Episode 284 Scott Adams: How the Country is Divided by its Common Hatred of Hitler, Punchy Baldwin
Date: 2018-11-03 | Duration: 42:48
Topics
Punchy Biden, Punchy De Niro…and now, Punchy Baldwin Anti-Trump icon…punches guy in the face CNN: Lady suggests boycotting sex to get men to vote Dem Our common hate of Hitler…is what’s dividing us right now? Responding to “laundry list” persuasion where 10x0=banana You don’t have an opinion if you can’t succinctly describe it Finally received succinct answer…why is Soros bad? Great economy…and now wages are going up Don Lemon, is he still just a well meaning critic of President? Watched MSNBC for 10 seconds…it was jaw-dropping Everything is mind-reading and laundry lists CNN is far more “fair and balanced” than MSNBC Fox News clearly labels their news versus opinion people CNN doesn’t clearly separate their news from opinion MSNBC doesn’t seem to have news, just mind-reading opinions
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=mbgcNyfyly4&t=8s)
Boom, boom, boom. Joanne, you are always so quick on the button. I can always count on you to be in the top one. I feel like I have a sneeze coming on; I thought I'd broadcast that in advance. I'm sure you enjoy that. You come here for the quality entertainment: the sneezing, the ideas, the coffee.
You know what it's time for now. Yes, you do. You know it's time for the simultaneous sip. Raise your stein, your glass, your mug, your cup, your container. Fill it with your favorite beverage—I like coffee—and join me for the simultaneous sip.
## [The Disappearance of Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=70s)
Let's talk about Q. I mentioned the other day that Q seemed to have disappeared, and then he came back and said something like, "Hey, go vote." Then people said, "Haha, I told you Q is still around." Never mind that Q's predictions have been thoroughly debunked and we don't care about that, but he's still tweeting important messages such as "go vote." So, I guess you showed me.
## [Punchy Baldwin and Midterm Timing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=131s)
The news is getting funnier and funnier. Let's talk about "Punchy Baldwin." We already had Punchy Biden—Joe Biden wanted to punch the President behind the bleachers—and we've got Punchy De Niro. De Niro wants to punch the President. Now we've got Punchy Baldwin, who hates the President and did not say he wanted to punch him as far as I know—he probably did privately—but he got arrested for punching somebody who took his parking space.
Because it's so close to midterms, everything has a different meaning. There's a bigger frame on everything. When I saw that, I thought to myself: did somebody frame him? Was there somebody who tried to get in a fight with Alec Baldwin a few days before the midterm? Because if there were no dark operatives on the Republican side who thought of that, I'm disappointed. As a dirty trick, it would have been tremendous. It would be terrible to do to him—I'm not recommending it—but if it had been a dirty trick and somebody just goaded Alec Baldwin into punching him, that would be one of the most diabolical. I'm not approving that kind of behavior, but if somebody did that, it would be really clever and evil at the same time.
I'm not going to ignore the evil part, but it would be awfully clever because the timing is insanely positive for the President to watch somebody who's literally an icon for being an anti-Trumper. What's the main thing that they're complaining about with Trump? That he's too violent, he's too dangerous sounding. Then his main critic gets arrested for punching a guy in the street. It couldn't be better timing. It couldn't be a more perfectly packaged message about the hypocrisy of the other side.
I genuinely do not enjoy that anything bad happened to anybody. I don't like to see anybody get punched; I don't like to see anybody go to jail or get arrested. I'm not happy about any event, but it's hard to miss the entertainment value at the same time. If I'm being honest, there's a high entertainment factor even though we don't wish everyone bad.
## [The Sex Boycott Strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=261s)
I tweeted an article from CNN this morning that was perhaps one of the funniest things you will ever see. I don't know if it's just because the midterms are close, but the article was written by a woman who has a book out about sexual politics. She recommended—and I'm not making this up, check my timeline—she suggests that perhaps women should boycott sex until the midterms with the idea that they'll influence men to vote their way.
I'm thinking to myself: how out of ammunition do you need to be before you run an article suggesting that the Blue Wave should turn into a "Blue Balls Wave"? I don't know exactly how many Democratic women there are who have Republican boyfriends or husbands and think they might be able to flip them by not having sex with them. I don't know how typical I am as a male, but if I had to propose a candidate for the worst idea I've ever heard, it might be that one.
On the Republican side, you've got strong border security, high economic results, and maybe some good stuff happening with North Korea. But on the Democrat side, what they've got is "everybody's Hitler" and "let's stop having sex with each other." It feels like that's something their own team is worried about. They are pretty much out of ammo.
## [Divided by a Common Hatred of Hitler](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=446s)
Have you noticed that all arguments have devolved into who hates Hitler the most? As I wrote in the title to this broadcast, the thing that's dividing the country is our common hatred for Hitler. If you talk to anybody on the Democratic side, they'll say, "You Republicans are a bunch of Nazis; you're all Hitler." If you talk to somebody on the Republican side, they'll say everything you do is controlled by Soros, who collaborated with the Nazis—which, by the way, I believe has been fact-checked to not be true.
I'm not saying the Democrats' point is valid, but I'm also not saying that people calling Soros a Nazi have the facts right. I'm just saying that every bit of nuance in the world has been removed from the conversation, and it's boiled down to different ways to hate Hitler. Take the case of Israel. The Republicans have unusually strong support of Israel, moving the embassy, for example. How does that fit into anybody's narrative?
The entire argument has boiled down to: "I hate you because you agree with me that Hitler's bad and we should avoid being like that." Is Soros still alive? My understanding from his critics is that he died a long time ago and is now just a vampire who exists to walk the Earth and suck all the goodness from it. I say that tongue-in-cheek.
## [Laundry List Persuasion: 10 x 0 = Banana](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=627s)
Let me tell you a technique I've been testing online. If you've been monitoring my Twitter activity, you may have noticed I'm testing a persuasion technique. I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to respond to the "laundry list" technique of persuasion.
The laundry list persuasion looks like this: I'll say, "Well, I'm not saying that you eat babies, but you do have a baby in the house." Then the person says, "I'm a father; we just had a baby." Then the person says, "Oh, well, I'm not saying you eat babies just because you have a baby in the house, but it raises an eyebrow. You also eat meat, and babies are basically meat." Then you say, "But everybody eats meat. I'm eating a cow." And your critic says, "Oh yeah, but you keep your hamburger in the freezer in your house. You put the baby in the same container of the house where you keep the things you're going to eat. Is that true?" You say, "Yes, but it's my house." They say, "Nice try, Hitler, but it's starting to come together." Even though any individual piece of evidence is not that strong, you have to look at the whole context.
The laundry list persuasion math goes like this: **10 x 0 = Banana.**
Individually, all these pieces of evidence are weak, but the critic says you have to put it all together. You've seen this list persuasion against Trump, against Steve King, against Soros, and you saw it against Hillary Clinton as well. All of this persuasion has the same quality: if you look at any one thing, it's a zero. It only has meaning because of the context, but the context is zeros too.
I am the victim of this often. People say, "Scott, you must be an alt-right Nazi apologist because of these three things you said." I say, "But you have to see why I said it in context." And they say, "Scott, if it was just one thing, we wouldn't be concerned, but you have ten things that don't mean anything. Ten things that don't mean anything equals banana."
The Kavanaugh hearings were a good example. Individually, any one of those things wouldn't look very persuasive, but there were so many of them that were worthless. 10 x 0 must equal banana.
## [The "One Best Evidence" Challenge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=936s)
I've been challenging people who have that mode of thinking to tell me: what is your one best piece of evidence? You can't really argue with someone who has ten bits of zero evidence because as soon as you debunk one, they just move to the other. They say, "Yeah, yeah, that one is weak, but what about all these others?"
Laundry list persuasion is very defensible because they'll just keep popping up like whack-a-mole. By the time you've debunked all ten, they just circle back to the first one like you didn't just debunk it. You've all been there. You debunk all the points and they jump back to point one like you've had no conversation for the last half hour.
So here's my defense, and I'm just testing it out: "Can you give me your one best piece of evidence?" So far, everybody I've challenged gives me more than one. They do that because they can feel the trap closing. The trap is that they are all zero. If they give you one, and you proclaim it their best evidence, watch me show you how it is actually zero. Once you get that one bit and debunk it, say, "I already debunked your best point. I don't really need to listen to the rest."
If their best point is solid and stands alone, then they won the debate. I'll say, "Good point. Thank you for informing me." The laundry list is only valid if you have at least one strong point that stands alone. If none of them stand alone, it's 10 x 0 = banana. Usually, you get somebody pointing you to an article that lists ten things that are zero.
## [Succinctly Describing Soros](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=1183s)
I have a rule of thumb: If you can't describe in a succinct way what the problem is, you don't understand it. In other words, you don't actually have an opinion if you can't succinctly describe it. Something that cannot be succinctly described is probably just your imagination.
I've been challenging people to succinctly tell me: what is the problem with Soros? One person actually succeeded. A summary makes sense if it is simple and I can understand it. Here was the summary: "Soros's money is like fertilizer for groups that promote identity politics."
That's pretty good. I'm not telling you I like Soros or that I'm defending him because I love his politics. But after great searching, one person on Twitter solved the test. It is a simple, checkable, rational statement of a problem. If your problem with Soros is that his funding is like fertilizer for groups that support identity politics and you think identity politics is destructive, that is a completely coherent point of view.
Here is one that is not coherent: "He was a Nazi when he was 14." Even if he was, he is not 14 now. I don't judge anybody by what they did when they were 14, even if they were Nazis—which he wasn't, by the way; the fact-checkers have debunked that.
The other irrational claim is that he wants open borders. That's irrational because "open borders" means different things to different people. I'm pretty sure he does not want "no borders." I do believe he's pro-immigrant. He has said directly that if it was a balance between what's good for immigrants and what's good for the country they're entering, he would prefer the country take a little pain for the good of the immigrants. You can disagree with that, but characterizing that as "open borders" is trying to win with a word you've defined your own way.
## [Bill Gates and the Evolution of Reputation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=1429s)
People say he's trying to destroy countries or that he made money with currency speculation. It seems like he could be bad in one field, but that doesn't inform you of what he's doing in another. The example I like to use is Bill Gates. Those of you who are young do not remember when Microsoft was new and was considered an evil monopoly. Bill Gates was considered the devil. But what is Bill Gates today in 2018? Is he the devil, or is he the guy who runs the Gates Foundation, one of the most positive things the world has ever seen? He's Bill Gates 2018. You don't judge him by his 19-year-old self.
I declare victory whenever I see the following: "Scott, quit while you're ahead," "Scott, you don't know what you're talking about," or "Scott, you're an apologist." Those are the things you say when you don't have any reasons. If you had reasons, you'd start with those. Nobody starts with an insult if they have a reason. You want to win, and then you want to insult. You don't insult first.
## [The Economy and Midterm Luck](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=1682s)
It feels like the luckiest month ever for President Trump. How lucky is it that Alec Baldwin punches somebody right before the midterm? Politically, it's very lucky. How lucky is it that the economy hit the best point it's ever hit, and wages went up? The only complaint Democrats had about the Trump economy was that the stock market going up doesn't help the average person. Now the stock market flattens and wages go up. It's exactly what should happen at this phase of the recovery. It takes a while to get a really tight workforce before wages can go up, and then they did, right on schedule.
He's got the caravan, which looks like bad persuasion for the other side. Everything is happening positive for Trump. We got the trade deals with Canada and Mexico. China went from this great country we were trying to deal with to "Fentanyl China" who is stealing our IP. At the moment, our economy is so strong that it's hard to come up with a reason why we should be flexible with them.
## [Michael Cohen, Avenatti, and Don Lemon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=1809s)
Michael Cohen has made allegations that the President said racial things that only he heard. Coincidentally, only Michael Cohen heard these things. Who is the least credible person in the world? There's Avenatti, who is running for President while criticizing the President. That's good for Trump because Avenatti is not a good look for the other side. Then Michael Cohen, the other least credible person, makes accusations. People just look at him and go, "Come on, Michael Cohen, you need something better than that."
It seems to me that Don Lemon has... what's the best way to say this? I'm tempted to diagnose him as having a mental problem, but I'm conscious that I should not be doing that. I'll put it in layperson's terms. When I watch Don Lemon talk lately, it feels like he went from a well-meaning critic of the President to having something closer to a mental problem. Again, I'm not making a medical diagnosis; I'm saying that's how he registers with me. A month ago, he looked like a mainstream critic. At the moment, he looks like he's lost it.
## [Perez Hilton and "Freethinkers"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=2057s)
Did you see Perez Hilton? He got in trouble from his own team for saying that he, too, would like stronger immigration. I retweeted him and said, "Freethinker." It's rare. I'm happy to promote the part of him that I agree with without needing to endorse every part that I might disagree with.
Somebody says I'm naive. Can you give me an example of that? You left out the reasons. When you call me naive, you may have missed the part where I declare victory, because if you had a reason, you'd probably give it to me.
## [The Danger of Pharmaceutical Commercials](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=2181s)
My technique for watching both sides of the news is that I have CNN and Fox News, the polar opposites. If you're only watching one, you're getting a distorted opinion. If you watch both, you'll get two distorted opinions, but it will be more comprehensive.
Whenever one of those networks runs a pharmaceutical commercial, I switch to the other one. You should not subject yourself to listening about medical problems you don't have. It does affect you; it makes you less healthy. Listening to pharmaceutical commercials should, given everything we know about how humans are wired, make you less healthy.
If you listen to either network news, within five minutes you're going to hear: "And then my arm fell off, and my kidneys shrunk, and my skin was peeling." If you subject yourself to all of that talk about disease, your body will respond. You can actually talk yourself into sickness simply by subjecting yourself to these commercials. I am not kidding. Change the channel, walk away, mute it. It's literally bad for your health.
## [Comparing MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgcNyfyly4&t=2309s)
I made the mistake of turning on MSNBC because Fox and CNN were both showing pharmaceutical commercials at the same time. I watched it for ten seconds and it was jaw-dropping. It's almost entirely mind-reading. It's not news; they live in a manufactured world in which they imagine they can see what other people are thinking. They use the laundry list of reasons: 10 x 0 = banana.
It was shocking how irrational the folks are on MSNBC. By any objective measure, CNN is far more fair and balanced; at least there seems to be a legitimate attempt to cover news. MSNBC just stopped pretending.
People on the left will say, "But you just described Fox News." The thing people don't understand about Fox News if they don't watch it is that they seem to clearly label their news. Bret Baier is just the news. Then they clearly label the opinion people: Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tucker. These are clearly labeled opinion pieces, and the news side will actually disagree with the opinions.
On CNN, I feel like there's a less clear division between the news and the opinion. They feel overlapped and less clearly labeled. MSNBC doesn't seem to have anything like news; it feels like complete opinion they are trying to sell as news. Yet, MSNBC apparently has greater ratings than CNN, which should tell you something. Shepard Smith is another example on Fox who is clearly labeled as news and his opinion doesn't match Hannity's.
I'm going to stop here while I'm behind. I'll talk to you later.