Episode 2039 Scott Adams: Media Manipulation Education Using Me As Your Example, Bail Reform & More

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization. In answer to your question on YouTube, no, this is not an AA meeting. You're in the wrong room. But for the rest of you, if you've come to the Highlight of Civilization, coffee with Scott Adams. You want to take your experience up a notch, and all you need for that is a cup or a mugger glass, a tanker cell, cysteine, a Canti Jaguar flask, vessel of any kind, Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine of the day. The thing makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now go. Ah, so good. So, so good. Well, if you are in the media and you'd like to say something about me that maybe I wouldn't like, one of the factors that you have to consider is that I'm a professional cartoonist. Still, still and probably at least some of you are going to get some pushback. Now, if you don't know it, I do a second comic besides Dilbert. Dilber will continue, but it'll be on the local subscription site after March 13th. But I also do a comic that appears there and sometimes I tweet it called Robots Read News. And after watching Howard Kurtz on his Media Matters and his panelists talk about me and noticing that their main path into the story was through mind reading, I believe he regrets it. I think he was intending this. So after watching the mind reading, I did this Robots Read News comic, which is always just the same robot just sitting at a desk. I'll read it to you. He never moves. The robot says media journalist Howard Kurtz wowed the audience of Fox News by reading the mind of Scott Adams from 2000 miles away. Which reminds me of an old saying. Those who can't do journalism, do media journalism. Those who can't do media journalism start carnival acts. So, I don't know, Howard's probably having a fun day. But in other comic news, you may have heard that I do a comic called Dilbert. Some of you have heard of it, and here was today's offering. And by the way, keep in mind that this is the comic that's been canceled globally, except for in my own subscription site after March 13, or after March 12, actually. So this is what they canceled. So it's Dilbert and Dogbert talking, and Dogbert says, I don't know if I mentioned I built a user interface to control the world. I had to hide my ownership of it. So no Large military power would know what I was up to. And Dilber says, what do you call this user interface? Dogber says, TikTok, have you heard of it? Now one of the things that the Dilber comic has done for 34 years is surface things that the general public wasn't aware of that they needed to be aware of because it's one of those few bubble penetrating things. Because Dilbert is read by conservatives and liberals, or at least it used to be. It used to be. It used to be that anybody in office read Dilbert. It wasn't anything about politics. So there were things that I knew if they were like a bubble, I knew I could penetrate the bubble. For example, years ago, when the year 2000 bug was a big concern, when the year turned 2000, people were concerned that the old computer programs wouldn't recognize the date and everything would break. I was writing Dilber comics about that long before you needed to start getting programming. There were probably a lot of businesses who learned that they need to do something about the year 2000 problem because they read it in a Dilbert comic. In fact, that very fact was in a court case where somebody was sued for not doing enough about Y2K. And part of the evidence that they should have known better and they should have done Something about the Y2K bug was that it was in a Dilbert comic a year before. And therefore it's common knowledge because it's in a Dilbert comic. So that vehicle for benefiting the world has been shut off. Did the world get what it wanted? Is the world a little bit happier today because they don't have that benefit? Well, if they stopped a monster like me from continuing, totally worth it. All right, Fox News is dunking on cnn. Mostly Jeff Zuckerberg when he was in charge, not so much the current leadership, but they're reporting that in the early months of the pandemic, Jeff Zucker, who was at cnn, would not allow his network to work on the lab leak theory because he thought it was, or even report on it or chase it down because he thought it was a Trump talking point. It's a Trump talking point. The news, he wouldn't report the news because it might be something that Trump agreed with. Does that just blow your mind? There are some stories that are so mind boggling, they just sort of stare at them and you don't even know what your reaction should be like. You're just stunned into inaction and silence. But we're going to talk about the media manipulations in general. Give you A little media education and make it relevant to the headlines. Number one, has anybody noticed that both CNN and Fox News and probably most of the media is trying to ignore Trump and he's making it harder and harder. Have you noticed that? And watching this tension is so hilarious. All right, so Trump gets, you know, an overwhelming majority of the, the straw poll as cpac. Now, that wasn't surprising because CPAC is a lot of people who are Trump supporters, but he's far and away the most likely person to be the contender for the President of the United States. And somehow they're treating him like it's not a story. And watching the desperation, I mean, it's probably just my imagination, but I imagine desperation because behind the headlines it's like, how much longer are we going to be able to not talk about him? And when they do, they try to put it into the smallest box. So today, CNN was reporting about all the many facts he got wrong in his speech. So that's all they did. They just fact checked him. Now, the trouble is that that's still attention. Yeah, he knows how to make it impossible to ignore him. Just put in some hyperbole, some facts they're going to disagree with. They just can't let it go. Can't let it go. Now, do you know how Trump does a lot of his provocations? I'll tell you, he says things which he knows are kind of true. True enough that people would say, oh, yeah, that hits with me. I see what you're saying. But even with the stuff that's kind of true, he'll leave at least a little bit of suggestion, maybe a hint, maybe directly of something that's totally not true. And nobody can resist coming in and talking about the not true part. Yeah. So if they come in and they say it's not true, that if the windmills stop, your TV will go off. That's my favorite one. He says it all the time. My favorite one is you can't watch TV if the wind isn't blowing. Now, the beauty of it is the press has made such a caricature of him that they treat it like maybe he thinks it's true. And you know he doesn't think it's true. He knows what a battery is. He knows, or you know, he knows that the network doesn't go down when the wind stops blowing. But the fact that it's so untrue and so obviously untrue, you can't stop talking about it. And when you're done, the only thing you remember is Windmills are not ideal. So anyway, another way to do that, I'll just put this out there. Another way to draw attention to your point would be to say something about black Americans and then let people imagine that you really meant every single one. See the, see the technique. I say something that everybody agrees with. Wow, seems like there's a trend toward anti whiteness that's going to cause people to be less, less want to interact with. 100% of the world agrees with that. But then I say instead of there are some number of black people who are being poisoned by the narrative, which would be more accurate, fair statement. I say black people. Do you see the technique? Do you think I knew that? Because I would get fact checked on that. Because it's obviously not true. It is obviously not true that all any group acts the same. There's no group that all acts the same. But if I allow you to imagine that's what I thought, which of course I don't because nobody does. But I imagine you to imagine. I allow you to imagine that maybe I do think that. Maybe I do think that it's every single person in the group which literally nobody believes. But that brings all the energy. Now I brought a little bit too much energy and that's on me. But that's the same technique. All right, give you a little media education. I'll use myself as an example. I talk about this one a lot. When it's not involving me, it's where the headline doesn't match the story. Headline doesn't match the story. Before I give you my explanation, would you say true or false, True or false, that the headlines about me were accurate or misleading compared to the details of the story? Accurate or misleading? What do you think now? How can it be misleading? If they showed the video, how could that be misleading? There's the video. Well, one way to be misleading is to show the video. Almost everything that's not true had a video or a graph or an expert or a photograph. Everything that's not true has some kind of visual evidence. Everything that you believe, you believe because you saw something. So let me give you an idea of how much context was left out of. Cartoonist goes on racist rant. So the first media lesson is the headline is propaganda. Just keep that in mind. The headline is always propaganda. Always. It's always propaganda because all news networks are leaning left or right, except maybe News Nation. I'm talking to tonight with Chris, Chris Cuomo. I think they're trying to actually be a non aligned, which is hurting the ratings. If they're trying to be fair. It's going to hurt their ratings anyway. Tonight, just a plug for that. Tonight at 8:00pm Eastern Time, live on Chris Cuomo show on News Nation. If you don't know how to watch News Nation, just Google it. You have to have it on your cable network. That's the way to watch it. You can watch it on their app as well, but only if you also have a password to your cable network. So if you want to watch that, this will be the, probably the best context that you'll see about the situation. But not many people will see it because it's a smaller outlet. It's one of the reasons I'm picking it because I didn't want to use the major news news for this because they're disreputable. I'm only trying to talk to people I trust who might give me a good, good pushback so that I have something to work with. So I think that'll be fun. Check it out. Anyway, about the titles not matching the story. The story may or may not have the proper context, but the headlines are always just going to be propaganda. How many of you who do not study the media know that that's the case, that the headline is propaganda, but because they don't want to just completely make up, you know, news in an obvious way. I mean, there might be errors there, but there could be something somewhat factual. But then the headline is just propaganda, left or right, doesn't matter who you're talking about. And so look at my headline. So my headline, roughly speaking, was, I think you'd agree, Dilbert Cartoonist Goes on Racist Rant. Is that the headline you saw? Sometimes tirade, but Racist rant. What would you assume is the story if he didn't know better? And most people just read the headlines. This morning, for example, I read 40 headlines and I looked into five stories. So the five stories I read, I might have had enough information to invalidate the headline. Maybe not. But the others, I just sort of looked at the headline and said, okay. And now that became part of my memory. How many of those headlines were accurate? I don't know. I didn't look into them. But they, they sort of become part of your, you know, your framework just sort of automatically. They just sort of sneak in. It's just something you saw. So let's take the statement, let's take the headline, Dilbert Cartoonist Goes on Racist Rant. Now, if you take out the goes on part, which is not the important part, how many of those words are propaganda? All of them. I'll tell you why. First of all, Dilbert cartoonist. Is Dilbert cartoonist the right context for this story? No, no, it's completely inaccurate. If you believe that a Dilbert just a cartoonist. If you believe that a cartoonist went on a racist rant, the logical conclusion, especially if you see the video, if you see the video you're going to say oh, this, this person is talking outside his area, cartooning and he's, he doesn't like black people. That's what you would think. What else could you conclude from that headline? Somebody left his area, left his domain and doesn't like black people. I can't imagine any other interpretation than that. Now let me tell you what happens if you don't use propaganda to tell the story. The first thing you should know is that Dilbert cartoonist was the wrong frame. It's not even the most important thing I do. How many of you know that the Dilbert is not, it's not in the top five of things I do now. It's the thing that makes the most money or used to, you know, most of that's gone now. But yeah, so I'm, in recent years I'm better known or at least let's say I've had more impact in the domains of persuasion, mostly group persuasion, but also individual and the domain of personal success. How many of you know maybe the most influential authority the domain of personal success. How many of you know that and did you know that when I was speaking about this topic, the topic of started with the Rasmussen pole, but that's not the important part. How many of you thought I was talking as a cartoonist? It was the wrong job. I was talking as a hypnotist, I was talking as a persuader and I was talking as a self help personal improvement author. So if you put it in that context it starts sounding a little different. So the first context is wrong is my job description. If you understood it as a Dilber guy, it doesn't make sense. If you understand it as a hypnotist persuader who routinely uses hyperbole to attract attention, then you're starting to understand a little bit that the way you were told the story might have some missing context. Right. So how many other things are missing in the context? Well, a few. Here are a few things. Most of you have seen the news by now about me. Ask yourself how much of this you saw but also ask is it important to the story? Right. Basic questions. Now even if you believe, if you see something here, you say I don't Believe that's true because, you know, everybody's a skeptic. It's true. As far as I know everything here, I'm pretty sure it's true. But if you didn't believe it, even if you didn't believe it, would you agree that it's an important part of the story? What, what I say were my intentions? Even if you don't believe them? Right. Have you ever seen a story about, let's say, a mass killer? What's the first thing we ask when you hear there's a mass shooting? What's the first question? Why? Why? Right. The party affiliation is, is part of the question. Why? Right. The entire question is why. How many people saw journalism about why I said what I did? Did you see anybody talk about my motivation as I described it? Isn't that the biggest part of the story? Isn't the biggest part of the story why I did it? That's actually missing from the story? Did you notice how many of you noticed that the biggest part of the story wasn't even mentioned? The biggest part is why I did it. Am I wrong? Let me just test the audience here. Is that not the biggest question? Would anybody disagree with the statement? It's the biggest question and completely ignored. How many of you noticed that? The weakest take was to question me on the validity of the Rasmussen poll. The Rasmussen poll was just my jumping off point. Was there anybody who hasn't noticed that there's a trend toward anti whiteness in the United States? Is there anybody who hadn't noticed it's kind of noticeable, right? How many of the stories Cowardly said, let's talk about the quality of this one poll as if that was the point, as if that were the important thing. That is a cowardly approach to this story. Those are people who wanted to talk about it because it's a big story. They wanted to get their clicks, but they definitely didn't want to tell you about the story. So instead they found a little safe harbor. Well, let's talk about the statistics. Let's talk about the margin of error, which by the way, if they talked about accurately, they would have found out that the margin of error, even with the small numbers, only 8%. Now a bigger question is that the question itself was hinky, which I've always agreed with. But the, the, the poll was never important to the story. How many of you believed when you saw the story that I was fooled by a bad poll and based my opinion on the poll? How many of you think that's a correct? Of course not. Who in the world would do that? So this is where you should apply the really filter. Imagine that the only thing I saw was one pole and nothing else had been in my thinking. Really? Do you think I would have done anything I did if I saw one pole and it didn't agree with every observed reality? If I didn't see every screaming signal pointing in the same direction, do you think the poll would have had any relevance? No. The poll is completely irrelevant to the point and completely irrelevant to my intention and completely irrelevant should be to you. But the news quite cowardly used diversion. Now, diversion is the next lesson. When the news decides, oh, let's focus on this little thing, it's not because that thing's important. Sometimes it is, but often it's because they're ignoring and trying to get away from the real question. That's what's happening, right? If you didn't know that you're seeing a huge diversion, you're learning it now. And it's a standard media practice. Sometimes intentional, probably sometimes subconscious. All right, how many of you have seen this trick? I'll go over the context in a second. How many of you seen this trick where the first part of the story will tell you the, the outrage and then you get all worked up and you're like, ah. Because you saw the first part of the story and they don't give you the context until you've had to read all the way to the end. How many times have you seen that? Because I've called it down with, with my, my story here. So that happened to me. There were a number of outlets who reported some part of the story accurately and then they also showed some part of the context. Except they showed it last. They showed it last. Imagine if this story had been told in the reverse order context first. This is what it would sound like. Let's say I'll do my best headline. Most influential self help author says we should stay away from people who don't like us. Or something like that. If people don't like you, you should probably stay away. Now then it would go into the outrageous way that I said it. But you would be primed to say, well, I agree with this point. I just don't like the way he said it. Now here's the next point. Those who say I should not have said it the way I said it because it caused too much problems, did they ask my intention? Was it my intention to cause no problems? Well, if my intention had been to cause no problems, then I Did a bad job. Why don't you ask? My intention. My intention was to cause a problem, to draw energy to the topic and then maybe do something useful. If you look at it in the context of self improvement and my biggest topic is reframing. I'm trying to reframe the race conversation from completely destructive. What it is now, it's completely destructive. There's nothing good about the way we talk about race right now. It's all just, what do you call it, a win lose proposition. Who's winning and who's losing? So unproductive. I'm trying to change the frame to personal growth and success. Because if you learn the tools of personal success, you can kind of slice through systemic racism even while it still exists. You would just be, you would be immune to it. If you had enough, if you had the right talent stack and you had the right, let's say, systems and the right technique for success. So if you learn technique for success, which is my entire thrust, then you're not going to be having problems. Now here's the other media trick. If I said to you, and I've showed you this one before, if I said to you black people like hip hop music, would you say that's racist? Or would you say, oh, I know you don't mean every single black person. Obviously, obviously you don't mean every black person. Right. And you would understand that completely. We wouldn't be having an argument. If I said white people like cheese, you wouldn't say, hold on, Scott, that's so wrong. Because there are white people who are lactose intolerant and they can't eat that cheese. And there are some people who just don't like the smell of cheese. So you're so racist because you say white people like cheese, to which I say, only the media and trolls would have that interpretation. Anything you say about a group never means all of them. Like never. Like never. If the first assumption you made was he means all of them, like all black Americans or all white Americans or all of anybody, is that really a good analysis? Now individuals in the audience will fall for that. But the media, who in the media, you saw the coverage about my story. Ask yourself this. Who in the media said this? Obviously he doesn't mean all black people. Who told you that? And do you believe that anybody would disagree with the notion that it's obvious it didn't mean all black people. It's obvious. Yeah, I think a few people did. On the conservative side. On the conservative side, people got it. You know, I told you before this shook out as just a political outcome. It's being presented by the news as a racial story, except that the audience that's offended is only Democrats. Have you seen any news coverage that said conservatives, both black and white, generally agree with Scott because they've looked at the context? Have you seen that? Has anybody reported anywhere that conservatives, both black and white, agree with me once they see the context? Nobody's reported that, right? Who reported that? Nobody. Not even. Not even the conservative side reported it. Do you know why? I think even conservatives don't want to say conservatives agree with me. It's like a little too. A little too hot at the moment. But it's true. You can look at social media, you could look at the coverage like that. The worst, the worst criticism I got from the right was that I depended on a poll that I didn't actually depend on. The worst criticism on the right is just a wrong fact. They think I depended on something I didn't depend on. So let's see. So of course, you know, the media likes to do mind reading. I talk about that all the time. What's he thinking? You know, what was he thinking? All that stuff. You see that all the. Here's some of the. They start with this headline, cartoonist goes on racist rant. And here's just a sample of the super important context that was left out. Just a sample, right. That cartooning is not my main focus. And I think it's not in the top five most impactful things I've done for society. Now, you don't know all of them because some of them are behind the. Behind the curtain. But cartooning is not really the biggest thing I do. It's not the biggest impact I have in the world if you don't mention that, like I said, so. And you should also know that the story needs to say that I have spoken many times and you can confirm this about attracting energy with hyperbole. How many of you heard me say that That's a good way to attract it. Attention. I write about Trump, so it's actually in writing and in live streams. Right. So if you don't mention that I'm a person who has often said I use hyperbole to attract attention. And then once I've attracted. I reframe the situation so that everybody wins. How many times have I told you that? Now imagine that context being left out of the story. Who's reported that? Nobody who's reported that. I identify as left of Bernie. The LA Times said I'm a Democrat at the same time other entities were saying I was a MAGA Republican. At the same time. Both of them are wrong. I'm not a Democrat, although I don't know if I've ever. I may have registered sometime a million years ago. And I don't identify as conservative or Republican. Who reported that? I mean, just ask yourself, which journalist reported that? I'm neither. I'm not maga. I'm not conservative. I'm not Republican, I'm not Democrat. But I do say I'm left to Bernie and I support it. I mean, I can give you examples. Who reported that I worked with Black Lives Matter and tried to help? Who reported that I posed Confederate statues even though my audience overwhelmingly supported keeping them? Who reported that I supported Kaepernick's protest, which was not that different than mine. In some ways. The reason I liked Kaepernick is that he caused trouble and he brought attention to the topic he wanted attention on. Can't beat that for a protest. Made everybody uncomfortable and made everybody think about his topic 100% successful. So I supported him as a protest. How many reported that? I support affirmative action, even though this is the third time I've lost a career because I'm a white male. Who reported that? Now, I've supported affirmative action historically, but I think it's about time we take a smarter look at it and maybe move from a sledgehammer to a scalpel. The scalpel is personal growth and education. If you fix education for black people as well as everybody poor, and you fix maybe everybody rich too, I think education is just broken for everybody at the moment. So it's not even a poor person's stuff. But if you fix all that and you make sure that any individual has the tools of success, they can slice through systemic racism. At the same time, you might be trying to dismantle it in the long run. What would be a better way to dismantle systemic racism than to have a disproportionate number of black young people get the tools to become rich and successful, that's the best way to fight it. I mean, you could try the. All the institutional stuff and maybe that's important too. But if you don't make an individual invulnerable, you know, it's going to be hard to get a long term gain. Who reported that? I've been trying for a long time to reframe our racial conversation. Don't you think that's kind of a big context? I've been trying to reframe it. You've been watching me in public for years. At the same time that I say I use hyperbole to bring attention to the thing I'm trying to reframe. Kind of important, kind of important. Who. Who reports on all the racist. The other racist stuff I approve of. So one of the racist things I approve of, and some of this is a repeat for you, but it's good to see it in context. Historically black colleges, I approve of those. That seems pretty racist to me. It's just the good kind. It's the good kind. We're way beyond the point where anything is not racist. Anything that has any racial component is racist according to the new rules. So there are a whole bunch of racist things I like, like affirmative action, historically Black History Month. Not everybody gets a history month, but I'm in favor of Black History Month. I think that's important enough to call it out. Who. Who's paying their own money and spending their own time to create a success curriculum, which I've told you in public a number of times, I think one of its greatest benefit is for black Americans because a systemic racism, in one way, it's. It limits the, let's say, accidental contact that anybody who has a low income has with people who are successful. So if you don't have a, you know, casual contact with people who know that the, let's say, the techniques for success, it's hard to just figure it out on your own. So if you can. If you can make people more successful individually, then everything starts working better, like in a hundred different ways. How many of them reported that even though my audience is solidly conservative most of the time, that I often tell them systemic racism is real. And I point to the teachers union as, in my opinion, the biggest part of systemic racism because they're the ones who prevent school choice. And without school choice, you can't really improve anything. I mean, nobody's figured out how. So, and here's one. I've never said this before, but this is totally racist. A lot of people ask me for individual advice, which I can't do on a scale because I can't really do that on a scale. But I'm far more likely to give individual advice to black people who ask for it racist. And I do it, I think, in part because I think that there's this inequality in access to people who have advice. And so I think, oh, well, I can do this one little thing that, you know, balances it out a little bit, right? So there are a lot of things I've done Which in my opinion are pretty damn racist. In a good way. In a good way. The, mostly the stuff that people on the left would agree with and what I'm doing now with my current drama. Is it racist? Yeah, if you, you can call it that. Whatever you want. Whatever you want. It's my job to make it the good kind. Right. It's my job to make it the good kind. Now there's, there's a larger conversation here about the anti white trend in America. Let me poll the audience so that I'm not depending on Erasmus and poll. You ready for this? Here's the big question. Do you observe just your own opinion based on the signals and anything you see in life? Do you observe a growing anti white sentiment in the country? Yes or no? Is there a growing anti white sentiment? It's just a wall of. Yes. So how misleading is it? Ask yourself how misleading is it that anybody's focusing on the Rasmussen poll when so far 100% of you that I see answering are agree. 100%. I don't think I've ever asked a question that didn't get. They got 100% before. Look at your own answers. Every person here agrees with that. And then you watch the media crucify me because I use the Rasmussen pole as a jumping off place for this conversation. 100%. If you see it. 100%. There's not a single person you're saying no. And I know there are some media people and some dislikers. Now I'm aware of the fact that people's window into this topic, certainly my drama. You have different reasons. There's a group of people who just want to talk about the anti whiteness trend. And to them I'm a hero this week because I said it out loud and I'll say it even louder today. Say it as loud as you want. Right. It's so obvious at this point that anti Asian too. Anti Asian trend. I think so. In a different way. Certainly college admissions, maybe in terms of violence. But you know, we all have a violence problem. But I think the anti white bias is out loud. I don't see people on, I don't see people on social media who could directly say something bad about Asian Americans and get away with it. I don't, I don't think he can. But you can say something, anything you want about black Americans. All right, now here's. Oh yeah, it's two sides. All right, Let's do the Ellen Dershowitz test. Are you ready for this? Here's another quiz. For you, if a black American had said exactly what I said, would they be canceled? And you could, you could answer it either way, that you could either say they said literally exactly what I said, or you could say, suppose they said the black version of that, which was, I wouldn't want to live near a lot of white people if I thought a high percentage of them were racist. So here would be the way to look at it. Let's say if you're black, let's say if you're black and you have two choices of where to go live, let's say you have some mobility in terms of where you live. And one of those choices is they're both mostly white. There's two places, mostly white. One of them, you know, because the, you know, you just know because of the zip code. There's a lot of racists in it. You don't know the percentage, but there's a lot of races there, white racists. There's another one that has also a lot of white people, but they're left leaning and they're, they're going to be, you know, definitely pro you in a big, much bigger way. If you said, I'd rather live with the white people who are in the zip code with less racism, would anybody object to that? Not anybody. Literally nobody would object to that. It wouldn't even occur to you that it was anything to object to. Like it wouldn't even cross your mind to object to it. Now, of course, I'm aware that because of the history of the country, there are some things that white people can't say that black people can. Right? I've never complained. Well, maybe when I was a teenager or something, but as an adult, I don't think I've ever complained that white people get in trouble for using the N word. It's not a big deal. And I understand it like historically, if you want to carve out an exception, all right, there's your exception to free speech. I'll say, okay, that's a good exception. No problem. So which news outlet, which journalist said, if a black person had said it or any version of it, nobody would even blink. Did anybody report that? Because that's part of the anti white trend. How many, how many journalists reported that? My cancellation itself, given that a black person could have said exactly the same thing without consequence. How many people reported that my cancellation is the biggest signal of anti whiteness? It's the biggest signal. So you don't even need the Erasmus and poll. You just use my cancellation because I'm Only canceled for being white. Let's be honest. Nobody would be canceled for this if they weren't white. I'm not even sure an Asian American would be canceled, but I think it'd be risky. Hispanic American, probably risky, but. But, you know, if you're. If you're a white man, you're pretty much canceled now. And let me say this again as clearly as possible. Black people have been great through this whole drama. The black, at least just the people I have access to and see on social media, they're generally, let's talk about this, or, you know, we should look into this, or there must be some missing context, or they just flat out agree, which is the most common response. But only if they know the background. Right? The people who don't know the context are in a different situation. But white Americans have canceled me now three times for being a white American. Two corporate jobs. One of my bosses told me directly, we're no longer going to promote white men directly. Like those words. Well, the Hodge twins were an example of people who didn't have the full context, I would imagine, if they had the context like everybody else. Because keep in mind, I've literally met nobody who understood the context, who had a problem with it. Think about that. Actually nobody. Not a single person. So when people are asking me, like, how I'm suffering, you know, like, how am I? How am I getting through this? I think you probably don't know that. Everybody agrees with me, actually. Everybody. Let me say that again. This one is. I don't think this one is too much hyperbole. You know, nothing's 100% right. So as soon as you hear everybody, you should automatically say, okay, not 100%, but 100% of the people who know the context. 100% of the people who know the context agree with me. Doesn't matter who they are. All right, well, that's enough about me. I got 3.7 million views on a tweet on a different topic where I said that there's a difference in how the right and the left get fooled. The right tends to organically bubble up their own conspiracy theories, and as we've seen, many of them end up being true, but they at least come up organically from people who actually believe it. Within the conservative side, the untruths on the left are far more often and alarmingly more often, deliberate misinformation and propaganda made up by political operators. That's really different. It's really different. Now, I didn't know that that was so obvious. But 3.7 million views on that point kind of tells me that people have noticed. At least conservatives have noticed. So that seemed to hit a. I thought maybe people would push back on that and say, now that's too much of a generalization. Here are some examples to prove you wrong. But it appears that people see the same pattern I do. Then Rasmussen did a poll on bail reform. So if you had to guess how many Americans and by. This isn't one of those 25% things. Oh, wait, it is. Yeah, it is. Never mind. Of course it is. Of course it is. I just didn't see it because it was represented as the opposite. Let me tell you what I mean. A majority of every political category, including 72% of Democrats, think it's a danger to the community. That if somebody is a danger to the community, that should be considered in whether they get bail. 72% of Democrats. That means you got 28% of Democrats who think that the danger to the community should not be considered with bail. The fact that it's a murderous serial killer. 28% of Democrats are thinking, I don't see how that's relevant. Well, yeah, oh, yeah, he killed people before he was in jail, but how is that relevant? And he said, yeah, he says he'll kill more if you let him out. Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. Let's treat everybody the same. So, yeah, that 25% or ish number that everybody gets wrong in every poll, there it is. But it was only the Democrats. But weirdly, 19% of Republicans agreed with that. 19% of Republicans agreed that you should ignore somebody's actual crimes when deciding whether they get out on bail. What the hell? Now, this is triggered by, I guess, Governor DeSantis. He made headlines last month because he was mocking New York as the only state that doesn't allow judges to consider the crime and the risk to society when they're making bail decisions. I didn't know that. Did you know that, by the way, this is a Rasmussen poll? I did not know that. New York is the only state that doesn't consider the danger to the community. Unbelievable. They don't consider the danger to the community. All right, here's another story I saw in a tweet from Bronwyn Williams on Twitter, and she's quoting somebody, help, earn, etc. I guess there's a study, quote, adolescents with an IQ of 130, so that would be a highish IQ, were three to five times less likely to have had intercourse than those with average IQ and boys with an IQ that would qualify for intellectual disability. 60. An IQ of 60 were still more likely to have had sex than those of the very high IQ, 130. Well, I don't see any problem there, do you? Moving on. No problem there. Does that explain everything? Now how long has this trend been going on? Are we, are we intentionally breeding a, an entire generation of idiots as idiocracy begun for sure. Like the movies just starting first scene. Somebody says it's time to start considering people with high IQs as having a disability. Wait, let me say that again. That's too good. It's time to start considering people with high IQs as having a disability because they can't get laid. That's like actually like a real world problem. Based on their physicality. How is that not a disability? It's based on their physicality mostly. Probably. I'll bet it's not based on their minds. And, and they can't, they don't have access to reproduction like everybody else does as much that feels like a disability. I don't think it'll be described that way, but it would certainly, certainly tell us what's going on. Here's my counter to that. The only people who ever matter are the smart ones. And they're the ones who do everything. They invent everything, they figure everything out. Most people don't need to be smart. If you could snap your fingers and make everybody in the United states have an IQ of 130 or more, would you do it? You could let everybody, everybody would just immediately go up to 130. Would you do it? No. It would destroy the country. It would actually just destroy the country. Right. The worst thing you want is a bunch of smart people making a decision. They would end up like Congress, even as incompetent as Congress is. Part of the problem is that they're all smart. Roughly speaking, they're smart. There was once a study, and I think it's true. And I'm going to say I think it's true because it matches my experience. I think it was a military study from a million years ago and they were trying to find out the most effective small groups and they tested a group that had all high functioning smart people in it and they compared that to groups that maybe one smart person, but the rest were not so smart. Who did better, who did better? The one with all smart people in the small group or the group, that one smart person and some lesser smart person. Well, they found consistently the one smart person was the Better deal. Do you know why? Because the people less smart would recognize the smart one as the smart one. And they would look at each other and say, you got a better idea? And they would say no, and then they would follow the smart one. So there you have a quick decision, like there's not a lot of argument, and then it follows a smart person's path. Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it's right, but at least it was smart. Now, if you put four smart people in a small group, what happens? All four of them believe the only smart path is their path, and they don't agree on the path. It's chaos. Right? It's chaos. You. You need a mix of smart people and people who say, okay, you're smarter than I am. You. You make the decision. That's your best situation. So it might not make any difference at all how much the people with IQs under a certain level are mating. I mean, mating with somebody with an IQ of 60 feels like a bad play, but it's probably been happening forever. Do you think that the early settlers were looking around for the high IQ people? I don't think so. I don't think so. I think they were just hooking up with anybody who was available who was willing to say yes. And sometimes even if they weren't willing. Say it. All right. Is it more important to be a sociopath than smart? Well, I don't know which one gives you more success, but they both have their benefits. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to be on Chris Cuomo tonight at News Nation. Google News Nation to figure out how to follow it to where you are. Probably has to be on your cable network before you can, and I think. I think so. There might be some other way to watch it, but I think it has to be on your cable network. But the app works, too, if you use the credentials for your. For your network. All right, I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube people, and I will talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for joining.