check this out. But there's so many out there now. Well, hey, man. It's like like own it it's you you know i mean no no no look what charlie sheen did made a career out of owning it so i've uh i've uh speculated that the perfect world would be no privacy if everybody knew everything about everybody the the worst world is where most people have privacy but a few people

lose it because then they're just victims. Everybody could be bad. The tyranny of it. But if everybody knew everybody's shit, suddenly you'd be like, really? You're terrible? I'm terrible too. I think we would get used to each other so quickly. I think it would also force people to evolve.

I mean, we all know our best friend stuff, you know, and we know the failures that we all have together collectively, and we still love each other. But it's just like letting know, and, you know, we know the failures and that we all have together collectively and we still love each other, but it's just like letting those other people in on it, letting those strangers in on the time that you did that bad thing. But the reason you care is that they'll think poorly of you and that that will affect your life. But if you have mutually assured destruction, which is that everybody's bad because you know everything about everybody, you know, everybody's got something they're not proud of. Everybody just thinks, well, I don't think I'll throw a stone because it's going to come right back at my house. Well, I think it's step one

in this complete and total assimilation. I think losing privacy, I agree with you 100%. I think it's inevitable, whether it's 30 years from now or 50 years from now. I think essentially everything you do from then on is going to, I think there's going to come some form of technology that is a leap very much like the internet is this crazy leap, right? The internet provides us with this instantaneous access to all the answers to all the questions you've ever had, which is just unprecedented in history. There's never been a time where you say, well, what did happen on the Native American Trail of Tears? Like, why is it called that? And you can just fucking open your phone and sit down for a few hours. And then I came back to you, well, what do you got for me, Scott? You could tell me like exactly what the fuck went down. This is like unprecedented stuff. I think in that leap, which I think we're in the middle of, so it seems like it's not as big of a deal as it really is,

like there's going to be another leap that's even more spectacular than that. And that leap is going to integrate all of our minds together. It's going to integrate our memories. It's going to integrate our ability to communicate. And we literally are going to become a technologically created hive mind. I might have written a book that has something to say about that. God's Debris. What was the idea behind your book?

If I told you, it would ruin your book reading experience. Oh, spoiler alert. Can you say that? But I will say that I've had this thought using Periscope. Because when I'm using Periscope, I'm like the conscious mind of this gigantic brain, which is all the people watching me. So I can say things like, hey, I think this law might go into effect. No, I don't know the answer to that.

Somebody tell me what the law is. And within three seconds, appearing on my screen in the Periscope session will be somebody who knows the answer to that. And there's almost nothing I can't throw out there that there isn't. Someone. Yeah, and of the thousands of people who are live at that moment. And it's the live part that's interesting because, you know, the Internet is kind of like one person's alive and the other's, you know,

looking at it. It's just data on the other side. But when it's live people who are contributing to a thought and you're watching a form in real time on Periscope, it is like a new intelligence has been created by this technology that's temporal. You know, as soon as I turn it off, it turns off. But it is a large freaking mind that multiplies whatever I have going on by the power of all

the people watching. It's really thrilling. But when it's spinning, how can you have so many people that are talking to you so often? You get thousands of people on there. How can you pay attention to all those comments? Well, I can't watch them all. But when someone has a good answer? Well, usually if I try to ask a question and then I look, but otherwise if I'm talking, I'm focusing on what I'm saying. But when you're looking at their answer, can you click on that answer? Can you freeze your screen or something like that?

Because it's like, I see how it works. It's like, blip, blip, blip, blip, blip, blip, blip, blip. Yeah, it's hard. Usually what happens is something will go past so quickly, I'll say, I missed it, I missed it. Say that again, and then I look for it and it comes back. The reason why I ask is we did something similar yesterday. We have this TriCaster that runs a video stream on YouTube,

that multicolored keyboard lit up Christmas light looking thing. That fucking thing has crashed two days in a row on us in the middle of broadcast where it never crashed before. Now, Jamie updated all the software and we're hoping it doesn't do it again. And this show has been fine. But I said, well, if anybody knows a better solution, please let us know. And so the comments were just filled on Instagram with all these like really good solutions. And a few of them, a of the machines like pretty bad-ass. So, I mean, who knows what's, you know, we'll have to research, find out what's the best, but that, when have you ever been able to do that before? And you know, some, there's a bunch of dumb answers, but somewhere in there

is probably the right answer, you know, and some person who's an expert, like if somebody had a question and it was on an Instagram forum or an Instagram picture, and it had something to do with being cartoonist, well, who better to ask than the guy who created Dilbert? You would be able to answer and give your expert opinion on how this works or that works. I think also our government is going to run that way, at least if Trump is a transparent sort of public president like I think he will be. I think there's going to be a lot of policies that get created in this sort of collective brain that is Trump leading the discussion and the entire public weighing in through social media and mainstream media and every other way. I think he can do that and probably will, and it's going to be like this thrilling experience

of watching good thoughts turn into better thoughts. Boy, that is the rose-colored-glasses view of the Trump presidency if I've ever heard one. That would be the best-case scenario. And also that he wants now that he's in office, once he's no longer in contention, now he's the president. So now he's not fighting with anybody the same way anymore. But what people are worried about is people that write things about him.

Like if people write poor reviews of his presidency, they're going to be attacked. They're worried about getting sued. They're worried about being targeted. They're worried about the fact that he's in control of the NSA and he can hire some Edward Snowden-type character to fuck up your life if you write an article about him for the Wall Street Journal or something. Well, I talk about this as well. If you look at any individual thing he does, like, hey, it's 3 a.m., and I'm tweeting about Miss Universe or something.

I always imagine him with his socks on. In the lazy chair, right? Yeah, boxer shorts with a boner. Angry, no shirt. Red face, screaming. And Melania's doing something with the kid. Better get barefoot with yellow toenails. I imagine he doesn't take care of his feet.

But what he does is he praises and rewards people who are good. Right. Good to him especially. And he attacks without exception. He just never makes an exception. He will attack you if you go after him. He doesn't start the fight. Right.

But he likes to finish him. You know what? I think Bill Burr is the one that said that he would have those black socks on. I might have co-opted that. I don't know what I'm thinking. He might have said it while we're drunk doing the End of the World podcast. If you haven't heard that,

we did a podcast while the presidency was being called and Bill Burr was on fire. He was on fire. It was one of the funniest podcasts ever. But it was all like watching it all go down. And at one time, he got into an argument with his other comedian, Sarah Tiana, because Sarah Tiana was talking about how anybody who supports trump is a racist and a sexist and then and then you

know bill made fun of it and it was just it was perfect it was the perfect thing to see while it was all going down it was like like you were seeing in bill and her you're seeing it in like a physical form the way people are choosing to frame this thing. Fascinating. Oh, watch that. Yeah. Anyway, I was just saying Trump likes to leave the biggest gap between pleasing him and not pleasing him. And it has nothing to do with the thing he's fighting about at the moment. It's about setting it up so that the next person who's thinking, should I fuck with him? Right. That didn't work for the last 700 people. Right. But if it had worked for some people to fuck with him in the past, you would be tempted. You're like, well, sometimes people get away with this.

Well, this is a different thing, though, once you're the president versus once you're just some billionaire, you know, real estate tycoon. Because there was one guy that was writing about it where he had been sued by Trump and when because he wrote an article and when they started examining the actual data it got like pretty ugly pretty quick and then they abandoned the lawsuit and this guy Trump wound up getting him a seat for the fights like he got him a ticket and I think he flew him out to Atlantic City and maybe someone with him as well for the fights. And that became like an issue. Like, yeah.

How did that connect with the, I'm missing the string there. Well, just, you know, that he's just a master manipulator. Like in the middle of this, he has this lawsuit thing with this guy, you know, and the guy calls him a shithead or whatever he called him and writes this article about him Trump get some tickets to some fight sues him Loses in court, you know or loses the you know And they're going through all the data they abandoned the lawsuit Trump get some tickets to the fight the whole thing is just crazy It's probably all part of rewarding people and punishing people so that you yes, you feel there's a state game of Thrones type shit

It came to throat Punishing people so that you feel there's a... It's Game of Thrones type shit. Game of Thrones. Doesn't it look like... I was just thinking that weirdly as I was doing something the other day. I was thinking that you could map all these family dynasties onto the Game of Thrones. Yeah. You could in some way. I mean, it is bizarre to the extreme that we've dealt with these family dynasties like the bush family and we almost did it again with jeb you know i mean who knows if it wasn't for trump if trump wasn't

around and he didn't come up with that low energy jeb thing is that what he called him yeah low energy if he didn't and also jeb just sucked i mean when that when the pressure was on he just wasn't good he just wasn't good it wasn't and when all that stuff was going down, or like Rick Perry. Like, remember when Rick Perry's in debates and you just didn't know what the fuck he was talking about? He's like, I don't know. What was I even saying? And they were like, that's it. You're done.

But if it wasn't for that happening with Jeb Bush, he might have very well gotten to the same position that Donald got into. I mean, when you looked at all the other people he least had that familiar name people might have been inclined he didn't have any real crazy like horrible stories in the past that got brought up immediately he could very well and they would have continued that family dynasty the Clinton family dynasty is another disturbing one you know that's a weird dynasty. Is Chelsea next? Is Michelle Obama next? Oh, yeah. I think she's definitely next.

That's the question, man. That's the big question. She would be excellent. She's a really good speaker. She's very intelligent. She's very articulate. She's very measured and composed and stately.

As McGregor said in the fight, she has lots of attributes. She has a lot of attributes. Yeah. I mean, and she carried herself extremely well for eight years in the White House under some incredible pressure. I mean, I don't know what her responsibilities were or what her days looked like, but she's never made a misstep. There's never been an embarrassing interview. Nothing important, yeah. Nothing. Much less controversy than Hillary Clinton.

Much less. Because even before she tried to run for president, there was always the Whitewater thing that she was connected to. Right. The Vince Foster thing that she was connected to. Have you seen that meme? You know, they're doing that she was connected to. Have you seen that meme? You know, they're doing all these Joe Biden memes. Have you seen the recent Joe Biden meme?

The one with, see if you can find it. I think I retweeted it. I retweeted it yesterday. Somebody tweeted it to me. It was Joe Biden and Obama laughing about Hillary having something in common with Monica Lewinsky now. Yeah, pull it up so you can see it. I don't want to blow it. Check this out.

Look at this. Look, Joe. It says Joe. Then I said, Hillary, now you and Monica have something else in common. You blew it. And then Obama, and he's laughing, throwing his head back laughing. And Obama's looking at him with his eyebrows raised. And it says, and he's laughing, throwing his head back laughing. And Obama's looking at him like with his eyebrows raised. And it says, you know she kills people, right?

These are fucking great. Do you think she's killed anybody? That kid that got shot outside of his apartment at 4 o'clock in the morning, where they didn't take his cell phone, they didn't take his wallet, they didn't take his money. And he, according to WikiLeaks, was the one that leaked all those documents about the DNC and the DNC favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.

Who knows what else that guy knew, if that was the guy, if that is the case, I don't know. But it doesn't seem more likely that even if they were murders because of some hillary clinton connection that she wouldn't know about it perhaps just somebody who thought well i'm gonna you know change history do a favor perhaps perhaps but this is also the woman who was attributed in an email whether or not it's correct, she said about Julian Assange, can't we just drone that guy? This guy's thumbing his nose at America.

Can't we just drone him? All right. So I don't want to drone him because I think he's done a great service. But from the- I love buts. From the context of a government looking at this situation, if government secrets have been stolen and it's your job to make sure this doesn't happen and to get justice, that's actually kind of a fair question. I wouldn't want – because you're saying what are all our options? Well, it could be off-the-cuff flippant statement that she didn't really take seriously.

Can't we just drone them? But she said some creepy shit. One of the things that she said about Gaddafi you ever see that interview Where she's talking about she goes we came we saw he died ha ha ha ha ha yeah, that was a Startling and shocking it's after she hit her head. Oh really yes That would explain it wouldn't it 100% yeah That would explain it, wouldn't it? 100%. Yeah.

Very irrational to think that way and very impulsive to say that out loud because you're dealing with the dissolving of a nation. Libya is in complete total turmoil and has become a breeding ground for ISIS. And a lot of that can be attributed to it being completely destabilized by the United States helping out all the people that wound up killing Gaddafi. It doesn't mean Gaddafi wasn't a huge piece of shit and the world isn't better because he's dead. It probably is, but Libya is not better right now. Like Libya became completely unstable after that. So that he came, we came, we saw he died. Ha ha ha ha ha. That's like laughing in the face of these poor unfortunate

people who just got a shit roll of the dice and grew up in Libya. And now they're stuck there. And you're right. Is that a character from how skilled a politician she is to say something that's so clearly the wrong thing to say at the wrong time? Well, when was the fall of Libya? Was that 13 or 14? I don't know. When did, find out when Gaddafi died, when Gaddafi was killed? I'll never forget

it. I'll tell you that that video was fucking terrifying. The video of the rebels capturing him and they're sticking things up his asses. 2011. Hmm. I believe the interview with her was in 2012 or 13. See if you could find that out. If it was in 2012 or 13. See if you can find that out. If it's in 2012 or 13, it's entirely possible this is directly post-concussion and severe bleeding, apparently, on her brain. Like, she had some serious problems. She was fucked up for, like, 12 months. I don't think people realize that that can permanently change your personality.

Permanently. The average person doesn't think that's a thing, but I've seen it. I have as well. I've seen it many, many, many times because I'm in the head trauma business in a lot of ways because of my experience with the UFC. But I know people that have been hit in the head outside of the UFC and have never been the same. That is one of the things that I've always said about Sam Kinison. Sam Kinison had a great book written about him by his brother. It's called My Brother Sam, or Brother Sam. It's a great book, especially for me. I'm a huge Kinison fan. But he basically says Sam was one person, and then he got hit by a truck when he was a little kid and became a completely different person.

Became reckless and wild, and it came out of a head injury. Oh, yeah. The lack of control. Didn't give a fuck. Oh, oh. That's where it came from. Wow. Yeah.

Like literally from brain trauma. What is it? This video that's got a million and a half views. 2011. Was uploaded the exact same day it says he died. Oh, okay. How is that possible? That she already interviewed and was recorded and put this was up on?

I mean, it may be possible. It happened like that morning. Wow. But that doesn't seem right to me. Yeah, especially if you're saying that the same day. Maybe that's why she's giddy. But if that is the case, well, why don't you find out, because this is just 1,542,000. CBS News interview with Hillary Clinton. There it goes.

Laughed about killing Gaddafi. Go to that. That's for 2016. And let's see when it says, it says flashback. Maybe it was like right after and she was so giddy. But if that's the case. This is a link to that video I just pulled up. Okay. So if that's the case. This is a link to that video I just pulled up. Okay.

So if that's the... But what does it say in that article? In that article that you're reading before you click on it? I see a flashback right there. Yeah, what does it say there? It doesn't say anything. Well, he died in 2011 and she supposedly had the big head injury in 2012. So you can't even blame it on that then.

I'll look into it more. If that's the case, you can't really blame it on that because that means that she hit her head after this. She was laughing probably about Gaddafi dying and she fell. Maybe when you laugh really hard and you're not that healthy, she was drinking. Or, or. You think she boozes it up? Is that what you're saying, Scott Adams? Well, you can't rule that out.

Definitely can't. She doesn't look too healthy. She's definitely not eating the best foods. You know, I was saying that no matter how much she drinks, if she is a social drinker, and you know people who are just social drinkers who have had two drinks, let's say, you don't want them driving. Right. So why isn't that disqualifying for someone who's going to be in control of the nuclear arsenal,

who admits yes i'm a social drinker now in the past you never had to ask that question because it was two social drinkers running against each other so you're going to get a social drinker no matter who got elected but trump's the first time you had a non-drinker he doesn't drink at all no no no he hasn't had a sip of alcohol in his life really or, he claims. I'd like to get him drunk and high. How about that? It says she was being interviewed in Afghanistan on that day and news hit. So I guess that video was not being taped necessarily.

It wasn't supposed to be taped, but it was like an off-air kind of recording. Oh, yeah. It was definitely an off-air recording. So that was like right when it happened. And she was laughing about it right when it happened. But that explains why she was out of character for her normal. Yes, that does make sense. She was giddy.

It was off camera. That they just killed this guy and she was off camera. Yeah. That makes sense. That's a lot more logical. I'm glad we solved this. We solved it. We should be Detective Scott Adams.

We solved a lot of things today. I think we cleared up a lot of people's misconceptions about you, that not only did you not vote for Trump, you don't vote. You were essentially just looking at this thing as a person who knows a lot about persuasion and knows a lot about public speaking. And you were looking at this and you were going, this is, you're almost watching a game. You're watching a game play out. And if you say, look, the Raiders are going to slaughter the Dolphins, it doesn't mean you hate the Dolphins. It means you're looking at the actual line, the defensive line, the offense, the quarterback.

I see where this game is going to go. I thought when this whole thing started developing, the Trump candidacy, that it would open a crack in the universe where I could talk about this persuasion stuff and be believed. And in order to be believed, my technique for that was last year I predicted so that when the day came when I was right, I would have enough credibility to say, okay, so the other things I said, maybe you should pay attention to them too. So it was sort of a long game I was playing for credibility. And I thought that persuasion would be the most important variable. It's certainly a huge variable in this world, as is what we discussed earlier, the ability to speak publicly with confidence,

not just persuasion, but just to not look rattled. Even if you're not persuaded, he's not getting defeated, even when he's losing. And I would see like these debates and I would say, well, she made some salient points. She seemed more articulate. She seemed smoother with her words. She seemed more stately, but he never felt like he lost. He didn't act like he lost. That's giant too. Yeah. People, people are, you know, they pick up their feelings from other people. We just look at them and say, Hey, he's happy. Suddenly I'm happy.

I'm just picking that up. People walk in the room and they're downers, and your energy goes down as soon as they enter. Well, watching someone super uncomfortable or unsuccessful is very, it's hard to do. Like watching someone bomb on stage, very hard to do. One of my great moments when I started to understand the world better is the first time I smoked pot in college. And for most of my college experience,

I found this weird pattern that people were nicer to me if I had just gotten high. And it was years before I realized that I was causing them to be nice. Because you were nicer to them. I was just relaxed. And you were giving a better vibe out.

Gave them the vibe. And I realized that I can control how they act simply by my emotional state. Well, definitely we control how people react to us based on what kind of— and I've given off the wrong energy before. And you see it in people. You're like, ah, fuck. You know, like maybe you're too caught up in what you're doing you don't want to be bothered or whatever it is we've all been there before and then we've all been on the opposite where maybe someone's like this guy's

a dick and like really i just had a wonderful pleasant conversation with him you know because you interface with them with in the perfect way at the right time with respect and the guy lowered his guard and you know and gave a little back to you and you gave more to him and then everybody's good i think i think we've all experienced both of those things and i think that's one of the problems with one person accounts of any bad thing that went on like and i and i've looked at some of this trump stuff and i'm like man what what really did happen what really did happen with the clinton accusations what was really going down between these two people because one of them is talking about and the other one isn't, and we don't know

what the fuck the answer is. And I think that that's often the case. It's like the actual reaction that people have, they want to think that the other person was being a dick, but maybe you were being something negative too, and they reacted to that, then it compounded. But maybe if Scott Adams was talking to the guy and used the exact same words, none of the disagreement would have taken place in the first place. Right. The messenger is always, you know, the message. Well, we're both, we're, we are more than one thing. And when human beings are interacting with each other, we're, we're doing, it's almost like we're putting on a combined effort and we're piecing together a conversation.

And this conversation is a joint effort. It's like we're both contributing to it. And it might come out terrible. But it might not be your fault. It might be 100% my fault. Or it might be 100% your fault. But the way it comes out is because the two of us together didn't sync up. And oftentimes you say, I met Scott Adams.

He's a fucking piece of shit. But it's not really you. It might just be the way. I hear that a lot. How dare you. But it might be the way this person talked to you. They might have started out right off the bat trying to joke around and said something rude or said something they thought was funny and you didn't or caught you at a bad time. something rude or said something they thought was funny and you didn't or caught you at a bad time or, you know. Yeah. I just try to be aware that I'm, I'm causing people to be the way they are

more often than, you know, you imagine. Well, I also got to think that being the president, it's got to be, I mean, you want to look at yourself the way the world looks at you, the harshness of the view of the people on the outside looking in, there's no better way than to be the president. I mean, he's got people walking down Wilshire, blocking traffic, screaming they fucking hate him. Like that's, if anything's going to cause you a narcissist, clearly, obviously the guy has a great love for himself, which is part of his success.

Part of why he puts his name on the buildings. He has a great love for himself, which is part of his success, part of why he puts his name on the buildings. He has a great love for himself. That takes a hit when you see thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands, in fact, wandering down the street with signs saying they hate you. I don't know. You don't think so? I'm not sure it does,

because you probably have your critics as well. They're not blocking traffic. Can you imagine if the fucking people. They're not blocking traffic. Can you imagine if the fucking people that hated you were blocking traffic? Fuck Dilbert. And they just had this gigantic stream of people with chants, Donald Trump, KKK, racist, sexist, anti-gay. And they're screaming.

You know none of these things are true. I just imagine myself in the Oval Office. I'm looking out the window. I'm the president. And I see the protesters. And I'm thinking. I'm looking out the window. I'm the president. I see the protesters. And I'm thinking, I'm not having a bad day. I'm the president of the United States. So I think it gets lost in the noise after you get elected.

I mean, if civilization breaks down, that's another story. But you're talking about a guy that if someone tweets something negative about it, he's got to tweet back. You're talking about a guy, if somebody writes an article about him in the Wall Street Journal, he'll go on his Twitter page and call that magazine or that newspaper a piece of shit. The failed New York Times still won't stop lying about me. This is not a guy who's immune

to the impact of criticism against him. So if that criticism is coming in the form of hundreds of thousands of people protesting, the idea that he's going to suddenly become enlightened enough to ignore that totally. But don't miss the pattern. He attacks professionals. The idea that he's going to suddenly become enlightened enough to ignore that totally.

But don't miss the pattern. He attacks professionals. So he goes after people who are in the cage. If you're not in the cage, you're cool. So those people on the street that are just screaming and – What has he said about the protesters? I think what he said is kind of interesting because I think what he did say is that it's great that they have these rights to protest and he likes the fact that they're all getting together and voice their opinion, but we're all going to work this out together. And he likes their energy or something like that. Something like that. So, so that's, that's

my point. Yeah. If any, if the, if the parade had been led by, you know, a reporter from the New York times, he would have eviscerated the professional. Right. And he wouldn't have touched anybody behind him because they're the citizens. Yeah. No, that's a good point. You make a very convincing argument for this all being a positive event. And I think one of the best arguments for it being a positive event is this is the first time ever

we've had someone who has no political background or aspirations, and they're already famous and successful, and they become the president. So we're going to get to see. And there's a guy who wants to dismantle a system. Like one of the things he said about passing bills, when you pass a new bill, you got to get rid of two old ones. And I was like, whoa. Regulations. Regulations. Excuse me. You know, my first reaction to that was, oh, regulations, regulations, excuse me. And you know, my, my first reaction to that was, oh, that is a stupid oversimplification, but I'll bet there are enough old laws that they

want to get rid of anyway, that for a long time you could get rid of two for one. Yeah. There might be some ridiculous ones that we could get rid of. It's entirely possible. You can't do that rule forever. Right. Of course. For a while. Deregulation when it comes to environmental efforts is one thing that terrifies people. And this climate denier concern, that's a real issue. That's something that can affect us. You want to talk about that? Sure, please. Because people have been begging me to give any argument that doesn't make Donald Trump look like a science retard.

Okay. I'm sorry. I shouldn't use that word. I apologize. Use it. It doesn't have any bearing on science. It's not a medical term. Retard is people that are retarded with their slow to catch on.

We're not talking about mental illness. We're talking about retards. All right. But I apologize if anybody was offended. I don't dare you. I'm going to do that anyway. Don't you do it. So here's my best argument. Let's say I'll just play lawyer for a second.

I'm going to defend Donald Trump's climate change position, which disagrees with all of science. So you're starting from a deep hole, right? So you acknowledge that I've got a tough task here. Right. And what's to state his opinion for what is his position first? His opinion is that we don't need to actively work on climate change. Rather, he would rather work actively on cleaning the air and the water. And I think he thinks that gets us to the same place. And it might. Here's my argument. I believe, and again,

I'm going to speculate a little bit here, so I don't want to put too many words into the president's mouth. But I think that he's separating the data collection part of the science, which is you've measured things and sure enough, temperatures seems to be changing in historically significant ways. And sure enough, humans seem to be behind some part of that change. I think Trump accepts that part of it. The second part of it is not the data collection. It's the complicated models that predict what happens with all this data. I think that Trump thinks that those models are unreliable and not credible and probably bullshit. Just like he thought the polls were inaccurate. All right. Remember, you just watched him defy every expert in the world. 100% of pollsters said,

no, Donald Trump, look at our numbers. This could not be more clear. It's independent people. These are legitimate professionals. There's no freaking way that you win with these numbers. And Donald Trump said, I don't believe the polls. And he was right. Donald Trump was right. Right. But there's a big difference between polls and scientific measurements of our carbon footprint. No, I'm not saying that they're the same thing. So I'm not going to leap and say case closed based on it. I'm just going to say that through our history, if you're trying to find the context, how many times have we built

a complicated model on that scale and got it right? All right. So there's nobody who's doing a good job of predicting where the economy will be next year. Those are very similar in the sense that there's lots of variables and different models and stuff. That turns out to be just random. Yeah, but the economy is largely based on confidence. There's a bunch of factors involved in the economy. How much is involved in the atmosphere? I mean, can the models figure out that there's a volcano over here? There's something happened in the ocean that you didn't expect.

Some seaweed died. But you don't think they've accounted for that when they're talking about the models of the Earth being warmer every year for the past decade? And scientists being incredibly concerned that have been studying this their whole lives, seeing unprecedented levels of change. You don't think that that's? I think that here's where the analogy to the polling is similar. We all thought the polling was reliable because it's sort of math and the science seems to work. What you realize later

is that there was a whole bunch of judgment that went into which variable to include and assumptions about who's going to show up on polling day. And nobody could have any good idea what was going to happen. So the most important part of the models was literally just people sitting in the room saying, I don't know, I think it'll be like last time.

You think that's the case with science though and with climate change? That doesn't make any sense to me. I think that it seems likely, and again, this would be subject to smarter people correcting me, and I could easily be corrected on this. I think that when you have big complicated models and lots of people working on it, there are probably places in which people are using judgment. For example, and this would just be a, you know, just to make the point, there may be two sets of data and you could say, well, this one seems more reliable than that one because of whatever. So I would think that probably different scientists could get wildly different projections and all of them tapping the same source of data just like the pollsters got the wrong answers but they're all

looking at the same data i see what you're saying kind of but i really don't see the connection between that and the polls because everybody knows the polls is based on a very small group of people whereas the vast majority of the problem of the population is largely uncounted. Like we really weren't, we were guessing and gauging their opinion. But that wasn't the problem because polling is scientific enough that it can capture. In some way. But the conceit is, I mean, you have to admit that there's a certain percentage that we absolutely know we're not measuring those people.

When you're talking about the temperature of the earth, you're absolutely measuring. I mean, you're measuring the climate all over the globe. You're actually measuring the sheer hard numbers. There's no opinion based on – there's no fluctuation of opinion. I'm agreeing with you that the data collection is probably pretty solid because there's enough – So the interpretation of the data is what you're disagreeing with? By the time you put it into an economic model, there's almost certainly a judgment call

that somebody doesn't think is a judgment call. That's almost guaranteed to be part of the model-building procedure. Now, I would love for somebody to educate me on this because I've never talked to somebody whose job it is to build a climate model. Like I'd love to sit in a room and say, is there any part of this where two people who are both experts could have picked a different variable? And I'm almost certain that's the case because it's a lot of variables and it's complicated and it's always going to be the case. Right. But when you have a mass consensus, when it comes to scientists, you're not talking about politicians, you're not talking about CNN versus Fox News, you're talking about scientists, right? We have a vast consensus that believe that we have a real issue with our

carbon footprint, and that we really need to slow down the amount of pollutants and the particulates that we put into the air. So is that a word? Particulants? No. Particles? What's the word? Air. Is that a word? Particulants? No. Particles? What's the word?

What's the word? That's the thing that people worry about a lot of is not just the carbon in the air, but also the fucking dirt, the dust, the actual pollution being. So here's the third leg of my. Particulates. Yeah, I was right. Okay. Thank you. Of my defense.

So Trump's thing is clean the water, clean the air. Good move. But it seems like that's going to get you to the same place, right? Right. Now, let me give you another. Maybe. Give you another. It's really hot.

No. Let me give you another analogy. I put solar panels on my house when I built it nine years ago. Those solar panels have saved me enough electricity, and I can predict forward that I'll definitely get my money back from putting on solar panels. Question, was it a good economic idea to put those solar panels on, knowing what you know, that the cost will more than be made up in my savings? Was that a good idea for me to do? Seems like it. Wrong.

It was a terrible, terrible idea. Wrong? And I knew it at the time. How so? By the way, I have a background in economics. That's my degree. MBA from Berkeley. Why is it a terrible idea?

Because I knew, and this is what happened, the cost of solar cells dropped so quickly that if I had simply waited three years and bought it then, I would have only lost three years of savings. But I would have gotten it at years of savings. But I would have gotten it at such a lower price that I would pay it back much faster. And then it'd be gravy from there on. If you only wanted to look at it that way, if you didn't take into consideration the variable of you affecting the carbon footprint of the earth by gathering up your electricity for three years due to conventional means. So that's actually why I did it. So I made a bad economic decision because what we call

these stupid rich have to go first. Yeah, but it wasn't a terrible idea. It just wasn't a good idea economically. It was a very good idea. It wasn't a good idea economically. Right, but only economically. But I'm sure you consider all sorts of other variables. All right, but all analogies break down ultimately. How dare you. But they're good for explaining a point.

They're not good for proving a point. I like to say that. So here's the analogy. Odds are that technology is going to save us from climate change. Really? Yeah, they're already on the drawing board ideas for putting like a giant hose into the upper atmosphere and somehow sucking bad things out. We're going to suck all the clouds out too. We're going to fuck it up.

But chances are, chances are, and again, you might not want to take this risk. I'm not even saying you should. Chances are if you waited five or ten years and then got serious about it, you'd probably be in a better position because we'd have better technology. And starting from that point, we'd just be in a better place. Or? No, I'm not saying we should do that. Okay. I'm just saying that you can't know that starting now is the smart thing. panels, the technology is changing so fast that waiting a little bit until you really can get some purchase with some good technology and just go balls to the wall and say, all

right, fucking $500 billion we're going to spend now because we got the solution. Maybe this is a convenient way that you're interfacing with the software simulation that we're all trapped in. You're choosing to take this path of success based on technological progression rather than based on taking care of Mother Earth. Well, doesn't every model assume that everything stays the same and there's just more of it, right? So here's one thing I can guarantee your climate change model does not include.

Okay. Fucking hose to the upper atmosphere. I never thought of it until you brought it up. And isn't that going to be the biggest factor? It will be the technological change that happens between now and then. In fact, that's the whole point of alarming us. So we'll work hard on the technological changes. I thought they should make a skyscraper-sized air filter.

That's one of the plans. Oh, okay. There is something like that. Yeah, then they could actually take that carbon out of the atmosphere and use it for fuel, right? Burn it back. I've seen some amazing things in headlines recently, but I never trust any of them.

It totally makes sense that if we can clean air in your house, like, you know, we have that right behind you right there for when people smoke cigarettes. We have that air filter and it's pretty powerful. Like someone can sit in your seat and smoke a cigarette and this room will be bearable. Wow. Yeah. You can, you can do that. And that's, that's a very simple portable unit. Some buildings have very sophisticated units. So I think the technology for scrubbing the atmosphere already exists. It's just not- Implementing it on a large scale. It's not economical.

Yeah. Just like my solar panels. So the point is, if you started now and spent $500 billion, you might get a billion dollars worth of benefit because you don't have the right technology. If you waited, they had the right technology, and then put your effort into it, you might get it for cheap. Okay. We don't know that.

So that's a risk everybody has got to assess. That is much more comfortable than the idea of a climate change denier perspective. Like a climate change optimist. Like, yeah, I know it's kind of fucked up now, but we've got some stuff in the works. Don't worry, folks. We looked at the progressions. We're going to be fine. Well, I think Trump is trying to have it both ways. You know, he's got people he needs to satisfy on the right, but he doesn't want to be a crazy man on the left. So he has to find some story that both people can find some comfort in because this is such a big issue. And I think that middle ground is where he's trying. He's sort of A-B testing it now by

saying, let's clean the air, clean the water. Because how do you do that? You can't. No, you do all the same stuff, don't you? Yeah, but you really can't do that yet. You know, like clean all the water and clean all the air. I mean, you would have to like, oof. Well, but the technologies to get there are going to be at least overlapping with whatever

you need to do with climate change. Hopefully. Because you still want your electric car either way. It's just a different way to get there. You also got to think that whatever byproducts that are in the atmosphere and in the water, all that stuff could probably be used for something. I mean, whatever these... Yeah.

I think there's already, at least in the lab, they've made it useful. That would be really fascinating. If we figured out a way someday to get to a zero emission state, you know, where everything we use gets recycled, we keep the air pure, and we just figured out a way to be completely efficient in how we burn things or how we make things or how we recycle things. And that we all, we've, I mean, it just seems like, well, I think what you're saying economically, once it becomes economically feasible, like there's, it becomes like this big financial boom in taking whatever the particulates and the carbon or whatever it is out of the atmosphere. And you make mass amounts of money from doing that, you know, and people figure out a way to get really rich doing it.

Yeah. Somebody's got to figure out a way to get rich. Every solution has that in it, right? Yeah. It's like, and then somebody found out a way to get rich. Okay. Problem solved. Is this one of the first podcasts you've done like this?

I've done other podcasts, but- You sort of prepared yourself for something like this by doing periscopes. Like you're really good at these like long form things. Have you ever thought about doing your own podcast? I have actually. I'm curious about it. Just tell people are going to be mad at me right now. They get fucking mad every time I tell somebody to do a podcast because they're like, dude, everybody shouldn't do a fucking podcast. But I think you should do a podcast. I really do. I would be remiss if I did not bring it up. People have been asking me. Do it! I can't tell you how many people just begged me to come on your show. Really? It's the single most

requested thing of my year. Wow. Holy shit. You specifically. Wow. Well, it was worth it for me. I enjoyed it. Did you enjoy it? I had a great time. Yes. We do this again? This is a peak experience. Let's do it again. I would definitely do this again. Let's do it once a year. Let's come back in a year and we'll see how this fucking crazy plan's working out. I a peak experience. Let's do it again. I would definitely do this again. Let's do it once a year. Let's come back in a year and we'll see how this fucking crazy plan's working out. I'll do that. Let's do it. Sure. Thank you, Scott.

I really appreciate it, man. Thank you very much. Scott Adams says on Twitter, your blog is Dilbert. Just go to Dilbert.com. Dilbert.com. Buy my book. I had it failed. Almost everything still went big.

And look at my app, WenHub. What is the app? WenHub. What is it? Oh, it's a imagine an Uber app without the Uber car where you and your friends

can just see that you're meeting going toward the same location. Oh, so if your friend says oh, I'm stuck in traffic you're like bitch, you haven't even left your fucking house yet. Ooh, I like it.

Keep people responsible. Thank you very much, Scott. Really appreciate it. I had a great time talking to you. Likewise. Alright, folks. We'll be back on Monday with Shannon the Cannon Briggs. Let's go, champ!

See you then.