Episode 230 Scott Adams: James Woods, Rosenstein, Ellison and Kavanaugh
Date: 2018-09-22 | Duration: 53:18
Topics
Chairman Kim is preparing his people for denuclearization James Woods suspension from Twitter for a funny joke Rod Rosenstein’s statement on the NYT article Keith Ellison and emotionally abusive relationships Christine Blasey Ford’s handlers (her lawyers) are framing her badly
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com
## Transcript
## [The Simultaneous Sip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=6s)
It’s Saturday. Is anybody up? I know it's early, it's a weekend, but it's time for you all to get in here so that we can enjoy the ultimate thrill that's called Coffee with Scott Adams. To participate, you'll need some kind of a vessel that holds the liquid. It could be a cup, a mug, a stein, a chalice, but then you must raise it to your lips simultaneously and you must sip with us. Join me now for the simultaneous sip.
Oh yeah, that's the good stuff right there. Tea is allowed. We allow tea.
## [North Korea: Internal Press Preparing for Denuclearization](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=67s)
Let's talk about a few things. I just tweeted an article on the Fox News site that caught my eye. Apparently, the local North Korean press, which typically would be reporting stuff like "our nuclear weapons are our silver sword of greatness" or "our nuclear arsenal is so powerful," has completely changed their tune.
Internal government-controlled press is saying stuff like North Korea is planning to denuclearize and become a "cradle of peace." They've actually said that they want to become a cradle of peace. This is the point: it's their own internal government-controlled press preparing the people of North Korea for denuclearization.
What is the step that Kim Jong-un should do before any serious, actual physical denuclearization? He’s got to prepare his people. He’s got to make sure that his people see this framed as a great victory. In my opinion, this is a great victory. If Kim Jong-un reframes giving up his nukes as a great victory, he’s not lying. That would be as truthful as anything could ever be in this world.
Personally, I think Kim Jong-un should get a Nobel Prize, or shared one, if he keeps going the direction he’s going and they fully denuclearize. Remember, you can't get there without him. He’s not the one who started the North Korean nuclear program. You could argue that whatever Kim Jong-un does is harder, riskier, and braver than anything that anybody else involved is doing, including President Trump.
I know, I know—he’s a dictator who did lots of things that can't be excused. But one of the things that the Nobel Prize tries to do is reward people for moving in the right direction. The Nobel Prize is not about what you used to do; it’s about what you’re doing now. Are you moving in the right direction right now? He is, as far as we can tell.
I see it as a three- or four-way Nobel Prize. I think that would be the best way to do it, assuming everything goes in the right direction. It should be Moon, Kim, Trump, and President Xi, because I don't think you get there without China no matter what.
## [James Woods Suspended for a Meme](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=254s)
Let's talk about James Woods being suspended temporarily from Twitter for a meme. It's a joke meme that he passed around. It shows three twenty-something men with big smiles. I have to describe this so you can get why it's funny. The phrase "beta males" would be somewhat easily associated with the three men in the picture. I’m not saying they are; I’m just saying that the way the picture was taken—the poses, the clothes, the smiles—projects a beta male vibe, which is the heart of the joke.
The caption said they were planning to make the women’s vote more important by not voting. It acted like they were trying to start a movement of Democrat males not voting, because if the men don’t, the women’s vote will be more important. Now, of course, it should be obvious to anybody that if men don’t vote on the Democrat side, the Democrats won't get anything. So it would be stupid as well as submissive behavior.
The joke is that they're being weak in a way that's not even useful to anybody. It doesn't even help the people that they’re surrendering to. It’s hilarious because it’s cruel and insightful. It matches something you had in the back of your head, which was: "What kind of men are Democrats anyway lately?" Historically, Democrats were just like everybody else, but lately, what kind of a man joins the party that doesn't like men? It hits all of those points in your head.
Somebody reminds me it was developed on 4chan. It’s not real. It’s a joke about a movement, and none of it is real. Twitter suspended him for it. The reason given on their official statement is that he was trying to influence the election with fake information.
I love everything about this story. First, in order for that ban to make sense, you have to think that it actually would influence the election. Did this violate Twitter’s stated and quite reasonable Terms of Service? You shouldn't intentionally be making stuff up to influence an American election. That’s a reasonable rule for a private company. They would like a standard in which if somebody just made something up and it could actually influence the election, they would prefer not to be the platform that does that. I’m going to say that’s fair.
Now, determining when someone makes something up versus when they are just wrong can be dicey. That’s why humans are making the decisions, not machines. But the general idea that you don't want Twitter accidentally throwing an election because somebody made a good meme is something I wouldn't want either.
Here’s where I’m going to surprise you: that meme was actually pretty powerful. Even though the claim was transparently ridiculous, would people believe it? Approximately 30% of the world literally doesn't know a joke. I’m not insulting them; it's just that humans are different. In the same way that I have a gene that makes me not good at recognizing musical tones, there are people who don't recognize or appreciate humor.
If a third of the people looked at that meme and thought it was true, could that influence an election? As one who has studied persuasion for decades and is a professional hypnotist, my opinion is yes. That meme was powerful enough that it could move the dial. It would make it harder for a man who did not identify with those three guys in the picture to vote Democrat. An "independent thinker" or an "alpha male" looking at that meme is going to say, "I don't want to be on that team." It looks dumb and weak.
In this specific case, I think Twitter got it right. This was a meme about something that wasn't true and it had the power to influence an election. Twitter followed their own process. A two-day suspension is no big deal. James Woods is not harmed; we’re all talking about him. James Woods lost nothing, and he probably had two good days off.
## [The Real Story of Rod Rosenstein](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=991s)
There’s an interesting angle to the Rod Rosenstein story. I am so lost with all the Feinsteins and Rosensteins—is it ever -stein or as in -steen? Anyway, let's call him Rod. There’s an angle to the story that I haven't seen anybody talk about, and to me, it's by far the most important part.
This is based on the New York Times report that Rosenstein had brainstormed about the 25th Amendment—removing the president from office—and that he talked about wearing a wire. Some people say he was joking; some people think he was serious. As long as there are people who were in the room saying it was a joke, that leans heavily toward it being sarcasm or private talk.
But here’s the important part. Would you say Rosenstein is a friend of the president right now? No. He’s been such a recipient of Trump’s wrath that there’s no way Rosenstein could be personally biased in favor of the president. If he has a bias, it's anti-Trump.
In his denial, he said—and I don't have the exact quote, but it was something like this: "I have never personally had an interaction with the president that would suggest the 25th Amendment is appropriate."
Let that sink in. Rod Rosenstein, a professional, highly regarded, and experienced individual tapped into the administration, has personal contact with the president. He has seen him in action behind closed doors. He doesn't like the president and has every reason to say bad things about him because he’s going to get fired anyway. And what did Rod Rosenstein say? He didn't see any reason to consider the 25th Amendment.
That’s the biggest story. Probably the most credible person in this entire administration for that specific question—because we know he doesn’t have positive feelings about Trump—is not willing to say that he’s seen anything that would suggest the 25th Amendment is appropriate. That was one of the main attacks against the president, and Rosenstein just took a big bite out of it.
## [Keith Ellison and the "Emotional Abuse" Standard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=1361s)
Let's talk about Keith Ellison. The story on the right is that Keith Ellison has more credible accusations against him than Kavanaugh, and people are not taking the Ellison accusations as seriously.
I saw the reproduction of the medical report in which the girlfriend reported "emotional and physical abuse." The report went on to say that there were no physical injuries seen or reported. No physical injuries, just a bad breakup, and the patient tells the doctor there was emotional and physical abuse.
Have I just described 70% of all breakups? "Emotional abuse" is what almost every angry ex says about their partner. Maybe it's true, but it's so baked into the fabric of human interaction that when people have a bad breakup, they often both say the other was emotionally abusive.
How many of you have been in an emotionally abusive relationship? Look at the comments—these are largely men saying "yes." It is shocking how many people routinely describe their relationships that way. So, describing a relationship as emotionally abusive is unfortunately routine. We don't know the facts, but it looks like background noise because most of us have been in that situation and didn't think we needed to get somebody arrested.
According to the medical records, there were no reports of physical injuries, only her talking about it. Now, what does an ex consider physical abuse? I’m not going to excuse any form of physical abuse—nothing I say is an excuse for any kind of physical hands-on. But it is true that if someone grabs someone by the arm or pushes them, that can work in both directions. It’s common for relationships to get physical both ways—a slap, a pulling, grabbing an arm to try to talk them back into the room.
If someone puts hands on someone else in a relationship, no matter which way it went, would that be called physical abuse? Absolutely. It can include physical actions that are not intended to cause actual damage but are threatening by nature.
Is it possible that both Keith Ellison and the accuser at any time put their hands on each other? If you see the polls that say only 5% of Democratic women believe the accuser, I think they’re putting the frame on it that I just did: you need a little bit more than that to get into the "credible zone."
I don't think the Keith Ellison thing is a double standard. These are two situations, Ellison and Kavanaugh, in which there’s enough of a gray area for people to be on both sides. I don’t know what happened in either case. You have to take both accusers seriously, but we will probably never know.
## [Kavanaugh and the Framing by Handlers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=1983s)
Now let's talk about Kavanaugh and the story that nobody wants to say. There’s a reason no one wants to say it—because if you say it, you’re the person who said it.
I’ll start by saying there’s no way I will ever know, and you will ever know, what happened with Kavanaugh and Ford. But we have to take her accusations seriously. However, it seems to me that the way the information is trickling in—what she’s agreeing to do or not do with the Senate investigation—is in large part her attorneys' problem.
I’m going to blame her attorneys so I don't get in trouble. We’re not going to blame the accuser, but it’s fair to go after the attorneys. Her handlers and her attorneys have framed her as looking mentally unstable.
That’s the thing nobody wants to say. Her attorneys should be controlling how the information flows and negotiating things that make sense. When you hear that she would only agree to testify if Kavanaugh went first—whose idea do you think that was? We’ve heard she’s afraid of flying, which is totally normal. But then you throw in couples therapy, the fear of flying, the delay in mentioning things, and the demand that the accused goes first... it just sounds like something a crazy person told their lawyer and the lawyer couldn't control them.
I’m making no judgment on Christine Ford's internal thoughts. I’m making a judgment about her handlers because they are the public face. They are in charge of her reputation and the way she’s being framed. Her lawyers have allowed a picture to form in which "mental illness" is being thrown into the option set by the public. I'm talking about the bad job her lawyers are doing because they're creating a public impression that doesn't look as normal as the public wants it to be.
## [The Case of the Canadian Stalker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=2286s)
I’m not the first person to think this. Many of you have heard this story before: I have a Canadian stalker. Every few years, she comes off her meds and she goes public on my social media. She’s even called the people I work with and the restaurants I owned.
This is someone I’ve never met—a complete stranger. She tells people I’ve gone to her apartment in Canada, rifled through it, broken in, hacked her computer, and physically abused her. She’s left dozens of messages every day detailing my "crimes." I’ve had to get the police involved to try to get her family to get her back on her meds because it’s a medical problem.
Think about the problem that caused for me. Almost every manager she called was a woman. The high-level women I work with and depend on all got phone calls saying I was a serial physical abuser. This is a case of pure mental illness. She also thought I was sending her messages in all of my Dilbert comics—that they were all messages to her.
If you’ve never been the subject of actually imagined crimes, you probably don't think that's a thing. But the human mind can imagine an entire life with a well-known face. She didn't misidentify me once; she did it over a course of years.
The range of human perceptions, from perceptive to crazy, is vast. When I look at the Kavanaugh situation, my filter—as a hypnotist who has studied false memories and the McMartin preschool case—is that the possibility exists. I'm not saying it happened, but the possibility that a 35-year-old accusation from someone whose lawyers are allowing her to be framed as "not normal" raises flags.
The only supportable opinion is that she’s somewhere on the scale, and the scale goes from "totally legitimate" to "batshit crazy." If you don't accept that as the range of human behavior, you haven't had the experience I've had.
## [Age and Responsibility](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=2729s)
The system needs to set deadlines. If the Senate decides to go ahead and vote, I wouldn't have the biggest problem in the world with it because the accusations are not a legal question. Even if something happened when he was 17, that’s just not the same person anymore. He’s legally the same, but he doesn't make decisions the same way he would have when he was 17.
Should 2018 Brett Kavanaugh pay for the sins of 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, who had a different brain and lived in a different time? If we knew for sure the accusations were true, you are completely entitled to prioritize that any way you want in your calculation of whether you support him for the Supreme Court.
## [Tucker Carlson on Trusting Women](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxFqrVUnuY&t=2912s)
I’ve heard some people say that women are even more skeptical than men about these accusers. Tucker Carlson said this last night. He indicated that women trust women less than men trust women.
In my opinion, confirmation bias could easily be driving how you feel about that. I would say that I trust men and women differently. There are things I would trust a man about and things I would not. It’s a different set of circumstances.
We might be getting fooled by the domains. If a friend says at the last minute, "I have a headache and can't get together," and it's a man, are you more or less likely to believe it than if a woman says it? That’s a social lie that might be biased toward one gender in our minds. The trustworthiness of men and women is distorted by the fact that we socialize in different ways and in different situations.
I think we’ve said enough. I’m going to sign off for now and I will talk to you all later.