Episode 232 Scott Adams: The Battle of the Sexes, 2018
Date: 2018-09-24 | Duration: 43:39
Topics
The “Who do you believe” poll, Fox News vs. Huffington Post The Kavanaugh confirmation is about power, not Kavanaugh Michael Moore’s new movie bad box office results Name 3 men who remind you of Democrats Anti-Trumper says “more importantly” than ethnic diversity is need for more women on the committee James Woods refusal to delete tweet that got him suspended When we can measure persuasion…persuasion will become illegal Avenatti makes the Kavanaugh accusations less credible “Anonymous source familiar with the matter”
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=ntuNejz5wKs&t=6s)
Peter Duke, come on in here. Hey, Jen. Mark, Tyler—Tyler, you're always in here early, you've got fast fingers. Based Diva, hello. We’ve got lots to talk about. And when I say we have a lot to talk about, I'm mostly talking about Brett Kavanaugh's junk. Remember when we used to talk about North Korea, the economy, and President Trump's tweets? Do you remember those days? It seems so long ago now. Now, it's pretty much nonstop talk about Brett Kavanaugh's genitalia.
So let's get to it. Join me now for the Simultaneous Sip. Raise your Glaser Challis, your mug, coffee, or whatever you have.
## [Kavanaugh Polls: Fox News vs. Huffington Post](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=69s)
There's a poll asking, "Who do you believe in the Kavanaugh situation?" Regarding Christine Ford, 36% believe her; Brett Kavanaugh, 30%. More people believe Christine Ford, but almost an equal number in both of those categories are unsure.
How does that poll compare to the poll you saw that said only 25% of women believed the accuser? Completely different. This is a Fox News poll, so you would expect that they would want the result to come out saying that nobody believes the accuser. You would assume that would be their bias.
That first poll that people like me tweeted around was absolutely fraudulent. Who did that first poll that said only 25% or 28% of people believed Christine Ford? I think Tucker highlighted it, and I'm sure I tweeted it. When I find out where that came from, I won't be tweeting that source again, ever. The first thing you should keep in mind is that the first poll you saw is so different from this one that one of them is just made up. This Fox one is opposite of what you think their bias should be, so it automatically is more credible because it doesn't support their preferred story.
The other one was a Huffington Post poll. This is weird—what’s happened to the world? Huffington Post ran a poll result that was the opposite of what they would want it to be, and then it was debunked by a Fox News poll that was the opposite of what Fox News would want it to be. I don't know if that's a step in the right direction.
## [The Battle of the Sexes Metaphor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=195s)
It doesn't seem like this Thursday event with Christine Ford and Kavanaugh is shaping up to be a typical hearing. It’s forming into the "Battle of the Sexes" again. Those of you who are not old enough, let me explain what that refers to. In the 1970s, the number one male tennis player, Bobby Riggs—who was a famous gambler and a crazy personality guy—bet Billie Jean King, the current number one female player, that he could beat her. He was a retired, older guy, way past his prime, but he said that even past his prime, a man could beat a woman at tennis.
It was all great fun. I remember watching it live when I was a kid. We didn't know who would win; it was actually really interesting. As it turns out, Billie Jean King won, and it was considered a big event in terms of the overall worth of men and women.
## [Power Dynamics: Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=324s)
This Kavanaugh confirmation is lining up to really not be about Kavanaugh anymore. It started that way, but it’s not really about him anymore. It’s another Battle of the Sexes because the objections to Kavanaugh are almost entirely based on what people believe he would rule in terms of women's reproductive rights. That's the main issue. It's primarily about a gender difference in preference. All the discussion of whether he did or did not do the things he is accused of doing has everything to do with the credibility of women making accusations.
The battle has left the field of these two people and whether one person gets a job. It’s now elevated to the bigger question of power. Who has the power? Do women have the power to be believed without the benefit of corroborating support? Or do men have the power, which is the ability to presumably abuse and get away with it, or the power to not be accused of something they didn't do and still be innocent until proven guilty?
There's a lot on the line here that has nothing to do with the individuals involved. It has to do with our bigger impression of the patriarchy versus the matriarchy. Who has power? Who doesn't? Can a man ever run for office? What will happen to the sons? Will it be safe for men and women to even be together?
## [The Mike Pence Rule and Midterm Turnout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=448s)
If you're in the corporate world, I just saw a tweet this morning where someone said they’ve discontinued all private contact with women in a business setting. This person won't make a private phone call to a woman; it requires a witness. You might say that's crazy—you don't need a witness just for a phone call. But maybe you do. It's the "Mike Pence Rule" attenuated a little bit. You could take it to that extreme and you wouldn't be crazy. It would just be safe.
What do you think this is going to do to turnout gender-wise? Women would be highly incented. I imagine the turnout for the midterm among women would be very high. What would be the turnout among men? What would you guess—more men or more women? I was going to say something and I'm pulling back. I’m going to change the subject and keep myself out of trouble.
## [Michael Moore’s Box Office Results](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=572s)
I noticed the box office results for Michael Moore's new movie, *Fahrenheit 11/9*, referring to the day after the election. It's an anti-Trump movie. It’s shocking how poorly it did. He’s not a box office draw anymore, but still. It not only bombed, it almost didn't exist. It was so poorly received that it was almost non-existent in the box office. I think the total income was in the low few thousands of dollars.
## [The Democratic Party Brand](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=635s)
I’m going to ask you a question, and I want you to give me the first three names that come to mind. Name the first three people who come to mind: male Democrats. Go.
Some of you thought of Michael Moore, Chuck Schumer... most of you are watching men being excoriated. It seems to me that the Democrat brand is just so flagrantly anti-male at this point that I don't know how men can be members of that party. I don't know how it works.
## [Diversity on the Judiciary Committee](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=696s)
I was watching Tucker Carlson’s show the other day, and there's an anti-Trump Democrat—I don't remember his name, but he’s one of the regulars who argues against Trump. He’s got a shaved head and likes to get off-target. He was talking about the Judiciary Committee having a bunch of "old white men." Other people have said that, and it's a fair point. We live in a diverse society; why is an important representative group just a bunch of white men?
But here’s how this Democrat explained it. He said the entire committee has no ethnic diversity whatsoever. Good point, fair statement. Then he went on to say, "More importantly, it has no women."
"More importantly." How important is "more importantly"? Here is a guy representing the Democrats, and with nobody questioning the statement, he says this group has no ethnic diversity, and then says *more importantly* it doesn't have women. I thought to myself, "More importantly? Interesting."
It might be more important; I’m not going to say the point is wrong. Maybe that’s the balance we needed because of reproductive rights. But even Tucker let it go as a non-controversial statement. Having more female representatives on the group is "more important" than having ethnic diversity.
What have I been telling you is the brand problem the Democrats have? They seem to have more interest in solving the problems of women than solving the problems of, let’s say, African Americans. You can see that fairly clearly in that comment—mostly because it was non-controversial. Richard Goodstein? Maybe that sounds right, but I’m not sure.
## [James Woods and Twitter Censorship](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=942s)
Let's talk about James Woods. He is apparently refusing to delete the offending tweet. He got suspended from Twitter, but he can go back on as soon as he deletes it. Part of the issue is that apparently his girlfriend is the one who retweeted this thing, which was an old meme James Woods had tweeted a long time ago and didn't get in trouble for the first time. This time he did, but his girlfriend did not. She tweeted it but did not get blocked or suspended.
I also wonder about all the other people who retweeted it. Why don't they also get suspended? It's probably good that that's not the rule, and that only the creator gets suspended. But why did the retweeters get a pass?
My take is that the way James Woods presented the meme is what was problematic. He said it’s probably not true, but "it could be true in this world," which leaves open the possibility that it is true. That is just enough oxygen for other people to think it is true. Since other people thinking it is true could influence the election—and it was a strong meme—Twitter’s rules essentially say they don't want fake news moving elections. That’s a good objective, it’s just hard to execute because there’s a lot of judgment call involved.
## [The Danger of Measuring Persuasion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=1065s)
Before we could measure the impact of persuasion, we couldn't make it illegal. Nobody would try to kick you off social media for being persuasive. All the questions about Google and the big companies biasing the algorithms only matter because we've entered an age where persuasion gets measured.
In the case of the Russian persuasion, I think the impact was probably so close to zero it didn't make a difference. But the fact that we live in a world where we understand what persuasion is and have technology to measure it—comparing one meme to another to see which gets more clicks—is key. Once you can measure something, it takes on new importance. Things that are hard to measure, we don't care about as much.
The fact we can measure persuasion almost guarantees it will someday be illegal. If you could measure how persuasive I am personally on Twitter and Periscope—if you could measure how I change people's votes—we are very close to the point where tech companies could measure that even if I can't.
I come from upstate New York, so I say "measure" (may-zhure), but you can "measure" (meh-zhure) if you want to. Would it someday be illegal for someone who is trained in persuasion to be super persuasive? If we all agree that fake news that moves an election should be eliminated, what about people like me who don't use fake news? I can absolutely move outcomes. Shouldn't I be kicked off the platform? If I can move people's opinion without changing any factual news, do they have free will? Is it free will if the techniques I use actually change your opinion in a way you could measure?
The only reason this sounds like a ridiculous question is because there are very few people who are actually persuasive. It’s rare. It’s one of the reasons President Trump enjoys an empty field when it comes to persuasion; he’s the only one who's good at it in the political realm on social media. Mike Cernovich is another one; he's trained, he has the background and the knowledge.
Would people like us someday be kicked off just for being persuasive? I think it depends on how persuasive we are. You might think you could never criminalize being persuasive, but the moment you could measure how much impact I had on the 2016 election, I would be kicked off social media. I'm pretty sure that's true. It might have to happen in an indirect way; they might have to find a rule I violated. I don't think I've ever intentionally violated any rule, but just think about that point. The only reason it's legal is because they have not yet found an effective, objective way to measure it.
## [Context and the Yale Allegations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=1555s)
What are the odds we’re going to get to the end of this week without a description of Kavanaugh's genitalia and matching it to some kind of vegetable or fruit? I'm going to say the odds are low. I don't know who would try to get that job ever again. I've actually considered this in the past; I thought I’d make a pretty good Supreme Court justice if they took people who had never been lawyers. But then I thought, who would want to go through this process? I sure wouldn't.
The latest accusation is that he exposed his private parts when he was a freshman at Yale. He would have been 18. The accusation is that if he did it, it was in the context of a joke. I’m not defending it; I’m describing it.
Let me tell you an incident that happened at a restaurant I owned. Years ago, my restaurant manager, Stacy—the restaurant’s closed now, so this is past history—was working in the walk-in freezer. She was crouched down organizing boxes on the floor. One of the servers, who was a friend of hers, took a sausage. He apparently spent a little time in the kitchen carving the end of the sausage so that it looked a little more lifelike. He put the sausage through his pants zipper and walked into the walk-in to surprise Stacy.
She turned around and was face-to-face with a sausage he had put through his pants zipper. Now, did the server get fired on the spot? In this case, she thought it was the funniest thing she'd ever seen in her life because it totally fooled her for a moment. She thought it was real and hideous simultaneously. But when she realized the joke, she thought it was hilarious. She told all her friends; she loved telling the story. Not only did he keep his job, he was one of the favorite employees.
If somebody did that in my office today, they would not keep their job very long. Everything depends on the situation, the people, and how well you know the person. Is it really a joke, or is it sexual harassment? A lot of it just depends on the person.
## [Perceptions of Male Democrats](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=1927s)
I asked you earlier to name three men who remind you of Democrats. Who are the top three? Michael Moore comes to mind, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker. If you're a woman and you think of political people, and the three Democrats you think of are Michael Moore, Harvey Weinstein, and Chuck Schumer—that is a sad place to be for a man.
If Harvey Weinstein were good-looking, would this be an issue? Of course it would. Intention makes a big difference. It's not enough to keep you out of jail, but it should make a difference. Why is it that rubbing against your own pants typically doesn't make you sexually aroused? It’s because the physical contact isn't the thing; it's a mental process. Intention matters. There's a reason your doctor can touch you and it's not arousing, but something else can.
## [The Avenatti Effect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=2114s)
When you think of Michael Avenatti, who do you think of? Stormy Daniels. It’s impossible not to think of Stormy Daniels and porn stars. Avenatti has attached himself to this new headline because he's good at attaching himself to headlines. He apparently has some new witness against Kavanaugh.
If you were on the side of the Democrats, saying, "We’ve got all the good people on our side, let's take these allegations seriously, we're on the side of the angels," and then Michael Avenatti joins your side? The guy defending the porn star? This is not helping the brand. The only thing that could make the allegations against Kavanaugh look less important and less respectable is Michael Avenatti. It has nothing to do with his talent or whether his client is telling the truth. It's the automatic psychological baggage he brings.
The Democrats are essentially the party of women at this point. I'm not saying that’s good or bad; I'm observing a serious gender difference between the parties. It’s not that Republicans are the party of men, but they are the party that has men and has women who like men. It seems different.
## [Rod Rosenstein Resignation Reports](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuNejz5wKs&t=2365s)
Fox News is reporting that Rod Rosenstein is... let's see. CNBC is reporting it. Rod Rosenstein is reportedly resigning, or expecting to be fired. Axios is the source for the reporting, citing a "source familiar with the matter."
Does that mean he's really resigning? No. It seems likely he would, and you could certainly predict it, but so far the story depends on an anonymous source. If we've learned anything, it's that an anonymous source familiar with the matter is nothing. I won't be surprised if he does resign, but I wouldn't put any credibility in an anonymous source. We don't live in that world anymore. Every one of these reports is probably going back to the same anonymous source that we can't check.
Would you be surprised if he's not resigning? It was only a matter of time whether he was fired or resigned. It’ll be interesting to see who would replace him and if Jeff Sessions would be the one to hire the replacement.
That's all for now. I will talk to you all later. Bye for now.