Episode 89 - Compare the “Racist Dog Whistle” Filter to “If All You Have is a Hammer”

Date: 2018-06-14 | Duration: 24:01

Topics

Humans haven’t evolved enough (yet) to understand base reality Our best tool for understanding, is a predictive reality filter The dominant filter for the left is the “silent dog whistle” Anybody can back-fit the past into any filter Does your reality filter correctly predict the future, how often? Possible Presidential pardon for Dinesh D’Sousa Possible Presidential pardon for Grandmother Alice Johnson (Kim K. meeting with Trump) Israel positions that President Trump has taken Prison reform Roseanne tweets

Transcript

[0:00]

[Music] Ba-da-pom-pom-pom. Yes, back again and this time with coffee. It’s a little bit late in the day, but is it the wrong time for a coffee? Never. Sometimes decaf, but never a bad time. And so, if you have a beverage of any type, join me for the simultaneous sip. Oh, that’s some good stuff. So, let me give you a little background before I give you a little whiteboard talk on a fascinating topic—you’re going to love it. As you know, I have been writing and Periscoping and tweeting about the fact that humans have not evolved to the point where we can understand base reality. We know there is a base reality because I exist to ask the question.

[1:02]

Because I exist to ask the question, even if all of you are imaginary, there’s something there because I exist to wonder whether you’re there. But in the same way that a dog might think it understands reality, it doesn’t know it’s on a planet that’s hurling through the universe. It really doesn’t know much about reality, but it probably thinks it does—thinks it knows enough. Snails don’t need to know anything about reality, but they can reproduce; they do fine. Plants don’t know anything about reality, but they can reproduce. Evolution only requires us to reproduce; it does not make us—we don’t need to understand reality. And indeed, prior generations of humans, we can see, were primitive, magical-thinking people who didn’t understand reality. But we believe irrationally that we were lucky to be born in the time when we figured it all out. That didn’t happen. It might have happened; let’s be honest, you might have gotten lucky.

[2:04]

After 15 billion years, your little life happens at exactly the time that humans had evolved to the point where finally they can understand reality? Maybe not likely. All right, so with that background, I talk instead about filters on reality—a way to understand your reality that either works for you or doesn’t. That’s about as close as you can get. And the best way to understand if it works is if your filter predicts. So, if you’ve got a filter on reality that says, “If this is true, the next thing we should see is this,” and then that happens, you say, “Ah, my filter worked.” And if you’re sure you see the reality the way it is, but every time you predict something it doesn’t happen, your filter probably needs some work. So, I’m going to compare two popular filters on reality about politics. Let’s just see which one

[3:05]

predicts better or has predicted better. For example, the “silent dog whistle” theory says that President Trump and many of his followers are sending secret dog whistles—wink wink, we’re really racist, don’t tell anybody—and that the reason President Trump does this, so goes this filter, is that he doesn’t want to lose his racist supporters, so he’s sending them secret signals: “I am one of you; I’m a racist.” Compare that filter—and by the way, that’s on the Left, the people who are anti-Trump, this is the dominant filter by far; that’s how they see the world. Let’s compare this to a filter I’ll call “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” I’m using this because it’s funnier than saying “confirmation bias.” That’s just too wordy. So, we’ll say: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like

[4:06]

a nail. Under this filter, the people who have this point of view are interpreting things through a racial filter and seeing more of it than might actually be there. Again, I’m not saying which one of these is true because I don’t understand reality; we’re only going to track which one of them does a better job of predicting. Let me give you an example—and by the way, I’m only going to be predicting, so this is “fake” predicting because I’m going to be talking about things that already happened and it’s easy to fit things to the past. So, don’t take too much out of this for my back-fitting of data. Anybody can do that with all kinds of hypotheses. You can always prove, “Oh, in the past that made sense.” It’s whether you can actually predict the future. Those of you who have been watching me have watched me predict the future, President Trump on North Korea at least so far, and a bunch of other things. Let’s take a few

[5:08]

topics. The silent dog whistle would say that the President will not do anything that violates his sort of racist secret signals to his racist supporters. Let’s take the topic of Jack Johnson. Do I have the name right this time? Jack Johnson’s posthumous pardon. Would someone who is trying to send a secret racist signal to his supporters give a pardon to someone who wasn’t terribly important in the current day? Would that make sense in that filter? It would not, because even if you thought, “Oh, he’s just doing this for political reasons,” that doesn’t fit the filter, because the filter is: he’s doing things for political reasons that the racists will clearly see that he’s on

[6:09]

their side. So, this would be opposite of this filter, so it didn’t work in this case. But the theory this has—and I’ll blow this out a little bit—that President Trump is someone who doesn’t like political correctness but he’s not a racist. It’s just that you see things in that light because the media, etc., have caused that to happen. Through this theory, he would give a pardon to Jack Johnson. I always get Joe Jackson and Jack Johnson—those names are just too many J’s for me to process. But this filter says, “Of course he would.” Today we hear in the news that he’s considering a pardon—or maybe he’s already done it—for Dinesh D’Souza, who is, if you haven’t noticed, a little bit brown. Now, there’s a situation where people are even saying, “Hey, we’re not sure that this makes sense as

[7:10]

a pardon” on the legal merits of it. I don’t know the details, so I don’t know if it does or doesn’t make sense. What we can say for sure is that he didn’t need to do it. President Trump didn’t need to even consider that pardon, but he did. So, the silent racist dog whistle fails again because, remember, even if you’re saying, “Oh, he’s just doing this for appearances,” the whole filter says he doesn’t do things for appearances, that he’s sending a clear message. And so, it fails the second time. We saw that Kim Kardashian, who you may know is married to a very famous African-American man named Kanye West—both of them get along, apparently, with President Trump. The filter fails because if Kanye can’t sniff out a racist, who can, really? I mean, his filter is set for seeing things in an interracial way. He knows the

[8:11]

President personally, has met with him, etc., and he’s not detecting it. So, the filter fails again. Kim Kardashian was apparently going to talk about an African-American grandmother in jail for some kind of drug charge that wasn’t that serious and considering her for a pardon. Now, I don’t know if that decision has been made, but the silent racist dog filter would say, “No, that pardon will never happen.” This filter says, “Well, it could. You never know.” You never know if that would be clemency, not a pardon. Somebody say, “Okay, you don’t know if a pardon is not granted for just the legal reasons.” It doesn’t quite work. Not everybody gets a pardon, but that’s why you’d look at all of it. Now, let’s take a look at Israel. This filter

[9:12]

says that President Trump sided with the marchers in Charlottesville who were chanting anti-Jewish slogans. So, this filter says, “Ha, he must be one of them.” But then he moves the embassy to Jerusalem. Israel is putting up signs praising him. Netanyahu likes him. None of that makes sense if he’s actually somehow anti-Jewish, but it makes perfect sense with this filter. President Trump is famously—you know that Jared’s one of his big projects is prison reform. Now, we can all argue about what’s the right way to do it, but the basic idea for prison reform is that people would earn early release by taking classes, learning a skill, something that would make them

[10:12]

more valuable on the outside. Now, would a racist work on something that is far and away more helpful for the black and minority community because they have higher populations in jail? Well, maybe, but it doesn’t quite fit perfectly. But this filter fits perfectly. If you’re keeping track, this filter kind of works for everything so far. Now, let’s switch over to Roseanne. Roseanne famously made two references that we know of to ape/monkey things, and both of those references—again, that we know of—were involved with women who had at least some amount of African-American blood. Now, that perfectly fits the silent

[11:13]

racist dog whistle, not in terms of the President, but here we’re talking about Roseanne as a vocal supporter. So, that fits. But here’s the evidence you would want to look for to make sure that you are right about that. Here’s what you’d look for. The first thing you say to yourself is: do white people see this the same way as black people? I would guess there’s something like 100% of black people would see any reference to monkeys or apes as a red flag, red flag, instantly recognized. Probably close to 100%, I would think—maybe not 100% because nothing’s 100%, but 95%, 98%. If you did the same poll of white people, would they have the same response, or would some of them have an awareness gap? Is there

[12:17]

just sort of a reason that white people don’t see it the way… let me give you a few examples. When I was in school, there was a kid in my class. He was white, and his nickname was Monkey because he looked like a monkey. And he was as white as you could possibly be, but he had big ears and sort of monkey features. And let me continue. It is also true—and fact-check me on this—that white people often call children “little monkeys.” They call white children, their own children, “Hey, you little monkey, you get off me, you little monkey.” It is a common white person thing to call other white people monkeys. Now, have any of you ever seen a white person—or maybe you

[13:18]

did it yourself—who referred to another white person, because they were big, as a gorilla? Did you ever say, “Oh man, that guy…”—another white guy—“…he’s just the size of a gorilla”? I know I have. There was a science teacher when I went to school whose physicality was sort of bent over and he had these enormous ape-like arms, and everybody referred to him as having monkey arms and being monkey-like. Now, let me give you another example that I wanted to wait a few days before I broke this one out. I was doing a live radio interview about a week before, or just few days before Roseanne’s problems. Between the time President Trump got hit with the fake news that he was calling immigrants animals—

[14:19]

and it came out he was really talking about MS-13—between that scandal and the story about Roseanne, I did this live radio interview and I was talking about North Korea. I said the following about President Xi of China: “Well, President Xi, maybe injecting himself in the process, talking to Kim Jong Un because President Xi wants to make sure everybody knows that he’s the big gorilla in that part of the world.” The moment it came out of my mouth, the interview started to go on and I said, “Hold on, hold on, stop everything, back up. Let me rephrase that.” Because I realize we live in a world in which any kind of animal references to humans are taken out of context now. So, I backed up and I said, “Okay, what I meant to say…”—and I swear to God I did this in

[15:19]

my mind—I thought, “I’ll change that to ‘he’s the big dog in that neighborhood,’” and I realized, “Okay, that’s just another animal. I’ve done it again.” So, I think I changed it to something like, “He’s the most important player in that part of the world.” Now, if you had heard me say that out of context—if the only thing you’d heard me say is “President Xi is the big gorilla over there”—sounded kind of racist, didn’t it? If this was your filter out in the world, you’d say, “Scott, that’s not a coincidence that you called a guy who’s Chinese a gorilla,” even though I have the advantage of knowing what was in my head, and not once did anything remotely like that come into my thinking. I refer to people as the “big gorilla in the room” because gorilla is sort of the better animal for that. It’s not like the “big elephant in the room”—that’s used for

[16:20]

things you don’t notice. It’s not like the “lion in the room”—people don’t really say that. “The big gorilla in the room” is just sort of the phrase, so I used it. And immediately I was like, “Whoa, I realized that could get me in trouble,” so I called it back when there was still time to do that. So, this filter has to ask itself: has Roseanne ever called white people monkeys or gorillas? Has she called her grandchildren, who—she has at least one grandchild who is black, I think—but has she ever called her white grandchildren monkeys, like, “Get off of me, you’re climbing on me like a monkey”? If you don’t know that, it’s harder to judge this situation. It’s possible that when she looked at these two women that she insulted—Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett—this filter says

[17:21]

she looked at them and she thought “monkey” right away. But here’s the problem: again, if you were going to call, let’s say, if you were a racist and you were going to call somebody who was black a monkey, would you do it with those two individuals? You look at a picture of either of them and forget about the race part—these are two people who couldn’t look less like monkeys in terms of their features. It wouldn’t be the go-to for either of them. So, it doesn’t quite fit that of all the people you’re going to call a monkey, you would pick somebody who has the least physicality and is not even close to the white kid in my class who sort of looked like a monkey. If somebody’s saying, “Oh man, this is going to be taken out of context,” yes, it is. That’s why some of these things I do on video, because in

[18:22]

writing, things are taken out of context too easily. It’s harder for people to do that with a video. So, I do it on video for that reason. Here’s my proposition to all of you. This came to me because I saw a tweet from Seth Abramson who said, “This is just what I predicted. I predicted that President Trump would not condemn Roseanne for her comments.” And I tweeted something mocking that point of view, but the more I thought of it, I thought, “You know, that’s halfway true. That’s halfway good,” meaning that he was saying, “I have a theory of the world, I made a prediction, and then I checked to see if my prediction was right.” And it was right. So far, that’s good thinking. So, I don’t want to over-mock somebody who was well on

[19:23]

the way to doing the correct mental process. But I would argue that it’s incomplete because there was at least one other theory that also predicts that he would not say anything about Roseanne, which is: he always supports the people who support him. He doesn’t go after them, and he doesn’t care about political correctness. And he’s not big on apologizing. So, this filter works perfectly, but so did Seth Abramson’s filter. It’s just that you have to recognize the other one worked as well. And if you can’t figure out from this one scenario which is the truth, at least you can look at a number of scenarios and say, “Does this track? Does it make sense that President Trump would be working on urban redevelopment if he was a racist?” And I think the

[20:24]

team is either very diverse or has more African-American members—I think I’ve just seen pictures. Would that make sense for him in any way if he were the racist? It wouldn’t. But it would certainly make sense on this filter. So, there’s the filter. Let me summarize by saying I cannot tell you which filter is reality because people can’t do that. We’re just not… we didn’t evolve to know reality. We can keep our eyes open. Forget about what you’ve seen so far; make me a prediction. Here are a few more predictions. There have been a number of times President Trump has been accused of saying something that people took as racial. In each case, when he was asked to confirm or clarify, he clarified this way every time. So, every time there was something that was taken more than one way, he never clarified

[21:26]

this way. He always clarified that: “Now, don’t be too politically correct. I’m not saying what you think I’m saying; this is what I meant.” So, here’s my prediction. My prediction is that this filter will not predict anything that this one doesn’t also predict, but this one will predict lots of stuff that this one doesn’t. So, that’s my prediction. You have something now that you can look to the future. Forget about back-fitting to the past. Everything I’ve told you so far you can discount because it’s easy to explain things to the past. Just watch your predictions and see how well they come out. Let me see your comments and let me know how this one went. People liking this?

[22:32]

Good. Somebody says I should drink bleach. I’m guessing that whoever said I should drink bleach, you might be in this filter. Now, keep in mind, I’m not telling you your filter is wrong because I don’t know. I just don’t think people have the ability to say, “Mine’s right and yours is wrong.” All we can do is see which one predicts. And if you have counter-examples, you should absolutely mention them, and this would be a good time to do it. If anybody has an example where this filter worked and this one didn’t, or at least the common explanation of life didn’t work, let me know. Somebody says I sound like Woody Allen. Well, that’s not exactly the look I was

[23:33]

going for, but yeah. All right, looks good. Looks like people enjoyed this, we got something out of it. So, I think I’ll just keep it there, go back to do some other stuff. Thank you so much for joining me.