« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 307 Scott Adams: Facebook Election Influence, AOC, Swalwell, Creepy Joe, Kirsten Powers

2018-11-18 | 🔗

Topics: 

  • Your political opinions are assigned to you by your media sources
  • Facebook influenced the elections by including a “vote” button
    • Not all users were shown the “vote” button
    • Targeted users were more likely to vote
  • Kirsten Powers (CNN) said…
    • Anybody who voted for Trump is a racist
  • Any and all immigration policies are racist, that can’t be avoided
  • Deciding someone is racist by assumed intent is mind reading
  • Swalwell and AOC are using President Trumps persuasion techniques
    • 14 million illegals were never going to be deported
    • Swalwell aggressive ask on firearms never going to happen
    • AOC provocative statements about impossible to fund policies
    • Don’t confuse technique with actually being crazy
  • Kamala Harris hearing question about racial targeting
    • Kamala doesn’t have a nickname…what’s that mean?
  • Joe Biden is a boring, weak, gaff prone version of President Trump

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

The post Episode 307 Scott Adams: Facebook Election Influence, AOC, Swalwell, Creepy Joe, Kirsten Powers appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
bump bump bump bump everybody wake up wake up and get a meteor blue share hulu unix rob hello polly and comrade come on in here it's sunday morning and it's time for coffee was got atoms and it's almost time yes i think it's just about time for the simultaneous if we do that when the users reach a thousand as they have so grab mug you're jealous you copier stein you're container filled with a little beverage of your choice i like coffee and join me for the same
then you don't you love it when your coffee tastes just right i know you well we got things to talk about today i have been requested for it has been requested of me was ruined save people have requested that i talk about the idea of a nickname for joe biden and apparently the somebody in the trumpet administration is floating the idea of nick naming him creepy joe creepy jail so i have mixed feelings about this
number one you don't really want to bring any of them need to stuff into it because if you bring the the me to mine said into the conversation that is definitely you're to favour democrats it's going to activate women but on the other hand it's a devastatingly effective nickname so it's not as clean as some things because a perfect nickname would apply to the person you are applying it to let's say if you're trying to create a political linguistic kill shot you're ideal nickname is something they can't be flipped against you doesn't have any larger feeling outside of the person themselves something is wrong they just identified with the person
fortunately the whole me to movement has made this more of us societal interest so that makes it a little less predictable if it were not for the meat you thing and if it were not for the grab him by the comment that the president famously made video then i would say creepy joe would be a home but it's a little bit polluted by these other things worth thinking about at the same time when we think about that and i'm not totally comfortable with with that being the main the main approach would be one thing if joe biden was going after trump for similar similar types of charges and then it would make sense to flip
them but if the president's having a little bit hesitation on now and i think that would be smart hesitation its devastating but there's gonna be some blow back without one it let's talk about others in article i tweeted about facebook influencing elections by putting a vote little love vote lay button on their side little button on the page that says devote and if you press it oh you wear your voting places and had a they have shown it does move the dial the simply including a button that says vote and tells you how moves things at one percent or something less than one percent but that less than one percent is far more people than it takes to win a lot of these close elections so is actually the difference between winning and losing a major election
and have the controversy is that how do they know this pudding their button does move the vote why doesn't everyone see it you see the brown apparently not everyone got there but how did they decide how do they decide who sees a vote one well if the way they decided was politically then they influence the election way that should the illegal if the way the eu if the way they decided was just the algorithm another words say there's just some algorithm and it's a big complicated thing and they re just ok under these conditions which may not have and then political could a ban
people who have shown an interest in politics carbon simply something like that but what happens is if the peace well don't know why they say who said it anyway if people are programming an algorithm but they don't know what the impact of that will be another they don't know it's gonna come out the other end who is it who decided the election was it the person who programmed it but didn't really know how any of these changes would influence the election or was it the algorithm that essentially in a way did the thinking and essentially made the decision cuz it's saying that influence the election so we ve got some really big decisions coming and the real
and that these things are important is not exactly just because facebook is doing and they can influence things here's what's changed we ve we ve learned how to measure the impact
various signals so if somebody runs and add they can measure exactly whether works if they change a headline a little bit they can tell us more people click on it if they change the background color the position on the page all of these things can and are as it as a routine matter there all measured and what that does is it gives the big social media companies and that would include the news media because if they have a page that they can manipulate as well it gives those come country those companies immense power over assigning our opinions i have said this before and i love saying this because people get really quiet when i sat which means it is true and people don't want to argue against it but nobody likes it and here it is
for the most part europeans are assigned to you by your preferred media sources nobody wants to hear that here your model of the world before you met me probably with something along the lines of i do my own research i try to look at all the information and then i make a decision but is quite easy to approve at this point that that's just not the case therefore by and large and this is buy outs at least eighty percent of the public they are assigned their opinions their opinions come to them from the news it comes to them from social media people don't come up with opinions if you're still thinking that you're lost him oh
you're lost in twenty fifty year you're a few years behind the times if you think people look at the look of the data and come up with their own opinions s not a thing anymore we know that's not a thing it can be proven beyond beyond any doubt site suppose it so if you believe the people come up with their own opinions your anti science because we know that people get their opinions from their other media sources as somebody said i like you but you're arrogant i'm arrogant one i'm right that not allowed what's the ruling on that i'm not gonna deny i'm not gonna deny my arrogance that would be sorted denying the obvious
but i try to limit my arrogance to situations where there is no there's no real doubt that i'm right if you see me arrogant on something where nobody should be positive sort a situation where let's say if i was absolutely positive how the mid term elections would come out well i can be right by guessing but nobody really knew that you are not in any detail so arrogance a neck situation would be very bad but suppose i'm telling you something that i know beyond any doubt in his back by science and you can observer yourself and there is no question about can you be arrogant and also on percent right in ways that everybody can validate all right what's that mean
what does it mean to be arrogant if you're also right that's your question from today now watching you probably so on twitter that kirsten powers a funded on cnn has claimed and said this as clearly as you could say it so she was making sure but he understood this is really what she was saying she said that just to be clear anyone who voted for president trump is a racist and her or argument is that since the president's policies are racist if you support races policies therefore your racist so that would include all of the black
people who voted for president trump i realise there weren't a lot as a percentage but there are a lot of people a large number of people that would include every minority and so the question i asked was here can we extend this principle to if you watch badger crazy people on cnn does it make you bad crazy how much does us soon creation property work do you pick up all the associations of anybody you ve supply in any way if you if you hi
a plumber and the plumbers racist are your racist cause you're you're supporting that plumber by her so but the diabolical part is that the person powers frame makes you think pass the sale so if you're thinking hey does that make you a racist just because you voted for one you ve already thought pass the sale the sale as are the president's policies racist now here's the problem if you talking about immigration what's to save me i think immigration was the primary thing vicious pointing to as a racist policy what would be an example of an immigration policy that is not racist can you make one
would it be possible to have an immigration policy that is not racist nope it's not there's no such thing as a non racist immigration policy there there certainly policies that would affect some groups more than others but any policy that you come up with whether its pro this i am sorry that or pro this rant on that even if it has nothing to do with race the functional outcome of it is that some race this will be favoured over others let's say for example we had the fairest immigration policy you could have endless say it welfare ferris objective solution
given that word to say about a policy that lead in skills based people what would happen well you again mostly you together a higher percentage of asian immigrants when you if its skills based you probably get alot of asians and love way people lotta jews isn't that raises how can you help us how can we have a skill based policy the dozen askew toward one type of race or another you can't do that is not a thing so having a skill based policy would be racist and outcome let's say you just do nothing you just let the first come first served so if you can make a here you're on the front line listlessly that's the policy
if you can get here and the caravan climb over a wall whatever how're reigate here you get your first in line what would be the impact of that racist right because that to what guarantee the other certain composition of people coming into the country would limit your ability to bring in other people so you myself with us many people coming in over the border we can't let anybody else in and suddenly not living in chinese immigrants vietnamese emigrants what about them so they all i think the only way that you can have a non racist immigration policy is if you had no immigration policy but even that would end up being racist because in the normal course of things more of something would come in more of one race than other just by chance and geography and
eriksson and other reasons so there's no such thing as a non racist immigration policy include the policy of not having a policy all of them have a racist outcome or or racial loan come and if were allowed to say it doesn't matter what your intentions were if we don't care about what people's intentions or would you say the outcome is is either racist or not you just lie here facts like so ago we are this way less l bonuses way thus raises it doesn't matter what you are thinking in matters what the outcome is so if that's the standard i'm not saying that should be the standard i'm saying if as the standard and that interpreted this room kirsten powers idea you your basically racist the time so in other words you everybody in the world is a racist because everybody has some kind of idea of what to do on immigration
and no matter what your idea is scan operational outcome so it's all races no one is implied here but said directly is i might have something to do with people's intentions no person didn't say that so i won't i won't put that thought in her and argue like she said it but plenty of people have this feeling there the reason that the president's immigration policies are racist is not because of the outcome but because of the intention so now words there's a mind reading element in which you can see things which have never been spoken the per denies are true but you and see them in their mind i can tell in your secret thoughts you have raised his feelings and they're so
if you're deciding the somebody's racist not because of what they are doing because every immigration policy as racists and outcome there's no way to make it balanced if if it's not the outcome that you're judging what are you judging if it's not what people say and is now what they do what's left it is your personal opinion of what those
people are thinking so in other words its a fairly common phenomenon the people are being judged as racist not because of what they're saying we're doing but rather what strangers believes there thinking that's the world we live in a mind reading is not a thing it's not a thing in if in it if it ever became a thing we probably have to have a law against it so it stopped being a thing let's talk about our favorite punching bags swore well and elsie
then we alexandra octavio portes now some of you are watching in horror as i am as both of these people are well well and a yossi are using trumps own persuasion techniques completely sadly now i have been blamed for three years agreeing with everything the president's as simply because i do not doubt that his persuasion technique is very powerful so if you talk about somebody's persuasion technique people think well you must love everything about them or else you could not be supporting them by saying this technique is good let's grow up a little bit
their stand that we can say somebody's technique is good without endorsing all of their other qualities and opinions we can do that right i think we can do that so the thing that president trumpeted when he started tiptoeing into well not tiptoeing when he jumped into the election was he said things so provocative and so impractical that you couldn't take your eyes often
and he made all the other competitors and vanish now why he did was he said we're gonna do poor fourteen million people there were enough people believe that to be true and then enough people believed it to be terrible and racist that it's all we could talk about and i told you from the very start from the very start i told you often and clearly and publicly and consistently that will never happen though there is no scenario in which forty million people will be dragged into their homes at gunpoint into port it says practical nobody thinks this can happen is just politics and persuasion and the important part is that in the first part of the process when this not a general election you're only trying to persuade your own team of crazies
you try to get the people who believe anything to get on your team and i don't mean to be unkind but if you ever believed the trump was really going to deport fourteen million people you kind of and the crazy yeah you're on the other side are crazy team but it's the crazy team that was never real likewise when well well says he wants people to give up their their guns and he was argument a back in the sort of thing he was not talking about knocking on doors and taking guns way but simply noted that the governor who has the power to do that they do have the power it would be a mass and would be the worst idea in the war old but when you look at the wall well what do you say that's crazy that's crazy right
if you're lucky you swore while his incredibly aggressive ask on an firearms if you look you that saying he's crazy let's talk about walls more like i am renewal right let's talk about him some more a crazy he is we're playing right into his trap you're making him the most notable person on this topic in the leader on his side and his eyes are we saying something like hey finally somebody saying where we're thinking so small well whose opinions i do not agree with just let me put this area as clearly as possible in prose
in amendment an unknown expert on what the best details are but i do think you could try things in different states or different locales and you see what works without violating the constitution i think you could test something small however it so if you dont like swell well opinions on things i get it i'm not even arguing anything about his policies by his technique is doing to the republicans exactly what tromp was doing to democrats at this stage make it i'm crazy because they believe he means what are you saying likewise with air sea she is making sure that she is the the most provocative voice out there and choose recently
i almost almost the council's nobody there but i won't do it so the point is if you keep falling for the same track the trump made the others i fall into don't say you're not warned what you're doing is making these two people the most important people in their own party by giving them attention now should you do that doesn't matter you can help it that's why it works it works because you can't help yourself look at me i'm talking about i tweeted about i tweeted both of them like three times in the last week do i want to well means sort of what i do i talk about the stuff but it's kind of irresistible in so do not confuse technique for being actually chris
because the president had lhasa technique and now we can see that his actual governing is pretty much you're normal if you don't like is tweets says one thing but in terms of the policies and the judges pixels everything's pretty normal stuff right and i noticed www the khumalo harris has now escaped to traps traps might be the wrong word but remember when kemal heiress was grilling cavenaugh and she said some things that the people in the right said my god how terrible of you but she still around right then
she asked the k k k question to the potential what does a homeland guy i forget i wish i was talking to but an hour saying come how dare you compare the kkk to ice now of course if you listen to the full contacts were question it was very specific which was doing understand that people feel feel without she didn't talk my reasons in technologic she said you understand that people feel the ice is sort of like a ok just in the very limited sense that makes them feel like the recently targeted now as a year as a bad question is a political question is a grand stand in question it's
there's ways in question and people on the right roundly criticised her do you think that will take her attic intention for the presidency nope you in the same way that will list compare it compares spartacus to what kemal harris's the spartacus comment made corey booker look so ridiculous that that might actually take him attic intention for the presidency but cabal harris's as found too pretty serious sort of public brand problems and i would argue that the only people who care about them so far the people who were going to vote for anyway so gases that tomorrow
ass a little bit of the tough long about her now a very loud people online accusing her of sleeping her way to power meaning that i guess willie brown was her boyfriend for awhile or some life now that that accusation strikes me as a trap so i dont make that accusation because here's the thing you don't know why anybody did what they did is entirely possible that those two people just like each other and that that also helped her i mean they could have just like each other care rule that out i say that because my own situation very few people look at christina and me and say they actually like each other with this actually the last
the people suspect which happens to be the truth the truth is for whatever reason we're just very compatible levels so did it i like her you can you can certainly do you judging about her or moral character and personal life but who does i remind you of doesn't i remind you of the present of the united states think the world is ready to give people a pass for that kind of thing it seems to me that her person life is just not going to their kemal is personal life is just not going to stop her what whatever little dirty stuff is back there because most of us most of us have a little bit of something we wish we end on somewhere earner passed so
there's a bit of a tough one coding this forming around kemal heiress so this is what you should look for the ones who can make it out of the pack are not the ones who have no mistakes they are the ones were saying spartacus and they're the ones who are claiming native american ancestry with not much evidence to prove it ed those people are just looking foolish and there's evan since then maybe they were weakened by these things but khumalo here i would argue has not been weakened by any of these attacks about the the willy brown thing nothing makes any difference the comparing to k k k thing could be very popular on her side her team is going to like it
and that's all this gonna matter and the cabin questioning very popular on her team that's all that matters so she's got oil a bit of a tough one thing going on meaning that the thing she does that cause trouble are they have a different nature than the things they cause trouble for other people the spartacus thing trivialize is the person who said it it just terms of into something the k k k stuff just seems like hardball politics it doesn't it doesn't seem weak it doesn't seem silly you just hate it because it's unfortunately it's kind of effect
her attacks are racist and her team likes it gets a fair characterisation you i think i think the democrats will go full racists feel like i feel like they ve signal my right haven't the democrats pretty much said that they will be the races party i mean i think they're saying indirectly now now obviously in this context racist means managing the court race now in their view there just trying to make an unfair world more fair get more representation yo adjust for things that have not been fair
ass other their frame on it is different but i don't think you'd question the basic premise the race will be a primary thrust and once again it will not be the primary thrust of the republicans are they wanted to shame everyone into voting solely on race well i never agree with solely in any question spoke sometimes true but generally there's no solely people do things for lotta reasons biden harris joe biden will not be your next president i feel confident about that the reason joe biden won't be your next president is because he is like
week version of trump so even though they have different policies people are as policy driven as they should be to look at the people big gas prone shoulder rubbing too much shoulda rubbing too much version of tromp so if you got against rob you either need somebody who is so completely different from tromp kemal harris had been example yossi would be an example to their justly antitrust or you have to have somebody who's like tromp but a better version could find a better version of drop maybe it's possible bloomberg to boring too short to boring to write he would not bernie of an already now none of them
so correct me if i'm wrong or we how many people have taken themselves an account petition so have another kind of out of it i think spartacus is out of it i think pocahontas is on it and of it is it everybody who's gonna nickname is out of it spartacus pocahontas and creeping porn lawyer every everybody's got a bad nickname is already evident what is what is kemal heiresses nickname doesn't have one right kemal earth doesn't have a nickname the actually mean something you shouldn't mean anything right in the old days that would mean what it actually means something now only mean something
crazy kemal now does she doesn't come all does not register as crazy she register's as smart that's the problem whenever you watch your talking no matter what you think of her politics no matter what you think of her morality rather x you know that those are all the normal things everybody complain about but things you don't think when come all harris's talking as issues dumb you don't really think that could she comes across a smart no matter what so i will watch out for her show some such as a grave voice think that's right she
she does have a good public voice that's actually true that's it and that's a bigger deal than you think it is because of somebody's if the actual sound somebody's voice is grading on people that's a big deal so big deal and i would agree with the comment that her voice is right in the pocket it doesn't offend anyway i also have a theory they're having a non standard name gives you an advantage so if your name is better you have an advantage if your name is barack you have an advantage if your name is kemal you have an advantage and the advantages that when you when you
try to deal with tools he gathered that's another event when you try to wrestle with a non standard name anything that's none not the barber donald that then it sticks in your head and it makes that person come up above the noise just because the names dixon you had somebody saying absurd alot of people suggest that people stick the k k k name to kemal harris literally the worst idea you can never have if you're trying to make him dick name for a kemal harris by sticking kkk to it because as a k there because she mentioned the cake acre keep in mind the k k k references work for her not against her
because of your if you're looking at a black woman running for president and you're thinking about the kkk that help sir does nobody's gonna say i think there's a black supporter of the cake it ok though but nobody thinks that but they're gonna think oh there's a big problem in the country maybe this is a solution so till she gathered is a hundred percent running like could be interesting newt yeah there's another one newt gingrich his first name newt absolutely makes him stand now remember him what's in my coffee
this morning goodness that's off now from the guy you can't even remember octavio your correct the so cs i collar alexandra octavio cortez is a perfect example where the difficulty of remembering and pronouncing or name correctly helps or brand does it makes you think whenever there is a mistake that you're focusing on your being persuaded there's a good book on that which i recommend another time and i think that's all i say i'll talk you tomorrow sovereign ale bite
Transcript generated on 2020-04-01.