My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
- Trump supporters, seeing physical danger…will vote
- Becoming used to Biden’s cognitive decline
- The unasked question for BLM
- Risk management and the value of masks
- Republicans view this election as an EXTINCTION EVENT
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 1056 Scott Adams PART2: Pandemic Loserthink, Artists Behaving Badly, Protesters Being Bad appeared first on Scott Adams' Blog.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Oh you're, really good play.
You can argue about the ethics of Adam Blah, blah blah members, a political campaign, so everybody's being unethical all the time in the sense that are all lying by mission at least, and so that's the administration stake. Now, let's talk about it, not from its moral and ethical perspective. You can handle that on your own doesnt work is a good start
Gee persuasion, persuasion wise as it makes sense to make a foul cheese.
The anti trump
ok, I'm the one who's causing you not to have a good life clause is making you
go back to school, maybe because he's a little more hesitant thousands more cautious about going back to school. So I think this is actually brilliance. Persuasion make up your own mind about whether it's good for the world but persuasion
I think it's really good and here's. Why there's nobody on the left or the right? Who has good feeling about experts at the moment? Would you agree,
The both the left and the right have been disappointed by experts in different ways, but I think everybody has some more skepticism of expertise than they did one year ago. I feel that that's just a certainty, and so having a face for the other side is always good
It would be one thing to say: experts in general have not better reliable. That would not be good persuasion, because experts in general is a concept.
Concepts are not nearly as good as build a wall build a wall is not a concept
Reckon wall, the Social Europe, you imagine it you can see it. You could put a price on it. That's good persuasion, a real thing so, when the president, in essence, is replacing the category of experts which doesn't get any traction with a real person who has made real decisions which affect you, you and you and you knew you and I have been personally affected by Doktor vouches opinions. Now I think, he's probably been more right and wrong. If I'm being honest, if you look at the entire body of work, probably more right,
wrong, but he's also famously wrong and some things that have been in the news, which is more, which is more important to persuasion. So when the president- and I am sure he will will say, fancied NEO
was wrong on x. You gotta, look, look it up and you can say he was a little bit wrong, then closing China.
The president was right. So the president is setting up this.
This duality where you ve got the experts who maybe you're only trying to cover their own butts by making sure the fewest people die verses, a leader, a leader
I shall take the expert opinion, but way it against economics, which also kill people which also destroy their their ability to live their livelihood etc
so I think this is a really strong persuasion play in the context of an election.
Here's a warning in turn. I never heard before, as we're all becoming a little bit smarter about looking it studies and data in trying to pass the science of things because we ve had to you ve just been forced into paying attention more that we want to, and I've never heard this before its term,
it's called legacy. Data wandering- and the idea is the legacy part- is past information. That's brought forward to today and ill legitimately put in today's result. The example would be if we discover that there were people that we should have said were positive with krona virus. Where we should have said
died, but at the time we were sure, but over time we say you know we should take these deaths from the past and we should help them well. You can't really plant them in the past because the past has already passed
so you might say well, we found out about them today see by plump them today, which would be misleading because it would not only be the people.
Died that day, but you would have added to them the people who died months ago that you just realized you should have had it in the totals.
I don't know that this is really going to happen, but it is interesting.
How many new things we learn about. What to look for so, I would say, is steadily something to look for, but I dont know that the data would be that corrupt feels like an over a claim to be. I don't think anybody is gonna put past deaths into today's numbers.
But maybe they would just look for the current projections, as I understand it, for how many people might ultimately be dead from the corona virus in the United States is a hundred and eighty thousand now
I remind you that I'd ask people earlier and the people were saying this is just a bad flew season. What number of deaths would make you change your mind if, at the end of the year, you had x number
ass. What would make you willing to say? Ok, you're right, that was way more than a flu had to take that seriously and
at least some smart people, or were saying in the two hundred thousand range.
There was a hundred and eighty thousand enough to say. Ok, you said two hundred thousand, but want eighties pretty close here. What do you say still say? That's the flu, because even the worst flew season was less than half of that. So is double the flu pandemic or is double the flu double a small problem which is still small problem subdue, but that's
we're we're heading four. I talked yesterday by others. A clip of Baden, saying that quote: agriculture is not imported from some african nation. Our culture is not imported from some asian country. This is binding and then he went on to say that our culture as he calls it is european. Now the context as vocs points out is a: u taking it in the context. The the context was. He is talking about the rule of thumb if ever there so that phrase, rule of thumb comes from old english common law. That husband was allowed to be his wife with a stick. There could be no bigger than your thumb
big around. So I can't be any thicker than your thumb, but if you were beating your spouse with a stick actual specifically the husband beating the wife with sticks, there was only the big well that was ok according to old english common law now by some larger point about our history, etc.
VOX was making the boy hey, hey, hey! He wasn't saying our European culture was all good. He was pointing out specifically that this european culture brought with it the specific flaw, in probably others. So therefore, he should not be viewed harshly, because if you look at it context, he is criticising the European culture, at least in part, they came here to which I say: how does any that matter? How does any that matter if he's talking,
About the superiority of cultures, its racist, according to the rules that the left has handed down, this is not my room. I didn't make up this rule, but if you're talking about the superiority of a culture that happens to be exactly matched with an ethnicity, because when he talks about african culture, he's not talking about South Africa rights, these talk about Africa
means and black people- that's the silly implication you get when he says we didn't get our culture from Asia he's not talking about some white people who moved Asia is talk about people from that that area, and likewise we talk about european Culture- is talk.
About white people from Europe. So if anybody in the right had said anything like this, that any culture have an advantage or disadvantage over any other and culture is married to raise. In this example binds example, there would be cancelled and a harpy the fact that the context was criticising
European culture doesn't doesn't change anything. You can't talk if you're on the right. You can use these words this stuff, you could not say exactly the way he said it. You couldn't say that if you are on the right, am I right could any, but what else would you back me up on their opinion that he only gets away with us because people were on the left are giving them cover now, if you had asked me do, am I personally offended by it? I would say now because I don't get personally offended by things just not my nature, to be offended by snuff.
But does it seem racist to me? The answer yeah totally seemed racist like not even a little bit, not racist. In fact, it's a hundred percent racist.
If you were to make a list of the most racists things, you could possibly say,
this would be really near the top right again, nothing bad intentions. He was indeed criticising his own culture, which you generally imagined to be a fair thing. You can criticise your own.
But the way you framed it was flat out racist and vocs tried to save him. Probably did speak here of Richard Grenelle elsewhere.
Tweet in which he was criticising someone's criticism of the president and corrected em, said critic SAM Stein. I think it was and he said that the trouble is calling for a balance and diversity in academic institutions. So I use the word balance. So look look for that to see if that becomes more of the thing I think balances are really good word for twenty twenty, because everybody feels like things around a whack, psych everything's, just a little at a lack wishes. This balance, if you follow Jeffrey tubing on CNN there's, there's a strange thing happened to me.
Perceptions and I like to run this past year. I can remember a time that, before I was following trump I was far more, let's say philosophically aligned with the left. I still call myself left a burning in terms of the objectives of like everybody to have
Karen Free education, but unlike Bernie, I'm good at math, so I dont know how to get there are now together right away, but that's another story. So here's my observation that these days, when I see that the personalities in the characters on CNN, sometimes I see them as having cognitive dissonance, but sometimes they just seen evil demand that the air that impression there's some people that you see the USA
that doesn't look like cognitive dissonance that doesn't look like somebody's under informed. That doesn't look like somebody who just has a different opinion were different priorities. Sometimes they actually look evil. Now. My assumption is that this is a subjective illusion, based on the fact that I disagree or I just don't like what their promoting.
There are what their opinion is, and I think my brain is changing how I look at their faces until they look like demons this avenue. Now again, I'm gonna be very clear on this. I think this is a perceptual illusion. It looks like a perceptual illusion. Somebody said Jennifer, Reuben yeah, so actually Jennifer Reuben. If I were to say what she looks like again, this is not based on why she is so remember the criticism that that comes from me next, this Chris
Isn't this about me how I'm seeing the world? This is not a criticism but about the people, because I can't read their minds, and so I dont know that their evil and talking about my perception, okay, so this is not about the people. Just about me. Jeffrey tubing looks evil,
Does we am I the only one who sees him Jeffrey Turban, letting you know when I watch Anderson Cooper, Anderson Cooper does not strike me
evil, not even a little, and I can
disagree with Anderson Cooper, really basic stuff,
I don't think that's right. I can describe them on facts, opinions, priorities all kinds of stuff,
But he never ever looks evil it doesn't. It just looks like he's different worldview.
But when I look at least say Don level.
The eleven looks like he's. A person who has
world. So we should shading things for his world view, and I know he just looks like somebody with a different opinion honestly, but I think he's conscious. This is just again not really his mind
it just looks. He looks like he's completely aware of what he's doing, meaning he knows
team is, he knows how to support them. He makes that case. He doesn't look crazy and I don't think he's evil. Don lemon me does not look evil. You just looks like he's, got different worldview, but one Jeffrey turbans on he actually looks evil.
Is that right, because I'm sure there are people on the right, the literally look evil the people on the left and then other people on the right. They think, while you're misguided,
here here, Ronald Reagan. Maybe people liked him, even if they, like his opinions,.
So anyway, lemme give you and give you
idea of why Jeffrey Tube- and maybe the strikes me as being evil, although we don't know what's in his heart, so that's not an accusation.
It mentions that apparently New York state as a fairly new law conveniently
A new law is so New York. The legislature pass this bill in October of last year, I guess and in which the New York District attorney's can prosecute someone. That
the president has pardoned so in other words near estate, put in
put in their own law.
Override presidential pardon in the sense that they could prosecute somebody in the state and it doesn't matter that they have already been born
at the federal level. Now I dont understand the legalities. Let's get lots of questions, but my point is Jeffrey, tube and sort of pushing this view that Roger Stone could ultimately be jailed again if New York State uses this law now, even if you knew this was a thing and even if you thought it was newsworthy, it just feels evil to bring it up. You know it's just feels evil to even mention it, because it feels a mentioning it makes it more likely to happen because is one way to test the public here just floated up there. Well suppose, New York State decided to do their own thing. How would you feel about that? So it feels like a test blue which should disturb you greatly, because in my
the presidential pardon ass, to mean something. Even if you don't like him, I know I had at least one more thing I would say. Let me just check my notes here and it's probably about it. I think I have two brief points. I am looking at your comments and I see that living chief, yet never end sheriff Natalie looks like somebody who had been bullied all of his life.
And it is trying to win one so again we carry their minds. I don't know what there actually thinking, but the way they look. The way they present themselves is never looks like a victim of bullies, who's trying to win one. Finally chef looks like he obviously knows he's lying so shift. Just as a partisan doesn't look crazy. He doesn't look like he s, cognitive dissonance whatsoever. Chef does not look like use confused about anything. In my opinion, he looks like he knows exactly what he's doing. It's not good right near estate, Bayliss discrimination discriminatory to poor people.
Yeah. This is stone should be in prison. He, I wonder if there is any alternative to bail here, is really winter to democratize that and make it a go, find me situations that poor people would always get bail, but there would still be some recourse or bail bondsman to take him back if they jump, bail, federal pardon applies only to federal laws, that's true and that those are some of the questions I have about why this New York LAW is even special, because if it is,
it can prosecute anybody anyway. I don't even know you have to bring up. The presidential pardon slaughter meter is at a hundred percent today and the these superior registrations for the GEO
You're the reason, let me let me give you a reason why I think the GNP is going to out register the Democrats ready
Here's the mental state of a Democrat I hate tramp tramp is bad, but
I'm also watching these protesters and am also watching black lives manner and about a half of Democrats I'll just pick a random percentage. Let's say half are saying to themselves: you know,
I don't really want to live in a world in which the protesters got everything they want.
So I'm a little lukewarm about my own side. Don't
you're gonna be a lot of Democrats who say: don't want trump
my own side is scaring me a little bits,
The sort of lukewarm on my own team at the moment and in Biden Biden, doesn't have it
I feel as though the Democrats will be divided into hyper hyper interested people, but not many
And a whole bunch of people like, I can see why it's better for us to win, but I don't know if I want to win this one.
So I see ambivalence on the Democrats signed, which is never a good sign for winning election. Now, let's look at the republic inside,
What is the primary motive of Republican
once you hear me say this: you will never be able to get it into your head and you will think that the election has already been decided. I'm gonna give you a to word phrase and the moment you hear it you're going to do this. So back in your chair and you're gonna go oh shit. I see that now. Erratic republicans view this election as an extinction event.
That make. You said in your chair republicans view this election as an extinction event, meaning that if it goes wrong way, Republicans will become extinct, they could lose the house and they could lose the demographic fight, meaning that immigration would be level where no Republican could win ever again. Democrats are fighting for something that half of them don't want, which is this excessive change? Half of it,
don't want what their own team was Republicans, namely one Republican who doesn't think this is a potential extinction event for Republicans and the answers none none. There is not any republican by election day, because that message will be reinforced by election day. There will be as Euro Republicans, who do not view this election as an extinction event for their way of life, who votes more, not even close at the moment. This election should not be close and the poles are going to be so fucking wrong. So fucking wrong because do you registered
vote foreign extinction event, even I might registered about this now and I don't reckon stood about because I don't think that I know which candidate is gonna, be the good candidate, but I do know what an extinction event looks like in a sense. So if I were to register
register well. Actually, I might even register as a Democrat and just vote Trump, some I'm thinking of doing that. My register Democrat, because I have some philosophical leanings in that direction, but not not nearly as much as not in type but just sort of philosophically but not in operationally, but I would vote against and extinction event and I would vote against losing the two party system, as opposed to voting for a candidate, because I think voting for a candidate.
Put you on the team- and maybe at this point my my objectivity is so compromise. It doesn't make any difference, so I wouldn't even I would consider voting this election and I will vote, but it's just not about the candidates anymore. It's about the entire system. I would vote to maintain the system more than I would vote for a candidate.
So I dont know if anybody said what I've said yet.
But will you hear this phrase? Extinction event referred to as what's gonna happen, Republicans and their way of life is, that's was at stake extinction event for Republicans. Somebody says I love it when you costs about them.
On things, so he says you're already voting for bite in any safety. Now I did
that, let me let me clarify. I've never said I would vote for Abiden. I endorse them, so I can endorse Bitin Register Democrat vote for Trump and nobody else entering a care about the rest of the ticket vote for nobody, but Trump still consistent. I've endorsed Biden for my safety, but also of the system to survive. I do I like the way California is being run. I dont like the results so to the extent that the way things are happening is because of the way things are managed, and frankly, you can always know that, but it does look like them.
Looks like I would like to have a better outcome. So, yes, why dont use site? Don't know what you're talking about yeah you're? The other thing is I'm hearing a lot of libertarians and people were sort of in the middle who didn't vote, who have decided to vote for Trump, and I think it is this extinction event. That's gonna make the difference. I've told you in terms of in terms of persuasion. Fear is always the primary motivator, so people will be less likely to vote for a new thing that may have some risks, then to vote to save themselves from death.
Vote more for death to save themselves. Soon, as I got now and I'll talk to you tomorrow
Transcript generated on 2020-07-25.