Episode 533 Scott Adams: Buttigieg, Fake News, How to Frame Immigration, Abortion, Climate

Date: 2019-05-18 | Duration: 49:19

Topics

Border psychology: Telling people we’ll be sending them back soon A simple tweet that reduces those swarming our border President Trump uses psychology to protect our homeland President Trump has a highly criticized style, BUT… Future Presidents will be compared to his energy, results President Trump does counter-narrative things ALL the time Enemy press and Dems push “racist” narratives about him President’s actions and priorities counter their narratives The essential claim for needing immigration reform If your incentives aren’t correct, immigration is a disaster GOOD FRAMING: Heartbeat bills, a beating heart equals life GOOD FRAMING: immigration policies like those in…Canada, Japan Merit based policies like our friends in Canada and Japan People in other countries decide our immigration policies
People just decide to come here…and then come here America has no say in whether or not they come here
GOOD FRAMING: Is nuclear power MORE dangerous than risk of climate change? Have I been targeted in a really destructive way on social media? My troll traffic suddenly jumped up My LinkedIn related traffic went almost to zero overnight My YouTube traffic took a step down, don’t know why My Periscope traffic down about the same time also Was I targeted, or is it an explainable coincidence? If there’s no way to know, if you were targeted or not… …does that justify government intervention for social media?

Please donate to support my YouTube channel:
https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays
I also 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

[0:05]

bump bump bump bump bump bump hey everybody come on in here hello Kelly still I guess that's Jeff Jeff how are you good to see you Jimmy Sharona Andrew always a pleasure grab your chairs but more importantly grab your cup your mug your Stein your chalice your tankard possibly a flask maybe a thermos the fellow with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous except I
only had a little bit left so I hope we made that one count well under on the road again today but enough about that so every morning I do the same thing before I make one of these periscopes I look at the news see you then I look at Fox News I look at Twitter and I'm looking for the big stories the interesting things the provocations the

[1:06]

interesting things the provocations the crises so I have something to talk about have you noticed that the news has completely stopped being news we're we're so already into the summer reruns as Greg Garfield says that I don't know what's going to happen this summer when the Democrats run in a completely run any news so there's nothing about the economy today there's nothing about terrorism do you know why because there are no real problems here are the stories that are in the news today the New York Times in the Washington Post are reporting that there's infighting that we can't see and they can't tell us who thought so I sound familiar that's right here's the news this is the best they can do the best they can do is that there's infighting inside the

[2:07]

there's infighting inside the administration but we can't see it and we can't talk to the people who saw it but trust us totally some infighting the president tweets back of course that there's no infighting they're just people with distant different opinions and he makes the decisions to which I say that sounds like every decision-making entity in the world a bunch of people disagreeing stabbing each other in the back fighting and then the leader makes a decision how would that be any different in any large organization I would be a little bit more afraid if everybody had the same opinions that would be a little bit more of a problem in my my opinion all right so the president tweeted the following I think it was yesterday all people that are illegally moving into the United States now will be removed from our country at a later date so he's saying that people come in now currently

[3:08]

saying that people come in now currently will be removed at a later date as we build up our removal forces and as the laws are changed please do not make yourselves too comfortable you will be leaving soon now when I saw that I tweeted that every time this president uses psychology to protect the homeland whether it's about immigration or it's about Isis or it's about Iran or North Korea or whatever it is every time he does that and you see it all the time he makes a direct psychology psychology psychological tweet or statement that is clearly just using psychology to make a war go away or to avoid one or two reduce immigration and every time he does this I have the same reaction which is why didn't other presidents do this it's so inexpensive because I think a

[4:09]

it's so inexpensive because I think a tweet like that actually changes immigration maybe not a lot you know me I'm not saying that one tweet fixes immigration or anything like that I'm saying that there is because he's the president that tweet will be covered and people will start saying oh even if we get there he might round us up and send us home so why would we bother it's hard to get there it's expensive it's dangerous why would we make the trip if he's just gonna ramp up his deportation forces now I have no idea if he's really ramping up any deportation forces I have no idea yes the people who are arriving right now are really in any increased risk compared to any other time I have no idea but does it matter it does not it was the right thing to say if you're the president you want to tell people it's a bad idea to come here and you tell them why is it true well it's probably true

[5:09]

why is it true well it's probably true ish he's probably you know is increasing our border security is probably an ongoing thing he probably would like to ship people back but it doesn't matter how true it is what matters is that it was the right psychological framing now he does the same thing with Iran so he's complaining that the fake news has no idea what the administration wants to do with Iran and he says directly he says in a tweet that's a good thing maybe it's a good thing that Iran doesn't have any idea of what we're up to to which I say well there it is again why does he make every other let me give you an alert before I finish my sentence I am about to say a sentence that involves the animals monkeys at the same time that I make this monkey related reference I will be talking about former

[6:09]

reference I will be talking about former presidents collectively there will be a variety of former presidents in the following statement Bill Clinton Obama Bush Reagan I will be mentioning a bunch of presidents I should note most of these presidents are adult white males one of them is Obama adult male but African American the following comment up lies to all of them equally the president makes it every former president look like a chimp as one of those things that I think people who are not white don't understand that white people make monkey references all the time we're always calling each other monkeys we're calling kids monkeys we're calling leaders monkeys calling calling calling people monkeys is what we do all the time and it's not it's not limited to any particular type of person it's

[7:09]

any particular type of person it's certainly not limited to any ethnicity it's not limited and it doesn't mean that we'd like to make lots of monkey references I think you all know that so here's the thing and I actually don't appreciate the racist comments I'm saying in the comments it's okay to have fun but don't cross the line don't even don't make this an unpleasant place to be
so anyway the president when he does a lot of things I think that historians and future pundits are going to be forced to compare anybody in the future to how well President Trump did things any president in the future people are gonna say you know that president should be a little bit more unpredictable because that's good where do we learn that President Trump when a future president doesn't negotiate with trade for some future

[8:09]

negotiate with trade for some future deal with some future country the commentators are gonna say you know if that were President Trump that president would be doing some negotiating right now likewise with this you know using psychology on the border people are gonna say uh why was President Trump the only one to think of telling people that we might send them back so don't come what why was he the first one to think of that nobody else could think of that so I think what we have and also with the economy with the same phrasing oh you're gonna see with the economy future economists saying you know President Trump was really good at talking up the psychology of the economy by the way I think it was a consumer confidence hit a record for 56 years or some damn thing freaking the facts are wrong but once again the psychology of the economy has been reported as high at

[9:10]

the economy has been reported as high at an unprecedented level at least within recent decades unprecedented and likewise with North Korea I guarantee you that in the future and maybe Russia to their presidents Trump's a highly criticized style in which he acts like he is good friends with you know dictators and people that are either nemesis embassies or frenemies that he acts friendly to them while negotiating tough you know you know that future historians and future political pundits are going to judge every other president by that standard they're gonna say ah why are you being so unkind to this dictator when we have to negotiate with a him or her you know why don't you be a little bit more respectful and then maybe we can be a little tougher in our

[10:12]

maybe we can be a little tougher in our negotiating without worrying about a nuke coming our way because at least we're being respectful so the leader which is important to the leader so I'm kind of feeling that Trump is quietly and nobody's noticing yeah at least not in a collective way they're not noticing he seems to be setting the standard for how all future presidents are going to be judged I think that's clear now of course I'm not saying that everything he does will get an a-plus but on all the big stuff he's setting a standard which other presidents are gonna have to answer to forever let's talk about Peter Budaj edge he says that the there's something called a jefferson-jackson dinner [Music] know the details but it's some kind of annual thing and because Jefferson and Jackson I guess mostly in Jefferson is the problem I don't know what Jackson's history is I don't really I'm not a

[11:14]

history is I don't really I'm not a Jackson follower but Jefferson owned slaves and Buddha jej was asked about changing the name of that dinner so that no longer had a slave name associated with it and he said yeah maybe we should look at that because times change and of course Fox News and the conservator world goes I we knew it it's a slippery slope and we'll be getting rid of all these the founding fathers will be relegated to the racist jail of history now I don't disagree with Buddha judge I like the basic idea that society can change who they honor I don't have a problem that you know as long as you don't forget your history and I don't think that's the risk I I was planning to do some kind of little sarcastic tweets or a video and now I'm going to

[12:16]

tweets or a video and now I'm going to tell you the punchline so I can't do it but I was gonna say that I had just recently heard of this thing called the Civil War and I was going to tweet that have you guys heard of this there was there's a war in the United States I'd never heard of it it was called the Civil War and apparently something like the north and the south fought each other over slavery did any of you have you heard of this I only recently heard of it do you know I only recently heard of the Civil War well it's obvious I grew up in a town with no statues there were no statues in my town I grew up you could walk around all day long in my town where I grew up you would never see a statue so how in the world am I supposed to know the Civil War existed duh I could not know the Civil War existed without statues there were none in my town so that was I was going to do some funny skit on that but apparently it wasn't that funny so maybe I won't do it the point is you

[13:17]

maybe I won't do it the point is you don't need any statues for history yeah that argument that you're you're changing history that's none recomment that's not an argument at all everybody knows the Civil War everybody knows names of the generals you don't need a statue to to augment your history books so I would say I frankly would be okay with Society I'm making some decisions about when to change things at one table I'd be okay with that you know here's another here's another thing that technology is going to change
and you don't see this coming so here's my technology prediction about statues so in the future we're all going to have all mented reality classes I would say that that's close to guaranteed now augmented reality means that you've got your glasses on you can see the regular world that you live in

[14:18]

see the regular world that you live in but overlaid on that world are images as if they are part of the real world that's what backsons reality ISM there's sometimes you can interact with them with your hands and stuff as if they're real even though they're just floating images and it seems to me guaranteed that whether you took away the Confederate statues or not there will be a period of time where maybe there's no statue but as soon as everybody has or mented reality which i think is coming you should be able to walk to the same park where let's say hypothetically a statue used to be but it was removed and you just hid your glasses and the statue will be back so in the augmented reality world you'll always be able to see not just the statue but you'll be able to hit it again and you can see the actual Battle of Gettysburg you should be able to stand that Gettysburg can go and actually replay the battle right on the

[15:19]

actually replay the battle right on the battlefield at least in some you know general sense so I would not worry about removing statues because we're probably only half a generation away from statues being things that happened in your glasses anyway and at the very least you could add a let's say an explanation part to the existing statue so if you don't take it away you could add a plaque it says a lot of people say this is racist but we kept it for whatever reason anyway because we added this plaque so the the future of whether you should or should not remove statues will become less relevant because people who want to see them will just go and people who don't want to see any of the racist racist symbols will go and they want to see him alright let me ask you this give me the date or the example of the last time

[16:20]

date or the example of the last time President Trump crossed the line into something so provocative that it was headlines and it was obviously a mistake it seems to me that after the midterms the president took a more let's say less provocative public persona and he said so in pretty direct language right after the midterms he said something about being he didn't say nicer but something like that and is it my imagination or has it been the same so since November five months six months of the president not saying something that made the the news go crazy and is it true that he said just fact check me on this is it

[17:21]

said just fact check me on this is it true that he said in direct language publicly that he was going to try to tone down his rhetoric after the midterms can we can we fact check that that's true right and is it true that he has done that as far as we can tell because remember it seemed like there was one Alfred e Newman is sort of proving my point we knew he was going to do nicknames but Alfred II knew him is clearly a playful name nobody ever said president Trump stop being playful because really that's all that was it seems to me they he took away his critics greatest weapon which was himself am i right the critics of President Trump their greatest their greatest weapon they had against him was things he said and he took that away and he said I'm gonna take that away and

[18:23]

he said I'm gonna take that away and then he took it away right in front of us now I don't think anybody took him seriously when he said it because you thought to yourself yeah you're gonna you're gonna say you're gonna be nicer but are here to be nicer are you really aren't you just you know gonna wait a week and go right back to the way you were well nobody knew did they we had to find out so I'm asking you know can you think of anything he did there was along the lines of any of the outrages of the past since November that's that's a fairly long period of time for us not to say anything like that meanwhile how many things has he done that works against the narrative works against the narrative the narrative courses that he's crazy that he's uncontrollable that he's a racist you know what whatever you want to put in the narrative that the other people are saying about him they're just running out of stuff because he keeps doing things that are counter narratives

[19:25]

doing things that are counter narratives you know I've used this examples before and I don't think people understand how big a deal it is that when the president gave the Medal of Honor to Tiger Woods now tell you Woods I don't know what he identifies with in terms of ethnicity but most of the public will say Tiger Woods is black I think that might be half true it doesn't matter if this but that's what the public and the public perceives things it's such a small thing a medal of freedom is what it's called the other medal of freedom giving an athlete a medal of freedom is such a small thing in terms of the world the country it's the most irrelevant kind of thing in the world but people turn on the TV and there is the president who probably on his own I doubt there was a committee that came up with a recommendation probably the president said I love Tiger Woods we've been friends for you know the president

[20:26]

been friends for you know the president and Tiger Woods have been friends forever and so he thought great comeback Tigers and inspiration that's why we give these medals I'll give Tiger Woods a medal and so the news shows the president putting this medal around Tiger Woods and then all the people in the country you say wait a minute we were positive that the president is a racist there are two things here I don't understand Tiger Woods has known him for a long time and they like each other explain that how does that work and then the president chooses Tiger Woods to give this this highly visible highly prestigious literally the the highest award you can get as an American citizen if you're not a in the military and and you have to look at that and say I don't know how that fits was my narrative Trump is not supposed to be the guy who does this likewise the prison reform Act worked against the narrative likewise the president's continuous bragging

[21:28]

the president's continuous bragging about his progress with black and Hispanic and and women employment those are the things that even if they happened you wouldn't continuously brag about them so it just doesn't work with your narrative if you said to yourself yeah but in his mind he still he still erases he's just pretending not to be even if you were pretending not to be would you bring up and brag about how well you did with black unemployment would you continuously harp on that would you say over and over again that the reason you want to secure the border is for the benefit of the the entry-level employees potential ones who would have to fight for jobs who are largely in the you know black and community and Hispanic community I see and so we have like six months of watching this president do things that

[22:29]

watching this president do things that are unambiguously just don't fit the other story now do I do all these fit things fit the story that you had in your head you know you be meaning most of you were probably Trump supporters and from the start I think most of you probably are does everything that you've seen than last six months what you expected back in 2016 I would say yes in my case everything I'm observing about this president probably everything you know if I thought about it I might come up with some example of something that has surprised me but it's not coming to me right away I thought he would be good for the psychology of the economy which would make the economy go up that's what I thought I said it out loud I said it publicly I said it often and sure enough I thought that he would be effective against Isis I thought he'd be the right person to talk to Kim jong-eun I mean these are things I said in public months

[23:31]

these are things I said in public months and months and months before any of this happened because that's the movie I was watching and I said if this movie is the movie I think it is we're gonna have a good economy things will be really good with foreign relations trade negotiations will probably be aggressive but eventually successful so those are the things I thought and I thought that the rumors of the Trump rounding you know what were the rumors before the election he was gonna round people and putting them in concentration camps or how about this president was anti-lgbt Hugh now they did get something to work with because the military is still discriminating against transgender but as long as it's limited to the military one of the things that all of us say maybe we don't say it out loud but we all understand it the military's the one place it's okay to discriminate now you don't want to discriminate for

[24:33]

now you don't want to discriminate for the wrong reason so when when the military was not you know I guess when what's the right word before I was integrated people had bad reasons that in time we learned were bad reasons and so okay that was a bad reason you don't want to discriminate based on race so that was a bad reason so eventually humans figure that out and they stopped doing it but if the military says I think there's a certain group that will have more medical issues or less less availability because of whatever they're either they're either right or wrong about that now it could be that the military is concerned the transgender will have more more time away from readiness and that's either true or false I'm no expert is that true or is it false and what if it's only true for half of transgender but the other half are being just being discriminated against because they're suffering because some other group has more

[25:35]

because some other group has more medical problems was that fair that's not fair that's totally not fair if if some transgenders who don't have any readiness problems or being lumped in with ones that might that's not fair but the military's in one place nobody's asking them to be fair it's the one place where we say the only thing I care about is you're gonna kill on the other side I'm exaggerating a little bit but mostly with the military you say hey military are you letting people with physical disabilities of the sight I'm not talking about transgender I'm talk about you know blind missing legs sort of thing the military discriminates against handicaps the military discriminates by height the military discriminates by gender the military discriminates by age they discriminate by physical health they discriminated a lot the the

[26:35]

they discriminated a lot the the military is the most discriminating organization that could ever be but it's the one place where we say yeah we can you know there's some there's some gray areas and maybe we don't think this is where the military should discriminate but nobody really asks are they allowed to because they are allowed to they're allowed to discriminate in any way that gets the job done even if they're wrong and so over time we hope that the wrong parts are decreased and the right parts are increased but they're certainly allowed so anyway if you compare what's the worst thing the LGBTQ community worried about in the beginning they literally talked about concentration camps reversing gay marriage I don't see that happening you know and then the the president goes full out trying to cure AIDS and negotiates these free doses

[27:36]

AIDS and negotiates these free doses medicine that would effectively eliminate AIDS in this country if it's done right so there's there's nothing about what the people in the other movie predicted that's happening just nothing but a hundred percent of the things I thought would happen are happening so how do people explain that all right let's talk about immigration though probably the biggest complaint about this president in terms of emotionally I guess is the thought that here's a big old discriminator when it comes to immigration but the president's views on immigration had been proven completely true by the fact that one of the main things the president always said is and again here's here's the psychology of it then if you make it attractive to come to this country illegally you can get more of it wouldn't you say that that was essentially the entire message of

[28:37]

was essentially the entire message of the president if you could boil it down to one thing which is if you make it if you make it a pleasant experience to come to this country illegally you're gonna get more of it wouldn't you say that's just the whole message because if you said if she said President Trump we have some magical way of knowing that the amount of immigration will never get worse than it is and in fact in some ways it's lessening in some ways I'm not sure it would be a big problem but the president's all about incentive if you create an incentive to do something you can get more of it it's just always that's what capitalism is you know there's no exception to that if you make it attractive you'll get more of it so the president's been working hard to make immigration look more a less attractive and now because of the caravans especially because the number of people hitting the border right now is unprecedented lately he's been proven completely right he is essential the

[29:40]

completely right he is essential the essential claim that if you have your if you have your incentives wrong for immigration you get the wrong outcome and sure enough you can no longer argue the central claim you can still argue how much wall do you need etc but people are gonna stop arguing that stuff people are gonna stop debating with the experts on border security oh I think I don't think you need a wall there even though you're the expert who says of course you need to wall there I think people are just gonna say let's talk about something else because the president was so fricking right on this it hurts he was so right it probably physically hurts people to see how right the president has been that immigration increased because it was an attractive thing all right I thought let's talk about framing I was gonna do a separate periscope about this I'll toss this in probably I'll probably do this following topic maybe in more depth in a separate

[30:42]

topic maybe in more depth in a separate periscope but I want to give you a teaser for it see if you like this kind of stuff here are some different ways to frame some of the big debates and the headlines all right abortion had been framed as when does life start so I had been is this a life yet or is it not a life yet so that's the way I had always been framed with that framing you can never you can never get a good result it's impossible to get a result everybody's happy about because is this life or not we'll never agree so if you have a framing that can't be solved in other words a framing that locks you in place and makes you hate each other maybe think of another one now as it turns out the so-called heartbeat bills are probably some of the strongest persuasion I've ever seen like really really strong and I've told you why if

[31:43]

really strong and I've told you why if you say does life start at conception or some other time you've got this weird gray hard - hard to defend standard no matter which way you go but if you say heartbeat we humans are all primed to think that when a heart stops that's the end of life we all think that's true there's nobody who believes that a mammal with no heartbeat is alive nobody 100% agreement or something like it probably so by calling it a heartbeat bill instead of some other framing they've they've put the pro-choice people in a completely in undefensible indefensible position it's indefensible I'm not saying right or wrong and again I always tell you nothing you hear when I talk about the topic of abortion is my opinion of what things should be because I recuse myself from that in favor of

[32:44]

I recuse myself from that in favor of women having more say because that's your most credible standard by the way how long have you been listening to me say that I recuse myself from the abortion question because men should not be influencing it and the reason men should not be influencing it is because we don't add to the decision in other words we're not smarter than women on this topic in some way that makes that any difference women have this whatever women collectively come up with is not going to be dumber than what women plus men come up with I just don't see that as a possibility and did you see and I and I said that since you can't come up with a decision on abortion - everyone likes it's just not possible the best you can do is have a decision that's credible to you - the people who didn't get their way you want the people who didn't get their way an abortion to say well I don't like this outcome but at least the right people are making the decision they've looked at the right stuff they've taken it

[33:45]

at the right stuff they've taken it seriously I respect the process and I respect the people who are involved I just wish it had gone another way that's your best situation because you can't get to everybody your grade that's not possible so what happened when Alabama I guess it was passed their new abortion law the first thing you saw was that picture of a wall of just men who were behind the decision it was the first thing that the opposition went to they went at the credibility of the process and were they wrong they were not wrong put yourself if you're a man if you're a man try to put yourself in this position forget about what your opinion of abortion is that's not relevant to what I'm gonna say you could be proud or you could be anti for this next comment
somebody says stuff is apologizing for being man nothing like that is happening

[34:46]

being man nothing like that is happening there is nothing like me apologizing for being a man that's that's happening here I'm talking about the credibility of a system and let me finish my points imagine that you are a woman this is for the men we're watching imagine you're a woman and it's decision about your body about your health and about your potential offspring the most important things to you period that's it your body your health your life your potential offspring nothing more important than that and then you say let's see who made the decision about what I do with my female body are you freaking kidding me nothing but men put you just just imagine just imagine you're a woman you you it's your body and you say whichever way the decision goes I might like it I might not like it but I sure want the right people making the decision and then you see a wall of male old male faces there were the only

[35:47]

male old male faces there were the only ones making the decision now as somebody saying women vote do you care do you care just by putting yourself at the situation you say to yourself yes women voted for these men who made the decision but it's a wall of male faces telling me a woman in this imaginary situation what to do with my body are you okay with that are you okay with that there's no way you're okay with that okay reverse it now let's say the question is about circumcision all right I'm a man let's say there became a national question about whether a young male baby should be circumcised and then I'm watching the news and I see it's a bunch of women that made the decision hypothetically this isn't going to happen how do you feel about that you're a man and you found out that women decided whether your penis should be sliced no men were involved how do

[36:48]

be sliced no men were involved how do you feel about that no frickin way no freakin way I'm okay with that because that is not a credible law a credible law on male circumcision should be mostly men throw in some women just so you haven't missed anything but I want that do you mostly a male decision and I so to my critic from a minute ago am i apologizing for being male no freaking not I'm saying that if you could have a law about circumcision I don't want your female opinion period I do not care what women say about the law now I do care if they prefer circumcised men so I certainly I was certainly factor that him now III would want to hear what they had to say I would definitely want to know how women feel about it but if you showed me that only women made the final legal decision I'm industry completely non credible

[37:48]

I'm industry completely non credible process so all I'm saying is that the same way that I would feel if the situation were reversed I'm willing to I'm willing to take that same same approach so I believe I've been shown right have I not been shown right that having men be too prominent in the abortion question reduces the credibility not whether it's a right or wrong decision that's separate I'm talking about whether the society will accept the decision do they accept a dis credible and the answer is unambiguously no you saw that that the pro-abortion people went right after that here's a wall of male faces this is not a credible process and you know what I say they're right that was not a credible process it might be was the right decision it might be the wrong decision I accused myself from that but this was not a credible process and the women in

[38:50]

not a credible process and the women in the man who are complaining about the fact that was all males making this decision spot-on they could not be more right with this criticism now I know that no laws were violated I know that these men got elected I'm sure the elections were fair enough but that's not really the point anyway that's the frame another one oh let's talk about immigration when the president framed his merit immigration policy he compared us to Canada Australia New Zealand and Japan and he said that we're just trying to change our immigration policies so it's more in line with these other countries that we compete with so that it's less family based and more skills based like our other countries that we like so much and then if you've seen the the chart where you can actually compare the United States planned and future policy with the other countries it's really it's very it's

[39:54]

countries it's really it's very it's very persuasive to actually see that Canada to Japan etc has a competitive system and we have a clearly uncompetitive system because it does not value skills or a less competitive system it doesn't value skills it's a really strong argument to simply simply take our policy and move it to where our allies that we like so much and we assume you know we don't we don't assume in Canada is a bunch of racists so simply making our policy like there's a strong argument now again I'm not making the argument I'm just saying that persuasion wise it's very powerful that that comparison was made I found that very persuasive all right let's do nuclear the way nuclear is framed as been is nuclear energy dangerous or practical that is the wrong frame if you ask yourself is nuclear power dangerous

[40:54]

ask yourself is nuclear power dangerous you get where we are now which is a little bit of progress it looks like it's picking up but not enough here's the way you should frame nuclear energy is it more or less dangerous than runaway climate change that is the framing this saves the world and when I say it saves the world maybe literally because there are smart people plenty health of Bill Gates among them who say that nuclear power is really the only thing that's ready enough safe enough economical enough to make a big push on climate change but here's the great part even if climate change is a hoax even if climate change is not the problem that most scientists say it is even if it's not you would want to do exactly the same stuff you'd want more nuclear energy because it's the most economical

[41:56]

economical safest it's the best for pollution and just in case it's also the best for for co2 in terms of the best thing that you can do quickly in that scale so stop framing nuclear as is nuclear dangerous or not that's a losing frame change it to is nuclear safer or less safe than letting climate change be dealt with with only solar or only wind or the combination of those two which is more dangerous and I think that gets you to more nuclear energy in a good way all right so those are my three frames I'll run through them again on on the question of abortion the bad way to frame it is as life started yes or no with that you could never get any progress everybody will be unhappy forever better frame is the better frame is who decides

[42:58]

frame is the better frame is who decides you know who gets to decide something that no matter who is in control there will be bad mistakes made somebody's going to die who didn't need to no matter what so the question for a stable country is who gets to decide this question that there's never going to be what a decision we all agree with on nuclear is it better than climate change or or or not and on immigration how does it compare to the other to the other countries and also on immigration the way you frame it is who gets to decide what our country is if we have strong border control then it's people in this country you get to decide what the United States is and what it becomes if we don't have strong border security then the fate of the United States will be decided by Guatemalans Central American folks and as wonderful as they are and I mean that sincerely Central

[44:01]

are and I mean that sincerely Central Americans Mexicans great people I mean they really are great people
but do they get to decide do they get to decide what America is if that's okay with you then just be clear about what it is that you're agreed with all right those are my topics for the day I'm going to make a couple of observations here which you should not put too much stake in so there are two things that happened recently that I'm scratching my head one is my periscope YouTube and yeah periscope YouTube and LinkedIn traffic all dropped a lot at about the same time so for reasons that I don't know the traffic from LinkedIn that was going to Tilburg comm just suddenly disappeared I mean it went from

[45:02]

suddenly disappeared I mean it went from a lot to nothing overnight don't know I haven't been able to find out why likewise my YouTube traffic took a took a step down not sure why and my periscope traffic as you can see had been typically 2,000 people and I would get around 20,000 views now yesterday for some reason the number of people who are watching it at one time spiked to 3,000 so doubled for reasons I never figured out but if you look at the total number of people who viewed even that periscope it's actually down so at the same time that my troll activity got really high I assume you know the media matters or some other trolls were coming after me at the same time the troll activity got high I took tremendous hits to my income in in a

[46:05]

tremendous hits to my income in in a number of areas there were social media related now here's the thing what do I make of that here's my argument for
for regulating the social media companies the fact that I can't tell if these changes are a coincidence or some some kind of change they had to do with nothing important or if I've been targeted it's pretty important what are you making of the fact that I can't tell and I have a way to tell I have no way to know I have nobody to talk to nobody could to complain to I have no way to know why suddenly my traffic takes a falls off a ledge one of the things that I noticed happening is that I have a lot of influence over some topics that people don't like because I'm pretty good at framing things and and finding

[47:07]

good at framing things and and finding out what's the most persuasive way to talk about something so is it do I need to prove that you know bad things were happening to me in terms of algorithms or social media or bias or anything and by the way I'm not making that claim so I'm not making the claim that these changes which have a huge impact on my income I'm not saying that the same kind of organized bias against me I have no way of knowing but that's the problem there was a big change it was negative it happened all of a sudden at and across platforms at the same time that patrol activity ticked up considerably so I know I'm on some kind of list you know I clearly I'm being targeted as other supporters of the president have been but if I can't tell that's a that's enough reason for regulation isn't it because there must

[48:09]

regulation isn't it because there must be other people in my situation where they can't tell if they've been targeted in a way that's very very destructive I mean it could not be more destructive if it's intentional if it's just a coincidence or just something about the weather that's causing less people to watch or something how would I know I wouldn't know so the very fact that you can't know is the argument that's all the argument you need for regulating the social network platforms the way I'd like to see it done is there should be somebody who some kind of a judge or external group that can look at their algorithms and can investigate certain claims there should be a way for somebody some kind of a judge or external body to go to any of the social media platforms that say here's a name show us show us what the algorithm did with this person and show us why the traffic went down and then in most cases

[49:09]

traffic went down and then in most cases I would assume it's gonna be just regular reasons all right that's all I got for now and I will talk to you later