« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 1054 Scott Adams: I Unveil my Digital Bill of Rights, Talk About Roger Stone, Mock AOC, China Threat and More

2020-07-11 | 🔗

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a

Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com


  • AOC complains about “cancel culture” complaints
  • China’s misbehavior is worse than imagined
  • Amazon’s Tik Tok memo
  • Roger Stone’s sentence commutation
  • A digital bill of rights

If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

The post Episode 1054 Scott Adams: I Unveil my Digital Bill of Rights, Talk About Roger Stone, Mock AOC, China Threat and More appeared first on Scott Adams' Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Bump bump bump bump on everybody got him gather, railed, there's plenty of space. Yes, it's time for a coffee was got homes and the simultaneous now world renowned people all across the globe are enjoying the simultaneous.
And you know why the ass, the best part of the day every single time- this will be no exception, and all you need is a cover. Mugger glass at anchor jealously Stein akin to injure grew flask of vessel of any kind filled with fear and liquid I'd like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dope mean here today. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous up and it's gonna happen now go. Yeah yeah everything's, improving, I feel better now. Well, let's talk about some of the news everybody binder Goya products, The company ceo, who said something nice about President Trump and now he's gonna get boycott it.
A lot of people are buying a little extra Goya products. So I hope that turns out in turns into a plus four going anyway here some crazy things. I love the fact that Mayor De Blasio is not even trying to be where we can, credible, figure anymore. So he's he's banning all large gatherings, except for a black lives matter. Protests also known as the largest gatherings. Now I suppose that he's in favour of free speech, so that would be a good reason to make an exception, because there's a constitutional were constitutional right to free speech. There is also a constitutional right to religious expression
so so are usually don't like to talk about. The hypocrisy. Stuff goes is due boring, but that will just sort of weird and funny Are we in a weird situation where the virus, infections, are running out of control. Correct me, if I'm wrong, is it not obvious to everyone that the reason the infections are increasing is because the locked over. We all know that right, because when you watch the commentary, it's almost like some people still don't believe their social distancing works. Which is weird at this point as that? But am I wrong that some people still think social distancing doesn't make any difference when the data is now,
farewelling. We obviously does about that. It looks like it looks like there's still doubt unmasked and everything else. It's a it's an amazing world that there's no amount of information or experience. They can change people's minds. You can't be change with data. You care, be change with observation reason: people just don't change their minds: AMC Air Sea had the one of the most annoying ports of a life tweets anyway, she's complaining about the complaints about cancelling culture. Now, of course, she has to cancel the complaints against. Scarcely culture could cancel culture works for her side. So here's where she said she said
term cancelled. Culture comes from entitlement. Ok, cancel culture comes from entitlement right. This is guilty and insightful point that follows goes. I don't get it yet, and she says rights or cancel. Culture comes from entitlement as though the person complaining has the right to a large captive audience and what is the victim if people choose to tune, you out I think that's what people are complaining. Elsie seems a little bit off point. I think people,
complain about losing their jobs, losing their jobs for having an opinion. That's that's a cancellation losing your job, but beyond that, the real complaint is that people getting cancelled are being cancelled for reasons that are not appropriate. Doesnt has nothing to do with in title meant. Such a weird take, and then she says: are you not actually cancelled, you're, just being challenged held accountable or unlike well, All of those things are true, and then she goes onto painters offers. A victim of many complaints is just the most confused opinion of all time is cancelling good. Is it bad? We created, we tell what
once I tweeted out a speech there was captured and taxed from director Ray the FBI. Talking about all of the ways to China is dealing intellectual property from the United States, and I got it. Even though you knew it was bad. You know you ve been hearing it. China stealing our intellectual property. China's spying us China's interfering. But until you hear him do the whole list with all the examples of China, the things that China is doing right now, we're not. Are you well things they have done in the past, although some of us there, but the things are doing right now is a full out. War is a fool
digital war with China, which even I was surprised at the extent of it. So apparently it's it's a heart war. This is actually a hot war and they're just trying to steal our stuff. You that and you can't even you can't even down a little bit that we are. We just can't do business with China just get it can't be done. So the decoupling, I think, is guaranteed if you think the tick Tock app is good at last, I think you're gonna be surprised that take their gap is definitely going to be banned in the United States. In my Then there think there's slightest chance that that can remain. You saw news item that were yesterday those weird there was a Mitchell report. There was immediately retracted or fairly so, but the initial report was a m
on centre and a menu memo telling people to take tiktok off their phone if they were Amazon employees and that use the phone Amazon, stuff! I guess now, Amazon immediately reverse that, but- but it was real at one boy. I'll bet it was real and about China complained. Don't you think China complained and maybe that's why they're reverse that, but it was a bad. China actually has enough control over Amazon. The Amazon changed its policy to allow spyware under employee phones I don't know. If that's what happened, it could be that there is just a faint memo or something anything things possible, but kind of looks like that. Initially,.
Others a study that said that people complain about being victims are saying perfect, manipulative and nurses set her sister narcissistic and their frequent signals of virtuous victimhood says a new study, so in other words the people. We complain about victims or psychopaths, manipulative and narcissistic people said sound right. I don't know if you needed to do a study, for that. Just saying I think it makes a difference if you're, the actual victim or, if your protest on behalf of those victims, if you the actual victim. Are. You probably have seldom real the complain about both here, but others just like the the virtuous victimhood route. Apparently Here is my new big suggestion for the day: a ready
the news was all boring, so there was nothing really to talk about except Rodger Stone. Let's do that and then we'll get to the the Big NEWS Roger stone got his sentence commuted, which means you can still battle in the legal system to have his name name restored, but he doesn't have to worry about jail from this latest offence. Now, of course, the Anti jumpers, an abuse of power. My power, abused, and he did all these. Terrible crimes and, of course the Trumpet administration says Well, we only reason these crimes happened was because of this fake Russia collusion hoax and he got to sort of pushed into a place where a person who is likely to be
This way, if you are known as a fabulous, a person who makes up stuff- and you are forced into a saying things on on the record- You'Re- probably gonna- get in trouble. It's the same reason: people don't war president trump to testify under oath. You can see some trouble gunship. So, in my opinion, the pardon of register is the cleanest pardon you'll ever see. In my I suppose it could be. I'm not a part in a community of a sentence, I think, is the cleanest, while I've ever seen, because the situation was caused by bad actors in the government. Think you can ever have. You can never feel right about your government if somebody went to jail because a bad behaviour by.
Is the government now you're going to say it, but wait? The government didn't force him to lie under oath. The government didn't force him to hide emails or whatever he's accused of doing now, the government didn't force it. They simply put him in a position where it was. Clearly the happen. If you pull somebody the position where there are likely to commit a crime and they could not have been in the past, without any other outside force. That's not exactly. The situations were looking to punish people for if the government forces into that, even there's free well, but they were so the I think, the Roger Stone, I think, communings since has more power than just the Rogers Stone story,
Here's the larger narrative benefits into erratic lot of people have been complaining that President Trump has not aggressively protected his is another word is not doing enough to protect people from getting cancelled from being beaten in public for being fired from views a whole host of things that Republicans think is happening to their base and are, and they think he's not doing enough But when you see the Roger Stone Commutation you say to yourself away, maybe the president is willing to do some things which are not necessarily politically great for him, but they do show these willing to take some risk to protect Billy. Some people have been the oil to his cause, so
terms of how it feels to the base really right. The way it feels is really right is the first time I would be hard pressed to come up with another example. Maybe you could in which Trump supporters one one can you to one? Maybe I'm just having selective memory, but it seems like Trump supporters are almost always on the wrong end of all this stuff they're, the ones getting fired, getting beat up just feels like it's always on the wrong in its broadest selected memory, our ears by big eyes, or for the day when the original constitution was written in the bill of rights, we were a primitive society. The founders of the constitution were Literally grouping into holes in the ground and trying to create a system for all time- that's tough because they didn't know the the internet would come along.
A has changed, so I'm suggesting that there should be a way for it. The big idea coming a digital bill of rights. A new set of rights. They have not existed before There are only necessary because of the digital age. Now I'm going to read you my first draft, a things that would at least beacons so don't assume that everything they say needs to be on a bill of rights, a digital bill of rights, but I assume could be in the conversation and I'll just run through them quickly. So we know you spent Too much time, anyone and some of these are designed to be provocative. Here's number one, probably the most provocative one
Video evidence of a crime is not admissible in court unless both the prosecution and defence agree that it shows. Why and in other words either the prosecutor or the defence could say that a video cannot be shown in court because we now know the videos are more misleading, then clarifying. We know that because the fake news is been proven that a million times by editing out, The beginning or the end of a video, so the way you see is out of context. Likewise, a video is by definition, would say, and editorial because it shows one angle of a thing, and I can't by its nature, all the other angles so in the same way that a lie detector is not admissible. In court,
and yet it is widely used in the real world. Why is it that a lie? Detector test is not admissible in court the reason allied attack to test is not admissible in court. This science shows it doesn't work. But it does work well enough that private industry uses it all the time. So there is different standards from the law than there is for forgery daily life and the law says that a lie detector test, not reliable enough to pull somebody in jail over it, I would like to add to that the video evidence for the graphic evidence and audio evidence by themselves should never be the basis for a prosecution of any kind. Alas, the defence and the prosecution both agree that whatever is on these digital reproductions, is accurate. Enough,
the purposes now you may say to yourself my God, Scott, if you'd take video evidence out of it. Of people are going to get away with a lot of crimes to which I say this is just for discussion. Maybe the only thing you use video evidence for is to determine who was involved. In other words, maybe it's The only thing you can get from the video is that we can confirm these people were there and that these these items were involved just throwing it out there. It would be a men's problems either way. It goes
Let us be honest about that about this: a maximum five year ban from a digital platforms, regardless of your offence, in other words, in other words, so he says it's a damn idea already handled by the court, but that would be true for lie. Detectors too. If something is not accurate and you know it This is not accurate. Can you depend on the cork to sort out what was accurate about it and what was not? I think you can ever deeper discussion of it, but but I do acknowledge the go either way? I saw a maximum of five year ban from any platform. Let's say you do bore twitter or Facebook or somebody kicks. You asked the platform for bad behaviour, which you totally had come and so in this world
assuming that you're bad behaviour was in fact bad behavior. You violated the the requirements. There should be some kind of a statute of limitations, because these public platforms are too important for daily life to have somebody block forever, but you still probably need some kind of a penalty, so I would suggest- and maybe you could be three years but a five year ban and then you can come back if you do the same behaviour of course band again. So that's another one. How about this? One again, these are rain stormy. Don't assume that these are settled proposals I is another you have. You must know the identity or you have the right to know the identity of your online accuser about that. If somebody puts a tweet up the says Scott Adams eats kittens, I should have the right to petition
better through some normal process and say: can you unveil that person's name and identity right because the legal system, you have a right to know who accuse you. Why is that right, restricted alive? What can somebody no my identity, but I can't know their identity. If they're not doing anything that bothers me, I don't care. Why would I need to know Those identity does not bother me, but if somebody makes an accusation which can change my reputation, I haven't absolute right to know who they are runaway right away, I should be able to just suddenly tweet to some kind of decision making body and say eight. Is this person talking about me because if they are, I would like them unmasked now, of course, this causes other problems by level, while I'm just putting these areas for discussion about this one.
Forty eight hour rule for clarification, so this wouldn't be a law per se, but just a standard. Somebody put something online. In some cases, a thing lie, and what about the thing? A line that you did you have forty eight hours is a moment ago. You taken a wrong doesn't mean that it means this, and we should except the clarification cuz, it doesn't make sense to believe us Rangers opinion of our European Union is over me, tell you my opinion I'm the only one who should have the right to tell you my opinion about this, one, no guilt by Digital Association. Nobody can be guilty by Digital Association. What I mean by that is, if you have a photograph standing next to the worst person in the world,
we just ignore it, because simply standing next to we're, having your follow taken with the worst person in the world doesn't make you a bad person. Likewise, you're following somebody on line? Who is a terrible person that doesn't make you a bad person? If you reach with their content that doesn't make you like the person you retweeted, we should have a completely right to not be branded by association, no matter that association. So long as it is legal about this one. This will be really controversial. And it makes sense today how about you cannot be blamed or lose your job for less say anything. You said under an anonymous context,.
If somebody later finds out your real identity- and you would have been in trouble for saying that your real identity, but you didn't you intentionally said something that you knew would get you in trouble you, did it intentionally anonymously or say used in another, this account but lay somebody uncovered it back in. Ever be used the population. In other words, you can't lose your job because you said something inappropriate under Alias now, I suppose, if your threatening somebody's life, it's a crime that different. So another argue about crime. Talk about really unpleasant things, and here's. The reasoning for that. I believe
everybody says things that would get them cancelled privately privately, everybody says things that will get them cancelled. Let me say it again privately. If you think nobody's listening, everybody says things that would get them cancelled, make it an absolute seek. You think there must be, I'm sure, there's a puritan somewhere. Who doesn't do that? Ok and yet not everybody you know- I mean this- is not a standard that we should have in this world like likewise, you should not be blamed for ready any digital reproduction of something that happened over twenty years ago. You could argue about the twenty year part, but I think we should just ignore the photo from your yearbook. That's embarrassing,
that really over twenty years ago, the audio from twenty years ago, just if its twenty years ago, for again that's my standard. Likewise, you should not be Kizil today for something that you did in the past. There would not have got new cancelled in the past, so you should not be. You should not be punished today because of something you're. Digital ghost did what I say. Digital ghost I mean you, don't your past doesn't exist. You exist now and. Who probably will exist in the future by your past- doesn't exist like you can grab a handful of the past is not a thing anymore, so
cancelling somebody for what they did in their digital ghost passed when they didn't get cancelled in the past, because in those days that wasn't cancel that should never. Ever cancel your real life body this living today, because your digital ghost did something that was twenty years ago twenty years ago. Nobody reason I read about it. That doesn't mean is right. This means you shouldn't be cancelled for something that basically a digital ghost did I about this. You do not need to rest. This would be more like just a standard of behavior. You do not need to respond to misrepresentations of your opinion on. Let's say you can simply just note them as misrepresentations. Now How useful would be to you it's gotta useful. Was that because, as soon as you get into a debate about, I didn't say that
you did. I didn't say that what you said the other thing I didn't say that you can never really win with people were misrepresenting you, you think you can cause a seem so seductive like well, you have misrepresented me watch me fix this just by putting up my actual opinion and then people can see actual opinion from me. They can see how you misrepresenting me and then I'm all good right has never worked in the history of the of humanity. It just doesn't work. You can't make a misinterpreted or stop misinterpreting they'll. Just re misinterpret you its infinite loop, so instead you should just be. It was a misrepresentation, move on, and everybody says they that, The person that they're talking about has labelled it misrepresentation can say well what the real story is here, but obviously not true.
Now again that would have lots of negative potential abuse possibilities. But just put these, about no single source reporting knows more reporting than digital bill of rights, but it feels similar because always reported digitally, something old appear on my phone it'll, be Somebody who has given their name a single source says the President is punch people in the oval office. You should just not be able to report that it just shouldn't be allowed or origin should be labelled, maybe self labelled you should be able to. Maybe you can report it because freedom of speech, so if your report it but should have to self label it highly credible information. So anytime, you see a single
source report. It always needs to be flag, no matter where it is as highly not credible information when they help as a let's say, you're twentysomething year old consumer, you haven't seen her faked. The news is yet you still believe that might be true, wouldn't help you to see that little label highly non credible information still run the story, but just label and non credible. How about this rule? Any corrections to news reports have to be as prominent as the original story now would be hard to do right. But what am I values. If there's a fake news story, it'll get, let's say thirty million clicks. When the correction runs and says that was all fake we just found out. None of it was real. The correction will get ten thousand likes or
pulse, so the correction was always tiny compared to the fake news. So could there be a digital bill of rights? The says the correction ass to at least be attempted a serious attempt to make it is prominent as the original story. Now what that looks like pray subjective bullet say if it was a headline story. The something was true. The only way to correct it would be with another primetime headline story, Maybe you don't have to do ten headlines, even though the regional story at ten headlines, but at least comparable headline correction to a headlines and maybe if you run as a tweet after pinot until I gets enough clicks, you can imagine the number of ways that you could get closer to their standard by the way, I'm not kidding myself that these would be easy to enforce or that they wouldn't have any negative consequences. Unjust, pulling out there that something like this should be considered.
About this. If you try to organise a boycott against any company your own identity, and where you work, must be public, so even if you're on Twitter NEWS boycott that Goya Food Company, even if you're just a twitter user, The only way you can do that is if someone else has access to know where you were for mutual assured destruction, and also like to know where you work in the future say reason: I dont think that people who call for boycotts against american companies should has the advantage of privacy when the target does not in the privacy is not just to your identity, is priceless You do know the identity of the person alive, but you don't necessarily know where they work.
I wonder where they work, who is paying somebody who's? Who is working to destroy another cup? I was reading a there's, some kind of disagreement between the founders or co founders of sleeping giants, so sort of activists group- very small- mostly to people like us, and They would go advertisers and say: you're advertising other bad place, so they how to get rid of the average husband for talking Karlsson show? I think they succeeded in getting rid of a lot of the ads, Unbroke Bart, so their basically a company or a group that exists to put other groups out of business and thinking now I feel like we should know whose pudding companies out of business, something now for a boycott. We saw in the boycott sense of others
It should be all we held a short video if Europe would say, if you're a news organization, not an individual. But if your news organization and should be illegal to show a video, that's edited two changes context or meaning. In other words, if you show the Charlottesville people speech of the president, but you always showed the part before you clarified that wasn't talking about the neo which he did in the second part of the state as you all, innovation, nobody would misconstrue em and think he was saying that the NEO Nazis were fine people, so we clarified directly it I'm not talking about the NEO Nazis and talking about other, so that would just be illegal in the future.
Because the news organisations would certainly be aware of what they're doing, if you think fit. If you think CNN doesn't know that their showing fake video when they cut off the second part o they now trusty. They now so just be a just be a crime I have so. Those are the things I put out there. I think the larger point is that we probably do need some kind of a bill of rights order. Almost like a ten commandments. The ten commandments are not necessarily tied to actual laws. Some of them are. Shall not murder, for example, but you can have a rule of ETA gather ten commandments, a bill of rights, some kind of a structure that says our I write. The world is different place. We have to deal with cancel culture, rumours and sake, videos and, and all that, let's just come up with
seller rules. So obviously, here your comments on this. I see some of you like them. I think you are perfectly right perfectly right to imagine that all almost everything I mentioned would be problematic. You'd have to really work details mostly and probably wouldn't work, but some of them, like somebody says, but those spelter would you say you didn't realize it was edited. While I think it would be enough if the law requires you to run the fully edited one and make the correction. So when I say that something should be illegal. In the context of this proposed digital bill of rights, I dont mean illegal, like you go to jail, because most of these don't seem like go to jail cancer. Problems remain illegal, as in you need to fix it. So if you it was
say: will you legally run a video there was entered to changes, context, the law, require that you run it in the same time space you know and correct it. So maybe that's just the law, which should be good enough. All right is about what I have today. I've got some things I need to do today. Thank you for, like you, my broadcast and all of you,
it's hilarious and wonderful that the conservative trumps supporting public is also rallying round the ceo of Goya Foods just to protect his freedom of speech, basically protectors faded with speeches as well as our own, so Bison Goya foods by twice as much and somebody says, sixty six percent of covert deaths are black people. Think that's: True, I would do effect check on that. Oh yeah, oh one, other thing, I'm gonna get married in a few hours, so I thought you might like to know them
now? I will be giving you details in that, but you should. Obviously it will be very, very small certainty that the world's whirl smallest when it so well the world's smallest, safest wedding- I don't think you'll see pictures of it, but I will do that. Now I should tell you that getting married in the age of cruel virus really really hard originally was gonna, be in May and we set about June a couple of them. Dates in July, but we decided on today the June eleventh because seven eleven it sort of convenience. If you think about it, the wayfare story doesn't interest me there's some figures about. We fear that is just fake news. So, yes will be getting married.
Later today I won't tell you the exact time, but it will be really really small. The smallest wedding you can ever imagine a very safe, so will play the safe. That's all for now and take you those who were congratulating me by the way. We is Christie. They have been together for four years and we do have a pretty good idea that it works so kiss. You worry assemblies summaries, questioning my Lavie deck. She hears the rule. Venus sweater means your ear, your wife, where your girlfriend bought it for you ve neck t shirt, that's just a different thing: they ve the excellent anymore, but I still have a few of my closet. So that's enough now and I'll talk to you later.
Transcript generated on 2020-07-25.