Episode 2066 Scott Adams: Matt Walsh on Reparations, WaPo Fact-Checked On Twitter, DeSantis & DEI

Do, do, do, do, do, do, do. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. There's never, never been a better time. Or as Joe Biden would say, there's never been a better time, annoyingly. And if you'd like your day to reach galactic interstellar levels, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice of stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called simultaneous sip. It's gonna happen now. Go. Ah, yeah, that's good. You can feel the synchronicity everywhere it's happening. Well, I got stories for you today. All kinds of stories. By the way, this will be my second test of trying to use the Twitter algorithms to my advantage. So tell you what I did yesterday. It did seem like there was more traffic yesterday. Could be a coincidence. It could be because Steven Crowder doesn't do his show on weekends. It could be. I'm not competing with Crowder, but what I did was I turned some of the text of what would have been a text tweet into a screen grab and then posted it as an image. In theory, Twitter is going to see that there's an image with my tweet and give me more traffic. I also removed the link from the main tweet and I said it's in the comments, so you can find it pretty easily. And I'm hoping that Twitter doesn't know that I commented to my own. To my own tweet. If it doesn't know, then the link will follow the tweet and everybody will be happy. Traffic will be through the roof. We'll see. I'll let you know. I'll let you know probably tomorrow because I don't see the total traffic numbers until I quit. Well, Laura Logan had an interesting tweet. She said, it really is quite staggering that Elon Musk could fire all those people from Twitter and it made no difference whatsoever. What did they do all day? Now, I commented that I think about that every day, and somebody questioned why I would think about that every day, because it's so interesting. Didn't he fire 75% of Twitter? Do I have that wrong? Give me a fact check. I thought it was about 75% of the entire staff. I think all he kept was the technical people for the most part. Right. So it turns out that the engineers were doing all the work, and everybody else was just talking and drinking good coffee or whatever they were doing. I don't know. They were probably imagining they were doing something. I'll tell you a true story from my first, I don't know, 16 years of work life, I asked myself how different the world would have been if I had never done any of the work I did. Because I worked for two big corporations, I thought, how would this bank be different? How would customers be different if I just never existed and nobody else did what I did? It just never happened. And the answer was, it wouldn't be any different at all. But I spent years and years working hard every day. And then one day I woke up and thought, I don't think any of this matters. Like, none of it. I do analyses of this or that, and people look at them and do whatever they were going to do anyway. It never made any difference. I had a job that was completely, completely useless for years, and there wasn't even one job. Like, I changed jobs a number of times. None of it you can see in any kind of final result. So that's why Twitter interests me. It's sort of a Dilber thing. All right, here's another sign that things have gone way too far. Do you remember when 60 Minutes could do an interview with a controversial person and you'd say to yourself, let's say a dictator, something like that. And you'd say to yourself, whoa, this is going to be really interesting. And it wasn't like you were voting for the dictator, you know, like, I don't know, maybe they did Castro or something. I'm not sure if they did, but let's say they did. I'm not like, oh, I sure like Castro. I'll watch that interview with him. I would say instead, oh, that's a valuable service. They're telling us what this dictator is saying. And I don't remember anybody ever boycotting 60 Minutes because they had a provocative person on. This probably happened, but, like, it seems kind of a rare thing. But apparently, tonight, 60 Minutes, we'll have Marjorie Taylor Greene. And on Twitter, people are just going nuts and they think they have to boycott 60 Minutes and never watch it again. For Marjorie Taylor Green, I'm positive they've had murderers on there. Am I wrong? You don't think they've ever had anybody who was, like, a murderous dictator? I'm pretty sure they have. And Marjorie Taylor Greene is going to be your bridge too far. Yeah, I was okay when you talked to Pol Pot. They never talked to Pol Pot. But let's just go with this. I was okay when you talked to Jeffrey Dahmer and Pol Pot, But Marjorie Taylor Greene, well, that's just a hill too far. I can't handle that. Does that seem crazy? It seems crazy. Did they talk to David Duke? Because that feels like somebody they would have talked to. Yeah. Perfect example. And can you imagine that the Democrats would learn nothing by listening to Marjorie Taylor Greene? I think they would. I think they would learn something. Not just useful for themselves, but useful for politics in general. Completely productive thing for 60 minutes is trying to be at least a little bit, you know, fair about who they talk to. And they're going to get canceled for it or something. Or at least semi canceled. Yeah. Or. Yeah. So whatever. Whatever happens there will be interesting. All right, we're going to get to some controversial stuff. You ready? So here are some of the people who complained about Marjorie Taylor Creek. Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Why is he complaining about Marjorie Taylor Greene being on 60 Minutes? Liberal commentator Eli Misdal, who's the guy who looks like a big Q tip. They bring him out to insult people like me. He actually was one of the people who was brought on to talk about me as if he knew anything about me. Gun control activist David Hogg and others. But, yeah, they're hopping mad. Hopping mad. Wow. And so I would like. I'm going to tie back another story to this in a moment. So don't forget this story. We're going to tie back to it. But first, has anybody seen Matt Walsh doing his videos about how reparations should be calculated? I'm enjoying the show so much, and here's why I enjoy the show. First of all, I kind of wonder if he might have heard this refrain from me because I've not heard anybody else say it. And the reframe is this that the proper way to calculate the economic part of reparations would be to compare black Americans who descended from slavery in America today. How are they doing today compared to somebody who had never been part of slavery and stayed in Africa? And how are they doing? And if you think that the people in Africa are doing much better, that would be clear evidence that slavery was an economic disaster for black people and that therefore reparations would be in order. Now, I'm not including any psychological elements which could also be part of reparations, but if you're just doing the math of the finance, that's the way you do it. Now, how do you think? How do you think the woke part of the public took to that? Do you think they said, you know, Matt Walsh, that's a pretty good point. You've got me there. Let's use your math. No, it didn't go that way. It didn't go that way. You'd be surprised to find out. But because what he said is 100% unambiguously true, accurate, the arguments against it were not the best. And I'm going to read some of the tweet arguments against them just so you can see what happens when you say something perfectly rational in public. All right. One of them was from, let's see, the Amazing Atheist. He calls himself and he says that Walsh saying that you would compare Americans today to people who had never been part of slavery or still in Africa. That that comparison is, quote that analogy. That is like justifying rape because a lot of people were born from it. That was the argument. That's like justifying rape because a lot of people were born from it. Have I ever described to you why analogies should not be used in this way? Yeah. Rape is just another topic. It has nothing to do with this. And if you think that that other topic, which simply might have reminded you in some way of an unrelated topic, it's still an unrelated topic. You can't learn anything from that. So I wanted to respond to the tweet. This is like justifying rape because a lot of people were born from it. I wanted to say that analogy is like saying a football teaches you a lot about being a pig, which doesn't make any sense, really, except, you know, footballs are made from pigs, I guess. But what do you think about it? Like, did that make sense? Just because I said something is like another thing? Is that an argument? No, no, it's just an observation. That one thing reminds me of another thing. That's not an argument. There's nothing. Okay, yeah, I know. It's pink skin. I get it. All right, so that was interesting. Then there's this approach. I saw a number of people take the same approach. The Blue Collar Intellectual podcast. Somebody named Julian had this to say on Twitter. Now our pundits are making pseudo intellectual arguments. So a number of people said he was making pseudo intellectual arguments. What's the difference between a pseudo intellectual argument and an argument that is logically correct? The words. It's the words. That's it. Making these pseudo intellectual arguments. Defending slavery. Defending slavery. Do you think that Matt Walsh defended slavery? Do you think that happened in the real world? Of course. Not what happens when you see people's best argument requires them to hallucinate something absurd so they have something to attack. What does that tell you? It's cognitive dissonance. Yeah, cognitive dissonance. If somebody simply had a counter argument, you know, you'd see something like an argument. You might agree with it, you might not. But that's literally a hallucination. Oh, he's defending slavery. And this wasn't the only tweet that said that. That was the most common. The most common response was he was defending slavery. Okay? Nothing like that happened. Nothing like that even remotely like that happened. He was describing it. When you describe a thing, you're not defending it. That's crazy talk. All right? And then he finished by saying, you sound like a Dixiecrat. So you got your hallucination, your two insults, pseudo intellectual and Dixiecrat, and no argument. It was just basically a bunch of words and an insult. And that was the best argument. Now, given that he's making a math argument where I could say economics would be better, don't you think that an economics counterpoint would be the right way to go, you pseudo intellectual Dixiecrat, with your defending slavery? Okay, and let's see. Nicola tweeted, and people pay the Daily Wire to get nonsensical drivel like this packaged as intellectualism. Do you think that Matt Walsh packaged his presentation as intellectualism? That's literally the opposite of what he was doing. He was talking plain, obvious common sense. And he's literally wearing a plaid, like, you know, lumberjack shirt, just sitting at his desk with no necktie. He has no college degree, and he's just simply talking common sense. And they're like, oh, get away from us with your plaid shirt. Common sense intellectualism. How about an argument? How about saying what he said wrong? Couldn't do it. I looked at all of the comments. I only saw one comment. There might have been something similar to it. That was actually a good point. Here's the good point. It's not just academics. Reparations are sometimes about pain and suffering. Now, you could argue, but the people who had the pain and suffering are no longer with us. Well, but then you could argue that some of that pain and suffering carried forward various ways. So that's an argument. You could agree or disagree with that argument, but that would be an argument. Would you agree whether or not you like the argument? It's an argument. Sometimes reparations are about how people feel. There's a precedent for that. So. But anyway, the economic argument is ridiculous. I'll Tell you why in a minute. A few more comments. Why does the Daily Wire continue to justify slavery? Number one, Matt Walsh never justified slavery or anything like it. Number two, the Daily Wire, which pays him, certainly didn't justify any slavery. I mean, can you imagine, can you imagine if, you know, Ben Shapiro was watching the Matt Walsh video. Imagine if he had actually justified slavery. You don't think he'd be gone tomorrow or at least there'd be some correction or apology or something like that? Yeah. No, these are absurd takes on what he was doing. Here's another one. Justifying slavery. Here's another one. Make no mistake, this is not ignorance. This is racism. Is it? How are you reading his mind? Because there was nothing he said that was racism or even close. Not even close. So you would have to literally be reading his mind to say, make no mistake, this is racism. Okay, how about another one said, did he just create an all new informal logic and formal fallacy? That's how you say, I don't like your common sense. Did he just create a new informal logic and formal fallacy? Sounds like word salad a little bit. And then the tweet goes on. From Matthew Podzas, the Moral Butterfly effect. Everything in history is amoral because it's possible. We wouldn't exist if it didn't exist. It's just word salad. I mean, people are going nuts because they really don't have any logical argument. Here's Ney Eritre says this is the very reason why one should at least attend college. Oh, so the problem is not the argument. The problem is that the person who made it didn't go to college. That's the argument. How about here's what's wrong with your argument. Wouldn't that be cool? Matt Walsh has never attended college but provides comments on anything and everything. Really? Do you think the person who wrote this would be willing to defend, just sort of in general, that people who didn't go to college shouldn't have opinions on Twitter? Do you think that that's some. Would they stick with that opinion if you removed it from Matt Walsh? I don't think so. These are people who are literally just in cognitive dissonance or they're just going crazy. I don't know what it is, but they're not arguing his point whatsoever. All right. Do you know why they can't argue his point? There is no argument against it. There isn't one. I've got a kill shot coming that you're going to love. Don't tune out yet. You want to stay tuned for this. All right, let me explain why Matt Walsh's comparison is correct. And I'm going to compare it to the current way it's done. Now, I did go to college and the classes I took very much taught me how to make the correct kind of economic comparisons. Here's the correct kind. The thing you did or the thing that happened compared to what would have happened if that thing didn't happen. So far, you with me, you compare what did happen to what could have happened. Correct, everybody. That's a logical comparison, what you did actually do to what probably would have happened if he hadn't done it. That makes sense. Right? And that's what Matt Walsh is recommending. Look at the people today. Compare them to the people who did not have this holocaust of slavery. How are they doing? That's the correct comparison. People who have degrees in economics and MBAs would agree with me. People who have degrees in art history would say, that's totally wrong. It's because they would not be trained in this technique. Let me tell you how it's currently being done. Nobody's ever told you this before. This will be the first time you've ever heard this. The current way reparations are done is comparing a black person in America today to what would have happened if they'd been white. I'm pausing for effect. Do you feel it? That's what they're doing. They're comparing a black person today as if one of their options had been to turn white. It was never an option to turn white. It wasn't a path that could have happened under any scenario. But the current way, they calculate the economic part of reparations. And again, I will acknowledge that reparations can have a psychic psychological effect. That's a separate argument, but a good one. I don't discount that. Did that just make your brain just spin in his head? That's actually what they're doing right in front of you. They're comparing a black man in America to. Well, the alternative would have been if he'd been white. I don't believe there was a single slave who got that option. All right, slaves, you're all freed. Some of you might want to be white. Just fill out this form. Your life will be awesome from now on. Believe me. You're on the fast track now. Now just think about that. Matt Walsh said, compare the people who went through, you know, were the product of that experience to people who didn't have the experience. Logical common sense. Correct. According to people who went to college to study this very thing. But instead, every politician that I'm aware of, every pundit, every other person who's talked about this, as far as I know, has missed this simple fact. Black people never had an option to be white. You don't compare two things where one happened and one was impossible. Right now you could argue, oh, it was almost impossible not to have slavery. No, you don't get that, because there were people who were not slaves. As long as you have the control group, you're done. Now, how many of you are just having a moment about this? What? Do you realize that they literally are comparing black people today to black people who could have just turned white and had a better experience? Now, I'm adding a little bit of hyperbole to this. I think you recognize it. But that is the comparison. They're saying, black people aren't doing so well. White people are doing better. Give us money. You didn't have the option. I'm not saying that's fair. But it's not how you calculate reparations. You don't calculate it as if you'd been a different color. Doesn't work that way. All right. Vivek Ramaswamy continues to be awesome in his messaging and reframing. When I grew up, actually, when I worked at Pacific Bell, employees had to sign a form that says, we agreed that diversity is a strength. You actually had to sign the form, and I refused to sign the form. I think I'm the only one in the company who refused to sign it. I refused to sign it. Not because it wasn't true, not because it wasn't true, but because there was no evidence. I said, how can I confirm this is true? Do you have a study? This is based on what? Because it might be true. And by the way, I think it's probably true. I think diversity is a strength. Now, like everything else, you could go too far, and then it's not. But I'm 100% convinced that having varied personalities and varied opinions gives the company better vision, better vision on the audience. So certainly in a whole bunch of ways that are good for society, you want everybody to feel they have a chance. You want everybody to have equal opportunity and all that. But generally speaking, it is not a true statement to say diversity is always good or always bad. It kind of depends, right? The right amount good, the wrong amount bad. But I didn't think it was just an obvious universal truth to say it's good without some evidence. So I refused to sign it at the risk of being fired. What do you think happened? Oh, we just lost all the comments on Locals. Looks like it's having a moment here. I might have to reboot this. Well, I don't know if Locals can hear me, so I'm going to quit this and restart. I don't know if this works. Give me a moment. No, looks like Locals is dead. Well, probably will be. People be streaming in, my guess. Oh, we're back. Hey, there you are. All right, we got comments back. All good. Where was I? All right, so Vivek Ramaswamy gave a speech. He said, diversity is not our strength. Oh, by the way, to finish my story, when I refused to sign the document, this was in the 80s to say diversity is a strength, not because it wasn't, but because I didn't have any evidence. I'm no expert. Why am I certifying this thing that I have no evidence about? So I didn't sign it at the risk of being fired. So my entire career, because it was a requirement. It wasn't optional. You had to sign it and they just said, all right, I didn't have to sign it. So I'm the only one in the company who didn't sign it. So if you think that the first time I ever took a chance of getting canceled was a few weeks ago, you're wrong. It's probably the third or fourth time, maybe the tenth time. I also. Just a little background, in case you haven't heard this story. Back when smoking was still legal inside in the office, I also risked my career to make that stop, and they ended up changing the policy instead of firing me. So I do have a history of putting my entire career on the line when there's a point I think I'm just not willing to let go of. So it's a pattern. It didn't just come out of nowhere. Anyway, so Vivek says, diversity is not our strength. Our strength is what unifies us across our diversity. Without that, we're just lost in the desert. I love that. Have I told you how good he is at communicating? My God, that's just perfect. Yes. So he's allowing that. Diversity is more like, I think we should stop saying diversity is a strength or a weakness or anything else. Here's what we should say. Diversity exists. That's it. We're well beyond the point where we should be arguing about whether it's good or bad. How does that make sense? It's like arguing whether oxygen is good or bad. Well, there just is oxygen. Well, I suppose oxygen is good. Let me come up with a better example. It's like arguing whether that one cloud in the sky, just the one. That one cloud in the sky is good or bad. Well, it just is. There's nothing you can do about it. It is there. So diversity just exists. Arguing about whether it's a strength or a weakness is a waste of time. But talking about what unifies us is definitely worth doing because we're short on unity. So I love the fact that without throwing away diversity like it doesn't exist, he's just saying we need to look at what unifies us instead of what divides us. And that's exactly what I want to hear from my presidential candidates. All right, I think this next story is real, but it doesn't sound real. Can somebody tell me if this is real? That trans activist Dylan Mulvaney is. Her face is on the new Bud Light beer that Budweiser made a beer with trans activist on it. Dylan Mulvaney apparently celebrating girlhood. Now here's my comment on that. Don't you wonder how the internal conversations went? Do you wonder if there's a DEI unit in Budweiser? Let me think. I wonder if Budweiser has one of those diversity, equity and inclusion groups. Well, let's look at their products lately. Oh, yes, they do. Yes, they do. Now, I don't know if you've noticed, but the normal way a corporation works is there's something called a CEO. And then a lot of people have different opinions about stuff, but the CEO makes the decision. Would you agree? Traditionally, that's the way it worked. Do you think the CEO made this decision? Maybe. Right. I'm not a mind reader. I'm not a mind reader. So I don't know. But here's my Dilbert filter on this. Here's what almost perfectly certainly happened. Hey, the DEI people say we need to show more inclusion. And here's a perfect way to do it. We'll put, you know, Dylan, Dylan on the Bud Light. What do you think the CEO said? I'd like to do my impression. I don't know who the CEO is. My impression of the CEO in the meeting where that was presented to him. If you're listening on a podcast, I just did a hilarious face of somebody stunned into silence. I cannot believe there's no part of my brain that says that the CEO was thinking, yes, yes, that I knew we needed to do something. And until you suggested putting trans activist Dylan Mulvaney on our beer cans, which are almost the most male oriented product in the entire world, that's not literally a tool that you'd put in a toolbox or maybe a really jacked up truck, but those would be the three most male oriented brands in all of the world. Budweiser. Do you think that the CEO said, yeah, I think we should be bending a little bit more in this direction? I don't think so. I think the CEO said, oh, shit, I can't say no to this. Right, because the CEO would get canceled. The CEO is not the decision maker on this stuff. Now the CEO might be a decision maker on other stuff, operations stuff, but in terms of how the company was going to present itself, I'll bet it wasn't the CEO. I'll bet it wasn't. But the CEO said, I can't say no to this. And that put the least trained people in the company, in all likelihood. Do you put the most qualified people, do you put them in charge of your DEI unit? The answer is no. You put your least qualified people there because you think if you wanted an engineer, you'd want a highly qualified person. But somebody complaining about inclusivity, that doesn't take a lot of skill set. So we'll put them there. So we've managed to create a system in which a highly qualified CEO is no longer in charge of the company's big decisions. Not all of them, but this was a big decision. What face you put on your product, that's a big decision. And I don't think the CEO was in charge. What do you think? Do you think the CEO would have made this decision without it being brought to him with a little bit of pressure? Of course not. There's no, no, no CEO would have done that. Do you know why? Because people have a bias against trans. Why would you put on your product something that, you know, 40% of your likely buyers would have a reaction to it that wasn't positive. Now, I'm not defending those 40%. I think people should be more open minded and I think adults should be able to do whatever the heck they want. And that includes Dylan Mulvaney, who I'm perfectly happy. I have no complaints with Dylan Mulvaney, by the way, in terms of the lifestyle Dylan wants to live. Fine with me. But if you put it on a beer can, you're in the realm of economics. And I'm not sure this fit is fitting as well as it should. All right, so here's my take on that, on Vivek's comment, as well as the Dylan Mulvaney thing. I think diversity has many benefits and they're Real. But you can't make it your operating system. You get that it can't be your go to operating system. The wokeness and the diversity. It has to be just an important factor that competes with the other important factors. As soon as you make it your core operating system, you're dead. That's the end of your efficiency. You'll have to bow to other forces. Well, DeSantis continues his unbroken pattern of doing awesome state things. That is a great way to run for president without running for president. All right, here's the latest. And this goes in the category of free money. Free money. It was laying there on the table for every state. So every state could have done this. Well, only the Republican states could have done it, but only he did it. And we keep seeing this pattern. It's like, wait a minute. You can do that. That sounds like a good idea. You can do that. And the other states didn't do it. It's impossible not to notice how many things DeSantis does that other people should have thought of or other people should have done. And for some reason they didn't. And he just does it. It's a super strong technique. Here's the latest. Apparently he's going to sign a bill that's going through the Florida legislature that is going to ban DEI in Florida universities. Could you imagine anything more popular with his base? Who are the ones who matter if he's going to run for president? That's like the most simplest, free money baller, strong leader that just has everything. That's a home run right there. Home run. So let me say this. I don't believe DeSantis is this smart. He is very smart. Very, very smart. But this smart suggests an advisor. Do you agree that this looks like there's an advisor who's really, really good at advising? Like, really, really good at advising. That's what it looks like. No, it's not me. It's not me. It could be somebody I've influenced, but it's not me. I've never had any direct or indirect contact with DeSantis. I have no connection. But I'm a fan. Let me tell you, I'm a fan of this style of politics. It's just really strong. So he's looking to abolish the DEI bureaucracy. I have a question, though. If he can abolish DEI in universities because the government has some control over them, would it be impossible or illegal or unconstitutional if he did the same thing for companies operating in Florida, what do you think? Is that legal? Or maybe it's impractical because companies tend to operate across states. You say it's illegal. I'm assuming it's illegal or else he would have done it. Right. But states. States can pass laws about how companies operate in their state. That's routine. They do it all the time. It feels legal to me, but I don't know why he's not doing it, so I'm sure he's looked into it. It's illegal for private companies. Why would it be? The state can make private companies do all kinds of things, can't they? They can tax them. They can put requirements on them. Why would that be different? Huh? Yeah. So I'll just say it's an open question. I would say that he could do it. That's my guess. Yeah. Ban everything you don't like, Governor. Well, a governor should ban everything they don't like. That's why you hire them. They should ban everything they don't like. That's the job. Ban everything you don't like and then promote things you like. That's the job. All right, see what else is going on? Oh, here's one of my favorite ones. Oh, it should say that DeSantis also renamed Dei. So, you know, the last few days, I've been saying that it's not persuasive to just come up with alternate words that the acronym refers to instead of saying oh. DEI is diversity, equity, and Inclusion. If you're a critic of it, you might say that those letters mean three different things. I've been saying that's not persuasive. It's clever, but it's not persuasive. Well, Desantis just did it. Desantis just did that. He said DEI stands for division, Exclusion, and indoctrination, and that has no part in our public institutions. Now, let me. Let me clarify. Or you could say I'm admitting I was wrong. Okay, you could have it either way. When a candidate for president does works, do you see the difference? If you and I did it, but no candidate for president was doing it, it wouldn't have any power. It's because he said it and because who he is that infuses the power. The reason I saw it is because he said it. If you say it on Twitter. Thank you, John. I appreciate that. So, anyway, yeah, if Trump had said this, it would have been super persuasive. Desantis saying it, and I should have picked up on this. So this is on me. I should have told you that if somebody famous says it, it's different. And not just famous. It wouldn't matter if I said it right. Do you get that? If I said it, no power whatsoever. Desantis saying it. Well, we'll see. We'll see. It gets quoted a lot. Maybe people will pick it up. If. If Trump had said something along those lines, I think people would have picked it up. Yeah. All right. But on Twitter, Marty Blorfast had this update for CRT calling it Creating Racial tension. Crt. Creating racial tension. That's pretty good. That's pretty good. And I wondered if there's a persuasion play in which you try to convince people that's actually what it means. You know, if this were not 2023, I'd say, well, that's a stupid idea. You're not going to convince people that your public school system, for example, is teaching a class on creating racial tension. You're never going to convince anybody that's real. But in 2023, you could. You could actually convince probably 40% of the public just by repetition. I'll bet you could get 40% of the public to believe that's what it stands for in the real world, that that's what it stands for. 40% of the public. That's my estimate. Why? Because 40% of the public can be convinced of anything if you try hard enough. I mean, it's a low estimate. It just depends how much you repeat it. If you repeated it enough, 80% of the public would think that's what it meant, even people who used to like it. Now, I doubt that could be repeated enough to get to the level I'm talking about. But if it were repeated enough, it would convince 40% of the public, or more. But that's what it meant. All right, favorite story of the day. This is just my personal favorite. The Washington Post has been fact checked a couple times on Twitter, and I love that Twitter's now adding the context or community notes. So if you tweet something that's factually wrong, Twitter will automatically append the correction to your tweet. Now, I live life in fear that that's going to happen to one of my tweets. If it does, I'm getting rid of that tweet right away. I'm deleting that tweet right away because that's pretty embarrassing. If they're attaching it right to your tweet, that's embarrassing. So Glenn Kessler, who works for the Washington Post, he tweets this new fact checker, he says, and it's based on an article in the Washington Post, he says the incendiary claim that George Soros funds Alvin Bragg. So he's basically saying that that's not true, that George Soros funded Ellen Bragg. Not true. He says. And this is the Washington Post. Oh, by the way, the Washington Post is who canceled me. Everybody else canceled me. Mostly because they did first. Yeah, the Washington Post canceled me because they couldn't tell the difference between a Rupar video and a real one. And in other words, I got canceled for fake news. Not that I didn't say the thing I said. But the context was wrong. The context was wrong. Here's the correct context. If the Washington Post had not been a disreputable lying rag, here's what they would have said. Cartoonist says something really offensive. But what did they say? Racist rant. What was their evidence that it was racist? There's plenty of evidence that it was offensive. That was offensive. Intentionally offensive was a fact, Right? Offensive is a fact. What is racist? Racist assumes they know what I'm thinking, what the context is, and why I did it. If they knew all those things and they conformed to that view that it's a racist rant, well, then they'd have something that would be a legitimate story. But they never asked me what I was thinking. They never asked about the context. They just played the video. That's a Rupar. Do you think it's a coincidence that I'm the most famous person on the Internet for outing Rupar videos such as the the Covington kids. Fine. People hoax, the drinking bleach hoax. They're all the same. It's stuff people really said. But as soon as you take it out of context, it changes form. So the Washington Post is a fake news entity that I've been slamming for fake news for years. Did the Washington Post tell you that I'm one of its biggest public critics when they canceled me? Does that feel like important context? Oh, we decided to take the comic out of our newspaper for what he said. And you leave out the fact. Leave out the fact. I'm one of the most prominent critics of their newspaper and have been for years. In public, not privately. In public. I've been criticizing the people who paid me. In public, routinely. I did it all the time. So, yes, Washington Post is a entity that is largely in the political stuff. Is fake news mostly fake news? I'd say. Now, that doesn't mean some of the stuff isn't true. It just means the way they package it is intentional fake news. And it's pretty obvious. Now I say intentional even though I can't read minds, but I don't think there's much question. So here's the context. Note that Twitter automatically added to Glenn Kessler's tweet, says readers added context, blah, blah. Soros donated 1 million to the Color of Change PAC, the largest individual donation it received in the 2022 election cycle, days after it endorsed Bragg for district attorney and pledged more than a million dollars in spending to support his candidacy. How much do you love that? Elon Musk spent $44 billion to wrestle Twitter into a legitimate platform, and he did it so successfully that it just fact checked the Washington Post. Ass. Standing ovation. This is for Elon Musk for giving us the semblance of free speech and less fake news. Standing ovation. That was worth $44 billion right there. Not just this tweet, but the fact that he's added these context notes to clearly intentional fake news. I mean, this is clearly intentional fake news. So much is intentional. So good for you, Elon Musk. So you know the story about the New York Times said they won't pay to be verified. I guess companies would have to pay you $1,000 a month or something, but still affordable. Now you understand, don't you? Do you understand why the New York Times doesn't want to be verified on Twitter? Because Twitter will be calling them out for fake news. There's no way around it because the New York Times is also a purveyor of fake news quite routinely. And now the community knows it's going to be calling their tweets out as bullshit. So they would have to pay $1,000 a month to be pilloried and shamed on Twitter. And they're thinking, well, if we're going to get pilloried and shamed, maybe we don't want to pay for it. And maybe people are going to read the New York Times no matter what. I think the New York Times is going to get almost as much attention whether they're verified or not. But I can kind of understand why they wouldn't want to pay. And I imagine that entities that don't worry about being called down for fake news, I think they'll just pay because they'll be like, oh, we like more visibility. That would be good. I'll pay for that. And the ones who don't want more visibility, where they get fact checked, are like, oh, I don't think that's worth paying for. Oh, no, I don't think the New York Times and Washington Post are going to benefit from more Visibility on Twitter, because that visibility is going to be connected to fact checks under fake news. Here's an argument I saw. I was testing my reframe that the opposite of woke is authentic. So one of the ways I can test a different way of looking at something is I tweet it. And if I get a lot of reviews, that means other people liked it. So when I tweeted the opposite of woke is authentic, I got over 200,000 views, which is quite high, Quite high. So it suggests there's something there. But I think there's a better. There's a better twist on this, and I'm going to give it to you in a moment. But first, a comment from Riley Whitelum, which is a weird name for a white guy. White lum. He's describing. He says they woke, which is actually pronounced W O, H, K, I guess that's the way you pronounce it is an adjective derived from African American vernacular English, meaning quote, alert to racial prejudice and discrimination. And then he says, y' all projecting, meaning me. The literal antonym to woke is ignorant. Okay. Yeah. So I guess he got that from Wikipedia. So got me good there. But here's my update. Instead of saying that woke is the opposite of authentic, here's a better reframe. You ready for this? Just clear your mind and imagine you heard this in the wild for the first time. That woke is a performance, not an opinion. Woke is a performance, not an opinion. Now, remember all the comments to Matt Walsh's points about reparation and how to calculate them. When I read you back the comments, couldn't you see that those were performances? Those were performances. Woke is about how you perform. So do you think that the CEO of Budweiser agreed that putting Dylan Mulvaney on the can would sell more beer? Do you think they thought, oh, this will sell some beer? Or do you think that the CEO said in a performance. In a performance? Yeah. Yeah. Damn straight. We need more inclusivity on our cans. Let's get Dylan Mulvaney on the phone. I'll call her. Can you? I'll call her myself. Oh, I'm so into this idea. I'm so into this. Can we get her in here today? Can somebody get here in here today? Let's get on this. It's performance, and it's mostly white people performing, so they'll get, you know, pat on the back. It's like, oh, good boy. Good. Good job. Good job. That's just the way we wanted you to act. Like, perform. I'm more Woke than you are. Performance. Now, now that you've heard that, reframe for the first time. Watch how often it pops into your head, because the next time you see somebody woke, you're going to say, is that their real opinion, really? Or is this more about the performance you're putting on? Take the 60 Minute story I told you about, Marjorie Taylor Greene. The people who are tweeting that they want to boycott it in 60 minutes is dead to us. Do you think they care? Do you think that they watch 60 Minutes every day? Almost nobody does. What percentage of the country even watches 60 Minutes or even watches the news? 5%? 5%? Maybe, but. So these people who I'm sure probably don't even watch 60 Minutes, are telling you in their tweets, look at me, look at me. I love wokeness so much that I won't even watch 60 Minutes. It's not an opinion, it's a performance. Do you feel that? Let me just check in with you. You feel it? It's a performance. And here's why this is useful. If you get into an argument with somebody and you treat them like they have an argument, it would be like having an argument with the people commenting to Matt Walsh's tweets. They're not in it for the argument, they're in it for the performance. They only need to show the other people who are watching the performance that they went at you hard. That's all. They don't have to show their argument is good. They only have to show they went at you hard. That's it. Performance. So I would dismiss the woke as performative. It's like, performance accepted. Very good. If you'd like to be part of the conversation about what works and what doesn't work, that would be great. But if you're just going to perform, I'll watch the performance, I'll grade it. I'll give you a grade. I might even recommend it. If it's a good performance, I'll retweet it. But let's not confuse your performance with anything that's real or useful. Performance accepted. There you go. Performance accepted. Nice. Yeah. Or polite applause. Very good. Nice. Very good. Woke performance. All right, so we'll try out that reframe. 60 minutes is the new Lawrence Welk. You have to be a certain age to understand that. And I do. And I do. You want to hear something that will alarm you if you're under a certain age? All right. When I was a kid, there were so few channels on television. Basically three and two of them didn't work so well because we had rabbit ears that lived in the country. So we basically had one good channel and one you could watch. Okay. And one that you couldn't really watch. And the one you could watch, okay. Had this Lawrence Welk show, which was this old, boring big band, you know, with a band leader. And I would actually sometimes watch that. You can imagine a child watching the big band. We. Not. Not fun. But there was just nothing else to do. There was no other form of entertainment during that hour. And you'd be like, I guess. I guess I'm watching Lawrence Walt now. And I would actually be in the room when it was on. Yeah, that's how terrible things were before smartphones. Terrible. Terrible. All right. Apparently you could all see and hear me on Locals when the chat disappeared. So you didn't lose any. Didn't lose anything, I guess. All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the completion of the best live stream you've ever seen. Now, Locals subscribers are going to get a little extra, but I'm going to say say Goodbye to the YouTube folks. Thanks for joining. Always a pleasure. Best live stream ever.