Episode 307 Scott Adams: Facebook Election Influence, AOC, Swalwell, Creepy Joe, Kirsten Powers
Date: 2018-11-18 | Duration: 37:43
Topics
Your opinions are assigned to you by your media sources Facebook influenced the elections by including a “vote” button Not all users were shown the “vote” button Targeted users were more likely to vote Kirsten Powers (CNN) said… Anybody who voted for Trump is a racist Any and all immigration policies are racist, that can’t be avoided Deciding someone is racist by assumed intent is mind reading Swalwell and AOC are using President Trumps persuasion techniques 14 million illegals were never going to be deported Swalwell aggressive ask on firearms never going to happen AOC provocative statements about impossible to fund policies Don’t confuse technique with actually being crazy Kamala Harris hearing question about racial targeting Kamala doesn’t have a nickname…what’s that mean? Joe Biden is a boring, weak, gaff prone version of President Trump
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
> [!note] Rough Transcript
>
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.
## Transcript
[0:09]
hey everybody wake up wake up and get it on in here hello sheriff hello UNIX rad hello Polly and Conrad come on in here it's Sunday morning and it's time for coffee with Scott Adams and it's almost time yes I think it's just about time for the simultaneous if we do that when the users reach a thousand as they have so grab your mug your chalice your cup your stein your container filled with a little beverage of your choice I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous it
don't you love it when your coffee tastes just right I know you do well we got things to talk about today I have been requested or it
[1:12]
about today I have been requested or it has been requested of me what's the right way to say that people have requested that I talk about the idea of a nickname for Joe Biden and apparently the somebody in the Trump administration is floating the idea of nicknaming him creepy Joe creepy Joe so I have mixed feelings about this number one you don't really want to bring any of them me to stuff into it because if you bring the the me to mindset into the conversation that is definitely going to favor Democrats it's going to activate women but on the other hand it's a devastatingly effective nickname so it's not as clean as some things because a perfect nickname would apply to the person you're applying it to
[2:13]
person you're applying it to let's say if you're trying to create a political linguistic killshot your ideal nickname is something that can't be flipped against you doesn't have any larger feeling outside of the person themselves something that's really just identified with the person but unfortunately the whole me - movement has made this more of a societal interest so that makes it a little less predictable if it were not for the me to thing and if it were now for the grab them by the warrant comment that the president famously made on video then I would say creepy Joe would be a home run but it's a little bit polluted by these other things were thinking about at the same time when we think about that and I'm not totally comfortable with with that being the main the main approach it would be one thing if Joe Biden was going after Trump for similar similar types of charges and
[3:16]
for similar similar types of charges and then it would make sense to flip it against him but if the president's having a little bit of hesitation on that one I think that would be smart a hesitation it's devastating but there's gonna be some blowback with that one all right let's talk about there's an article I tweeted about Facebook influencing elections by putting a vote little vote today button on there so if they put a little button on the page this says to vote and if you press it it'll show you where your voting places and had to vote they've shown that it does move the dial they're simply including a button that says vote and tells you how moves things I don't know 1% or something less than 1% but that less than 1% is far more people than it takes to win a lot of these close elections so it's actually the difference between winning and losing a major election and the
[4:20]
losing a major election and the controversy is that now that they know this putting that button does move the vote why doesn't everyone see it you see the problem apparently not everyone got that button how did they decide how did they decide who sees a vote button well if the way they decided was politically then they influenced the election in a way that should be illegal if the way they if the way they decided was just the algorithm in other words let's say there's just some algorithm and it's a big complicated thing and they they just said okay under these conditions which may not have even been political could have been people who have shown an interest in politics it could have been simply something like that but what happens is if the people
[5:23]
that but what happens is if the people don't know why let's say we'll say in a different way if people are programming an algorithm but they don't know what the impact of that will be in other words they don't know it's going to come out the other end who is it who decided the election was that the person who programmed it but didn't really know how any of these changes would influence the election or was it the algorithm that essentially in a way did the thinking and essentially made the decision because it's the thing that influenced the election so we've got some really big decisions coming and the reason that these things are important is not exactly just because Facebook is doing it and they can influence things here's what's changed we've we've learned how to measure the impact of various signals so if somebody runs an ad they can
[6:24]
so if somebody runs an ad they can measure exactly whether it works if they change a headline a little bit they can tell if more people clicked on it if they change the background color of the position on the page all of these things can and are as a as a routine matter they're all measured and what that does is it gives the big social media companies and that would include the news media because they have they have a page that they can manipulate as well it gives those come country those companies immense power over assigning our opinions now I've said this before and I love saying this because people get really quiet when I say it which means that it's true and people don't want to argue against it but nobody likes it and here it is for the most part your opinions are assigned it to you by your preferred media sources nobody wants to hear that you're your model of the world before you met
[7:26]
your model of the world before you met me probably was something along the lines of I do my own research I try to look at all the information and then I make a decision but it's quite easy to prove at this point that that's just not the case therefore by and large and this is why I would say at least 80% of the public they are assigned to their opinions their opinions come to them from the news it comes to them from social media people don't come up with opinions if you're still thinking that you're lost in oh you're lost in 2015 you're you're a few years behind the times if you think people look at the look at the data and come up with their own opinions that's not a thing anymore we know that's not a thing it can be proven beyond beyond any doubt science approves it so if you believe that people come up with their own opinions you are anti science because we
[8:27]
opinions you are anti science because we know that people get their opinions from their their media sources and somebody said I like you but you're arrogant I'm arrogant when I'm right is that not allowed what's the ruling on that I'm not going to deny I'm not going to deny my arrogance because that would be sort of denying the obvious but I try to limit my arrogance to situations where there's no there's no real doubt that I'm right alright if you see me arrogant on something where nobody should be positive you know a sort of situation where let's say if I was absolutely positive how the midterm elections would come out well I could be right by guessing but nobody really knew that you know not in any detail so arrogance the
[9:27]
know not in any detail so arrogance the neck situation would be very bad but suppose I'm telling you something that I know beyond any doubt and it's backed by science and you can observe it yourself and there's no question about it can you be arrogant and also a hundred percent right in ways that everybody can validate all right is it what's that mean what does it mean to be arrogant if you're also right that's your question for today now watching you probably saw some on Twitter that Kirsten powers a pundit on CNN has claimed and said this as clearly as you could say it so she was making sure everybody understood this is really what she was saying she said that just to be clear anyone who voted for President Trump is a racist
[10:27]
voted for President Trump is a racist and her argument is that since the president's policies are racist if you support racist policies therefore you're racist so that would include all of the black people who voted for President Trump I realized there weren't a lot as a percentage but there were a lot of people you know there were a large number of people that would include every minority and so the question I asked was you know can we extend this principle - if you watch batshit crazy people on CNN does it make you batshit crazy you know how much does this association property work do you pick up all the associations of anybody you've supported in any way if you if you hire a plumber and the plumbers a racist are you a racist
[11:27]
racist because you're you're supporting that plumber by hiring so but the diabolical part is that the Kirsten powers frame makes you think past the sale so if you're thinking hey does that make you a racist just because you voted for one you've already thought passed the sale the sale is our the president's policies racist now here's the problem if you're talking about immigration let's let's say yeah I think immigration was the primary thing that she's pointing to as a racist policy what would be an example of an immigration policy that is not racist can you make one would it be possible to have an immigration policy that is not racist nope it's not there's no such thing as a non racist immigration policy
[12:29]
thing as a non racist immigration policy there are certainly policies that would affect some groups more than others but any policy that you come up with whether it's Pro this or anti that or Pro this or anti that even if has nothing to do with race the functional outcome of it is if some races will be favored over others let's say for example we had the fairest immigration policy you could have and let's say it welfare fair subjective so let me get rid of that word let's say you had a policy that let in skills-based people what would happen well you would get mostly you would get a higher percentage of Asian immigrants when you if it's skills-based you probably get a lot of Asians and a lot of white people a lot of Jews isn't that racist how can you have us how can you
[13:31]
racist how can you have us how can you have a skill-based policy that doesn't skew toward one type of race or another you can't do that that's not a thing so having a skill-based policy would be racist and outcome let's say you just do nothing and you just let the first-come first-serve so if you can make it here you're on the front of the line let's let's say that's the policy if you can get here and the caravan climb over a wall or whatever however you get here you get your first in line what would be the impact of that racist right because that too would guarantee that you had a certain composition of people coming into the country which would limit your ability to bring in other people so you might say oh we've got so many people coming in over the border we can't let anybody else in and suddenly you're not letting in Chinese immigrants there's Vietnamese immigrants what about
[14:31]
there's Vietnamese immigrants what about that so the OL I think the only way that you could have a non racist immigration policy is if he had no immigration policy but even that would end up being racist because in the normal course of things more of something would come in more of one race than another just by chance and geography and economics and and other reasons so there's no such thing as a non racist immigration policy including the policy of not having a policy all of them have a racist outcome or a racial outcome and if we're allowed to say it doesn't matter what your intentions were if we don't care about what people's intentions are we just say the outcome this is either racist or not you're just looking at the facts it's like oh we've got more elbow nians this way it less elbow news is way that's racist it doesn't matter what you were thinking it matters what the outcome is so if that's the standard
[15:32]
the outcome is so if that's the standard I'm not saying that should be the standard I'm saying if it's the standard and that I'm interpreting this from Kirsten powers idea you're basically racist all the time so in other words you everybody in the world is a racist because everybody has some kind of idea of what to do on immigration and no matter what your idea is it's gonna have a racial outcome so it's all racist now what is implied here but not said directly is that it might have something to do with people's intentions now Kirsten didn't say that so I won't I won't put that thought into her and then argue it like she said it but plenty of people have this feeling that the reason that the president's immigration policies are racist is not because of the outcome but because of the intention so in other words there's a mind-reading
[16:35]
so in other words there's a mind-reading element in which you can see things which have never been spoken the person denies are true that you can see them in their mind I can tell and your seeker thoughts you have racist feelings in there so if you're deciding that somebody's a racist not because of what they're doing because every immigration policy is racist in outcome you know there's no way to make it balanced if it's not the outcome that you're judging what are you judging if it's not what people say and it's not what they do what's left it is your personal opinion of what those people are thinking so in other words it's a fairly common phenomenon that people are being judged as racist not because of what they're saying we're doing but rather what strangers believe they're thinking that's the world we live in and
[17:37]
that's the world we live in and mind-reading is not a thing it's not a thing and if and if it ever became a thing we'd probably we have to have a law against it so it's not being a thing let's talk about our favorite punching bags
sois well and AOC Alexandra Alexandra Octavio Cortese now some of you are watching in horror as I am as both of these people Erick's well well and AOC are using Trump's own persuasion techniques completely successfully now I have been blamed for three years of agreeing with everything the president says simply because I do note that his persuasion technique is very powerful so if you talk about somebody's persuasion technique people think well you must
[18:38]
technique people think well you must love everything about them or else you could not be supporting them by saying their technique is good let's grow up a little bit and understand that we can say somebody's technique is good without endorsing all of their other qualities and opinions we can do that right I think we can do that so the thing that President Trump did when he started tiptoeing into wealth not tiptoeing when he jumped into the election was he said things so provocative and so impractical that you couldn't take your eyes off him and he made all the other competitors of vanish now why he did was he said we're going to deport 14 million people there were enough people who believed that to be true and then enough people who believed it to be terrible and racist that it's all we could talk about and I told you from the very start from the very start I told you often and clearly
[19:39]
very start I told you often and clearly and publicly and consistently that will never happen so there is no scenario in which 14 million people will be dragged out of their homes at gunpoint and deported they said it's not practical nobody thinks this can happen it's just politics and persuasion and the important part is in the first part of the process when it's not a general election you're only trying to persuade your own team of crazies all right you're trying to get the people who will believe anything to get on your team and I don't mean to be unkind but if you ever believe that Trump was really going to deport a fourteen million people you kind of on the crazy team you know you're on the other side not a crazy team but it's the crazy team all right that was never real likewise when swallow well says he wants people to give up their their guns and
[20:39]
people to give up their their guns and he was talking about a buyback and that sort of thing he was not talking about knocking on doors and taking guns away but simply noted that the government has the power to do that they do have the power it would be a mess and it would be the worst idea in the world but when you look at swallow well what are you saying that's crazy that's crazy right if you're looking at a swallow well his incredibly aggressive ask on on firearms if you're looking at that and saying he is crazy let's talk about swallowing some more like I am right now right let's talked about him some more and how crazy he is you're playing right into his trap you are making him the most notable person on this topic you're making him the leader on his side and his side is probably saying something like hey finally somebody saying what we're thinking so SWA well whose opinions I do
[21:41]
thinking so SWA well whose opinions I do not agree with just let me put this out here as clearly as possible I'm Pro Second Amendment and I'm no expert on what the best details are but I do think you could try things in different states or different locales and just see what works without violating the Constitution I think you could test something small however yet so if you don't like SWA Wells opinions on things I get it I'm not even arguing anything his policies by his technique is doing to the Republicans exactly what Trump was doing to Democrats at this stage making him crazy because they believe he means what he's saying likewise with a or C she is making sure that she is the the most provocative voice out there and she was recently I
[22:42]
voice out there and she was recently I almost I almost canceled somebody there but I won't do that so the point is if you keep falling for the same trick that Trump made the other side fall into don't say you're not warned what you're doing is making these two people the most important people in their own party by giving them attention now should you do that doesn't matter you can't help it that's why it works it works because you can't help yourself look at me I'm talking about him I tweeted about him I've tweeted both of them like three times in the last week do I want to well I mean sort of what I do I talk about this stuff but it's kind of irresistible and so do not confuse technique for being actually crazy because the President had lots of technique and now we can see that his
[23:42]
technique and now we can see that his actual governing is you know pretty much you know normal you know if you don't like his tweets that's one thing but in terms of the policies and the judges he fixes and everything it's pretty normal stuff alright and I notice will you the Kamala Harris has now escaped to traps traps might be the wrong word but remember when Kamala Harris was grilling Cavanaugh and she said some things that the people on the right said my god I look terrible of you but she's still around then she asked the KKK question to the the potential what is he homeland guy I forget what she was talking to but and now we're saying Kamala
[24:42]
now we're saying Kamala how dare you compare the KKK to ice now of course if you listen to the full context of her question it was very specific which was do you understand that people feel feel without she didn't talk about reason she didn't talk about logic she said you understand that people feel the ice is sort of like a KKK just in the very limited sense that it makes them feel like they're racially targeted now that's a yeah it's a bad question it's a political question it's a grandstanding question it's a persuasion question and people on the right around Lee criticized her do you think that will take her out of contention for the presidency nope you know in the same way that was compare it compare Spartacus - what
[25:46]
compare it compare Spartacus - what Kamala Harris is doing the Spartacus comment made Cory Booker look so ridiculous that that might actually take him out of contention for the presidency but Kamala Harris is a has found two pretty serious sort of public brand problems and I would argue that the only people who care about them so far are the people who weren't going to vote for her anyway so my guess is that Kamala has a little bit of the Teflon about her now I'm hearing a lot of people online accusing her of sleeping her way to power meaning that I guess Willie Brown was her boyfriend for a while or something like that now that that accusation strikes me as a trap so I don't make that accusation
[26:48]
trap so I don't make that accusation because here's the thing you don't know why anybody did what they did isn't it entirely possible that those two people just liked each other and that that it also helped her I mean they could have just liked each other you can't rule that out I say that because you know my own situation very few people look at Christina and me and say oh they actually like each other well this is actually the last thing that people suspect which happens to be the truth the truth is for whatever reason we're just very compatible and a lot of levels so did his wife like her yeah you could certainly do your judging about her or moral character and her personal life but who does that remind you of doesn't that remind you of the President of the United States don't you
[27:50]
President of the United States don't you think the world is ready to give people a pass for that kind of thing it seems to me that her personal life is just not going to that her that Kamala's personal life is just not going to stop her you know what whatever little dirty stuff is back there because most of us most of us have a little bit of something we wish we hadn't done somewhere in our past so there's a bit of a Teflon coating that's forming around Kamala Harris so this is what you should look for the ones who can make it end of the pack are not the ones who have no mistakes they are the ones who are saying Spartacus and they're the ones who are claiming Native American ancestry with not much evidence to prove it and the oldest people are just looking foolish and there's evidence that maybe
[28:50]
evidence that maybe they were weakened by these things but Kamala Harris I would argue has not been weakened by any of these attacks about the the Willie Brown thing I don't think makes any difference the comparing to KKK thing this could be very popular or on her side her team is gonna like it and that's all this going to matter and the Cavanaugh questioning very popular on her team that's all that matters so she's got a little bit of a Teflon thing going on meaning that the things she does that cause trouble or they have a different nature than the things that cause trouble for other people the Spartacus thing trivializes the person who said it it just turns it into something the KKK stuff just seems like hardball politics it doesn't it doesn't seem weak it doesn't seem silly you just hate it because it's unfortunately it's kind of effective her attacks are racist and her
[29:53]
effective her attacks are racist and her team likes it I think that's a fair characterization yeah I think I think the Democrats will go full racist I mean I feel like I feel like they've signal my right haven't the Democrats pretty much said that they will be the racist party I mean I think they're saying it directly now now obviously in this context racist means managing according to race now in their view they're just trying to make an unfair world more fair get more representation you know adjust for things that have not been fair in the past so they're their frame on it is different but I don't think you'd question the basic premise that race will be a primary thrust and once again it will not be the primary thrust of the Republicans
[30:55]
are they wanting to shame everyone into voting solely on race well I never agree with soly in any question I suppose sometimes it could be true but generally there's no solely people do things for a lot of reasons
Biden Harris Joe Biden will not be your next president I feel confident about that the reason Joe Biden won't be your next president is because he's like a weak version of Trump so even though they have different policies people are as policy driven as they should be right they're gonna look at the people and and Biden is sort of the boring weak gaffe prone shoulder rubbing too much version of Trump so if you're gonna run against Trump you either need somebody who's so
[31:57]
Trump you either need somebody who's so completely different from Trump Kamala Harris would be an example a OC would be an example they're just the anti Trump or you have to have somebody who's like Trump but a better version could you find a better version of Trump maybe mm-hmm it's possible Bloomberg's too boring too short too boring too white he would not yeah Bernie avenatti now none of them so correct me if I'm wrong are we how many people have taken themselves out in a competition so a vanadis kind of an of it I think Spartacus is out of it I think Pocahontas is on it out of it is it everybody who's gotten a nickname is out of it Spartacus Pocahontas and creepy porn lawyer every everybody who's got a bad
[32:58]
lawyer every everybody who's got a bad nickname is already out of it what is what does Kamala Harris is nicknamed
doesn't have one right the Kabbalah Harris doesn't have a nickname that actually means something it shouldn't mean anything right in the old days that wouldn't mean anything but it actually means something now it only means something crazy Kamala now because she doesn't Kamala does not register as crazy she registers as smart and that's the problem whenever you watch your talking no matter what you think of her politics no matter what you think of her on a morality her ethics you know that those are all the normal things everybody complains about but one of the things you don't think when Kamala Harris is talking is that she's dumb you don't really think that because she comes across as smart no matter what so I would watch out for her she had
[34:03]
I would watch out for her she had somebody said she has a great voice I think that's right she doesn't she does have a good public voice that's actually true that's it and that's a bigger deal than you think it is because if somebody's if the actual sound of somebody's voice is grating on people that's a big deal it's a big deal and I would agree with that comment that her voice is right in the pocket it doesn't offend in any way
I also have a theory that having a non-standard name gives you an advantage so if your name is baito you have an advantage if your name is Barack you have an advantage if your name is kamala you have an advantage and the advantage is that when you when you
[35:05]
the advantage is that when you when you try to deal with tulsi gabbard that's another advantage when you're trying to wrestle with a non-standard name anything that's not not you know Bob or Donald that that is sticks in your head and it makes that person you know come up above the noise just because the name sticks in your head somebody is saying there I've seen a lot of people suggest that people stick the KKK name to Kamala Harris literally the worst idea you could ever have if you're trying to make him nickname for Kamala Harris by sticking KKK to it because there's a K there because she mentioned the KKK keep in mind the KKK references work before her not against her because if you're if you're looking at a black woman running for president and you're thinking about the KKK that helps her because nobody's
[36:07]
the KKK that helps her because nobody's going to say oh I think there's a black supporter of the KKK though but nobody thinks that right but they're going to think oh there's a big problem in the country maybe this is a solution so
Tulsi Gabbard is a hundred percent running well that could be interesting Newt yeah there's another one Newt Gingrich his first name Newt absolutely makes him stand out you remember him
what's in my coffee this morning goodness alright that's all for now from the guy who can't even remember Octavio you're correct so AOC as I caller Alexandre Octavio
[37:10]
so AOC as I caller Alexandre Octavio Cortes is a perfect example where the difficulty of remembering and pronouncing your name correctly helps her brand does it makes you think about it whenever there's a mistake that you're focusing on you're being persuaded there's a good book on that
which I'll recommend another time and I think that's all I have to say I'll talk to you tomorrow that's all for now bye