Episode 626 Scott Adams: Epstein Theories, Bad Media Persuasion, Bad Pattern Recognition

Date: 2019-08-12 | Duration: 1:06:30

Topics

Massive incompetence is the norm for large organizations Prisons are large organizations…are they an exception? WaPo mass shooting list, journalism or partisan politics persuasion? If you don’t understand the “Bible Code” phenomena… …you don’t understand the reality you live in Coincidences and proof are different things BOTH political parties package coincidences… …for persuasion of the public “Top of Mind” concept and brainwashing President Trump speaks HONESTLY We see his HONEST opinions in his way of speaking Interpretation of his honest opinions…NOT necessarily honest President Trump…TREATS EVERYONE THE SAME Treat the President with respectful disagreement, no worries “All” you have to do then, is out-negotiate him Treat President Trump unfairly or disrespectfully…he hits back Why you’ll NEVER see a productive gun control debate

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:13]

hello everybody come on in grab a chair near the front it's time for coffee with Scott Adams I'm Scott Adams and you will be enjoying the simultaneous sip with me in mere moments think how exciting that is I mean really that's pretty exciting thanks for the super art camera hallo everybody if you'd like to enjoy the simultaneous sip and all of the dopamine hit that comes with that the thing that starts your day just perfectly well you know what you need you need a cover of mucker glass the Stein HL is a tanker to thermos a flask ack emptying a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee join me now for the simultaneous scent mmm I hope your coffee is warmer than mine it was still delicious all right more good news disguised as

[1:18]

all right more good news disguised as bad news here's the here's the good news - SIA described disguised as bad news Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in a jail cell or someone killed him in a jail cell that's what we're talking about that's pretty good that was pretty pretty good so that's our bad news for the day if that's what we're talking about and then blaming each other for gun violence and blaming each other for away supremacy even as bad as those things sound this is still the golden age when your worst bad news at least Weston death the stuff that makes it to that lines when your worst bad news it's not so bad I have a relative to let's say World War two Holocaust and stuff like that but

[2:19]

two Holocaust and stuff like that but lots of stuff to fix let's talk about Epstein and the evolving psychosis around that and the Washington Post says that Epstein's prison was understaffed a lot
lot they were very understaffed and they hadn't checked on him in hours now what was my thing that I warned you about I said if you have two hypotheses a hypotheses one is a very clever plot involving murdering a high-value target in jail at exactly the right time maybe I'm not going to say that didn't happen can't prove a negative but it's kind of complicated and it's out there and then the other the other hypothesis is jails are like every other big organization in the world way more incompetent than you could ever imagine

[3:20]

could ever imagine unless you were the author of the Dilbert comic strip which writes about big organization inefficiencies and incompetence for the past thirty years in which case sort of top of mind for me so whose theory would have predicted the future if your theory was that he was murdered by a highly capable plot that got to him even in prison would that have predicted that the prison was also deeply understaffed it wouldn't have predicted it or not predicted it but mine would have my hypothesis of basic incompetence would have predicted that as soon as you drill down you'd find a pretty good evidence of massive incompetence and under understaffing is maybe not the fault of the staff you know it's not their choice to be understaffed it's there are bigger decisions that probably happen towards

[4:21]

decisions that probably happen towards the top but that sure looks like incompetence so I would say that yesterday if you were according to judge the likelihood of the the two possibilities and mostly people are talking about there's something in between possibilities what people are focusing on he was murdered by the Clintons or some powerful people like that versus he killed himself because the jail was incompetent and they they couldn't keep him alive which of those did you think was likely 24 hours ago 24 hours ago he sent oh my god there's no way this could have happened in this highly capable prison situation where everything's controlled and they know just what they're doing that's what you thought 24 hours ago 24 hours ago I was saying no incompetence is still your top theory it's always your top theory until you've got a photograph of somebody straggling that guy it's still your top theory

[5:22]

that guy it's still your top theory because of odds the odds of incompetence explaining things are really really high just in general so now again I want to say very clearly I'm only talking about probabilities if tomorrow somebody produces a photograph of Hillary Clinton sneaking in and the jailers outfit and strangling Kevin this whose cell I'm going to say whoa we got that one wrong you know at least statistically I thought it was the other way let's talk about some warrior apparently his roommate was mysteriously reassigned his roommate and here's a weird thing his roommate was a convicted murderer who had been an ex-cop what are the odds that Jeffrey Epstein would get a convicted cop now I suppose the problem is that the cop also was in danger of being killed in the general population was that the problem uh-huh perhaps but

[6:24]

was that the problem uh-huh perhaps but I there was some suggestion and just speculation I think the Epstein needed to get away from his roommate because who's afraid his roommate was going to kill him now that feels like a reasonable thing to be afraid of but it also feels like the sort of thing that it feels like the sort of thing that Epstein might want have tried to manipulate himself so for example let me ask you this you're Epstein and you're really really good at this stuff this stuff means manipulating people to believe things and do things you want them to do that's what he was good at now imagine that you want to kill yourself and your roommate is wait for it I'll be the first person who's ever said this I'm going to add a piece of understanding to the puzzle then I'll bet you nobody else will say today except me you ready for us if Epstein wanted to kill himself and his cellmate was an

[7:27]

kill himself and his cellmate was an ex-cop who would be the most capable person of stopping him and reviving him you know the answer the ex-cop is trained the ex-cop knows CPR the ex-cop even though he was convicted to murdering somebody the fact that he was a cop at all probably tells you that he at least has some leanings toward the legal system even though he fell afoul of it in the worst possible way he's probably the most likely roommate who could try to prevent you from killing yourself even if he hated you I mean he might have prevented you from dying just because he knew that living forever in the cell was worse so you know that's possible but a cop who knows at least basic medical procedures for emergencies he's the last person you'd want as your roommate now the other possibility is that the cop was so bad the cop was a

[8:27]

that the cop was so bad the cop was a danger to Epstein as well but you could imagine Epstein wanting to get rid of that roommate and perhaps you know perhaps he may have been part of the manipulation to do that the other hypothesis is that of course you get rid of the roommate because that's how you make it easy to convert groom so that fact would fit both hypotheses
now behind most people's assumption that the people who believe those are conspiracy and he was obviously murdered behind that is the assumption that prisons are competent places right because that's that's sort of necessary to make sure that you only have one hypothesis you think is likely because if prisons were competent then you would say yourself Wow if they wanted to keep him alive they could have done it because they're competent but have they ever had a

[9:30]

competent but have they ever had a prisoner like Jeffrey Epstein probably not
not they usually have people were not as good at getting away with stuff so if you have a system that was designed to keep people from killing themselves would that system be designed so that it was good for the best manipulator in the world or would it be designed to get 99 percent of the world yeah if you had a system that protected 99 percent of the people who wanted to kill themselves would you say to yourself okay I think we got it it's 99% effective meaning that 99% of the people wouldn't be smart enough to figure out how to kill themselves in that system what we know about Epstein is that he was totally capable of doing that he was unusually capable at manipulating people and smart and using a math Wiz that I like you and all that so would a system that was made to prevent 99% of people for typical

[10:34]

to prevent 99% of people for typical prisoners from killing themselves would it have stopped Epstein maybe but it's also easy to imagine that he would be the exception now especially when GAD all the incompetence into the system even if had been designed well it wasn't managed well because they were understaffed here's something you have not assumed to be true why do you believe that the prison would have given Epstein special attention for his presumed or risk suicide why would he have gotten the special attention because you say to yourself again hey it's a very capable prison they've got everything else under control this new risk comes in so obviously they want to fully control this as well just as well as they fully controlled all the other risks in the prison what that's not that's not a thing a prison is just full of problems do you know how many

[11:35]

full of problems do you know how many people in that prison probably wanted to kill themselves that day probably a few do you know how many other potential problems that were that you needed staffing to keep other people alive how many places you needed to keep to keep the staff alive you probably needed a lot of people so Epstein wasn't the one problem that prison had a prison is a building full of problems as sort of what it is if you imagined Epstein was the only new problem and everything else was taken care of efficiently with precision then yeah it would make sense that okay this looks like an outlier this one thing they didn't do right when they were doing everything else correctly do you think that's what it really looks like if you were an insider if you worked in that prison would you just say to yourself you know it looks suspicious even to me I work in this prison and I happen to know we do everything right so this one time we don't do it right yeah that's suspicious but I doubt that

[12:37]

yeah that's suspicious but I doubt that insider would say that again thirty years of writing Dilbert and working at big companies tells me this probably the insiders would say you know this doesn't surprise me about everything we do is messed up here we're understaffed management is terrible they don't even know where to put the resources we asked for stuffs they don't give it to us we're overworked we're exhausted yeah I took a nap I think it wouldn't look like that oh if I know here's a question for you would this be murder so with the following scenario be considered murder suppose some of the important people associated with you know these high-profile people who might have might have been exposed whoever you imagine that is so I'm not talking about the Clintons necessarily just imagine there's some high-profile person some billionaire or some politician who thought they had some risk because of Epstein still alive what if they got to

[13:38]

Epstein still alive what if they got to him in jail through you know somebody talking to somebody who talks to them and said to him this you know Jeffrey it's almost like things would go worse for you if you stayed alive because there's some powerful people who want to cause some real pain to you while you're in prison ya know let's say they said it more indirectly you know there are some powerful people who have a lot of friends in the prison system and I can't tell if you'd be better off alive or dead in this situation and let's say that the person telling Epstein is somebody credible who knows that there are important people who will make sure that his time in prison isn't is worse than the worst thing it could possibly be whatever's the the worst thing you can imagine it'll be worse than that suppose they tell them that we're gonna make sure that if you live in this prison you're gonna wish you didn't now what if that encourages Epstein to go

[14:40]

what if that encourages Epstein to go kill himself is that murder is it because what didn't somebody get convicted of manslaughter or I don't know what the exact charges I'm not a lawyer for encouraging somebody on social media to commit suicide I think we just had that case right where there was somebody who got in trouble for encouraging somebody else who actually committed suicide so somebody's saying it's not I don't know the answer to that I don't know if that's chargeable whether it's murder or something I know
so here's our current situation I'm going to I'm going to make a prediction based on the incompetence theory the incompetence theory says then you will discover that the way Epstein was treated was similar to way they probably would have treated anybody else meaning that even though you say to yourself he's a high-profile prisoner is he more important than every other

[15:41]

he more important than every other person on suicide watch can a prison a prison management can they pick favorites can they say I got one guy on suicide watch who definitely looks like a big risk but he's an ordinary person I've got another one his name is Jeffrey Epstein it's a bigger picture situation because there might be other people implicated et cetera but he's just another human does the prison system get to choose which one of those two they keep alive if there are other they're staffed and they know one of them is gonna get more attention I don't know if they can make that choice should they be allowed to make that choice should the prison system be allowed to look at the big picture or are they only allowed to look at the little picture let's say you're the guard you know you're not making management decisions you're just a guard and if it's your job as a guard do you've got two people who are at risk and you can't be in both places how do you choose I'm not sure the guards

[16:44]

you choose I'm not sure the guards prioritize people by the outside circumstances I think they just have to keep them all alive so I think the assumption that he was a special case may not hold once you get in prison there might not be any such thing as a special case there might be special places they put you but once you're in that special place I imagine you'd be treated like everyone else who's ever in that special place somebody says me and that's naive Scott now I know some of you are thinking of El Chapo well let me address whoever said that's naive I'm talking about it from the perspective of someone with lots of large organization experience if you say I'm naive you'd have to match me for that level of experience I'm literally a recognized expert on this management competence in fact if you were gonna do a national story about management incompetence who would you most likely

[17:46]

incompetence who would you most likely want a quote from me so I hear you when you say I'm naive but I hope that you hear me that I am maybe one of the most world recognized experts on this topic now not about prisons in particular but about any organization and my and my my take is this it's very likely that there might have been some management people who said let's treat this as a special case we don't want to lose this one it would be pretty embarrassing but that doesn't mean that the staff cared anything about that the staff has to keep everybody alive I doubt that they were making political decisions at the staff level probably not so if they didn't have enough resources to do their job they were just going to do whatever they're gonna do and they probably didn't give a flying F about epstein living or dying it probably didn't care so Sarah Silverman

[18:48]

probably didn't care so Sarah Silverman had an interesting admission turns out that she was once fired from a movie role that she had already got Godhra gotten she had already acquired four four they discovered that she did a skit in her past wearing blackface sarah silverman one of the greatest critics of President Trump she she has their photographs in the public domain for wearing blackface she says in her defense that she's not that kind of comic anymore okay now I do not judge her harshly for that because I have a I try to stay consistent to the following rule it's the same reason I do not and did not judge Kathy Griffin harshly because if you make a joke and it offends people but you know it's a joke that's different

[19:50]

that's different you know that's not that's not being a terrible person that's being a comedian who pushed the edge and went a little too far that's not the end of the world you want your comedians to push the boundary and if you've got lots of comedians pushing lots of boundaries the boundary is just going to keep getting bigger and bigger because everybody sort of pushing it out a little bit somebody's gonna overshoot it a little bit or somebody's gonna do something that used to not look the same but now it looks worse which is also a risk I think that's the case with the blackface I think when Sarah Silverman probably did her original blackface skit people probably said oh it's Sarah Silverman we already know she's not a racist so she's making fun of racism or something like that I think people put it in context and said it's not racism it might be offensive if you didn't know who she was but if you do know who she is and she's joking and she's trying to get a

[20:50]

joking and she's trying to get a reaction and you know that she's most liberal person in the world she definitely doesn't have bad feelings about black people she's making fun of the situation of blackface not so much black people you let it go but then the times change and suddenly something that didn't look that offensive because of its old context gets fast forwarded into a new context and then your hair catches on fire so I give Sarah Silverman my professional humorist pass not that she needs it right she's I'm sure she would not appreciate that I said that in anyway but same thing I said for Kathy Griffin same thing I say for Sarah Silverman same thing I'm going to say for the next humorist who gets in trouble which is you took a you took a run at it it didn't work out that time I would hope that I would be judged the same way all right so I guess the

[21:51]

same way all right so I guess the Washington Post today in the print edition they they listed in this big wall of names the name of every mass shooting victim since 1966 and of course the
the is to turn visual something that's a concept visual so you just see how many people got killed in mass shootings it's just all this tiny print across the whole page it's practically blackens the whole page and it's effective so on a persuasion level it's effective but is it reporting is it in context it's a fair it's true you know the facts are probably true or true or not but is it fair well as the critics pointed out I guess Robert Kazinsky tweeted this is and I don't know how to pronounce this next word you know those words that you read but you never have to pronounce here's a word I've read a thousand times

[22:53]

here's a word I've read a thousand times I've never said this word aloud I will now mispronounce it for your pleasure for the first time virulent virulence virulent vir ul ent very virulent so whatever that were is view you lint let's go with that this is virulent in numeracy : trying to make a comparatively rare event look much bigger than it is by the way you print it and that's I think you nailed it that's exactly what's happening on now I wouldn't call it viewer lint in numeracy in part because when you say virulent in numeracy you sound like the biggest douchebag in the world so if you want to sound like the biggest douchebag in the

[23:54]

sound like the biggest douchebag in the world next time you're talking to your friends over a drink just say to yourself you know this looks like a case of view you didn't in numeracy you will lose all your friends if you say that but in the context of a tweet since you just have to read it they're pretty cool words I'm not making fun of rubber trees and ski they're actually excellent words in the tweet they only sound wonky when you say them out loud and he used them in the correct way which is in the tweet so no problem with that alright and then he said did he say this or somebody else I think he said this Tristan Sookie said figure out how many of these pages it would take to print the names of everybody struck by lightning since 1966 none of the people drunk jumped in and said all right now let's see the page of people who drowned in swimming pools and you know every other disaster died in car accidents and

[24:54]

other disaster died in car accidents and then somebody had the the total mic drop how many people died of opioids today yeah it's a big it's a lot of printed pages there isn't it so is that would you say that that would be journalism is it journalism to take a statistic which is by its nature rare compared to all the problems in the world it's rare and to turn it into something that you're that they know your mind will register as a gigantic problem simply by the way they printed it is that journalism I don't think so it looks like brainwashing to me now it might be brainwashing um toward a good end this sort of depends where you are here if what comes into this is that we do a dig you know a deeper dive on guns and gun control and both sides you know grudgingly find something to try that's different and that different thing makes

[25:56]

different and that different thing makes things better I would say this is brainwashing that has a good purpose but I don't know that that's likely to happen I am you know optimistically as possible but we can say for sure it's brainwashing we can't say if it'll work out yet all right here's another one so the New York Times did a similarly weasel ish thing they they said and I quote this New York Times there is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personnel and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso there's a striking degree of overlap in words meaning what now the the implication here is that this is evidence of brainwashing essentially or influence let's call it meaning that these people were

[26:58]

meaning that these people were influenced by right-wing pundits now striking degree of overlap couldn't that also mean that they just have the same political opinion and that people who have the same political opinion or likely to use the same words if you thought that the massive number of people is coming across the border we're all good you're likely to say lots of people coming across the border excellent people and most of mostly they are some I assume or bad people but see what I did there but mostly great people in fact all of my experiences was immigrants to this country I'd say far more positive than the population it was already here but that's just my experience and so if you're Pro immigration what words would you use to describe it you'd say immigrants if you wanted to be

[28:00]

you'd say immigrants if you wanted to be more let's say legalistic you'd say undocumented immigrants you'd say great people who came to this country for the same reason our ancestors did you'd use words like that right suppose you were afraid of it because you thought there was too much of it that was uncontrolled and could lead to you know lower standard of living here if you let it go forever what would you if that was your opinion what words would you use
the meaning the government is putting effort on controlling it with armed guards people with weapons and we can't stop it with militaristic you know border security what word would come to your mind that would most describe that situation if it was your opinion that it

[29:01]

situation if it was your opinion that it was a dangerous amount of it happening and it was violating our armed borders well if you call that an invasion which was the word that I guess one of the main words that they found overlapped between the pundits and the that at least one shooter should you be described should you be surprised that people have the same opinion you used the same words I don't think so now I think it would be fair to say that people might pick up the words from the pundits but picking up the words of the pundits is that the same thing you're saying therefore you cause them to shoot people the can you make that leap because what this is remember I used to talk about I've used the word not used to I often use the phrase of word thinking where we imagine that the association between two words means something in the

[30:01]

between two words means something in the real world and it doesn't sometimes just words remind you of other words but that doesn't make them logically connected this is another one of those examples it is a word Association somebody on Twitter said why don't you stop calling it suggested instead of calling it word thinking which people don't immediately know what I'm talking about somebody said why do you call it that people are using word association instead of thinking and I saw that tweeted suggestion and I immediately said damn it that's way better than what I've been doing but I also used word thinking in my upcoming book it was too late to change it so you know what I'm talking about so when they do this kind of analysis is sort of like the Bible code let me tell you about the Bible code if you've never heard of the Bible code I'm gonna make a big statement and then when you check on the Bible code and I'll tell you what that is in a moment when you check on this

[31:02]

is in a moment when you check on this you realize that my big statement this seems too big when I say it it isn't too big here's the big statement if you don't understand what the Bible code is the story of something called the Bible code and I'll tell you what it is if you don't know that story you don't understand the reality that you're living in it's a pretty big claim right if you don't know this one anecdotal story you don't understand the reality that you're living in in general I'm not saying that you don't understand something about that story I'm saying you don't understand the reality that you think you're experiencing it's all wrong if you don't know the story of the Bible code here's the story some years ago I don't know a few decades ago there was somebody wrote a book called the Bible code and what the Bible code was they imagined they imagine that they had found all these secret messages in the Bible and what they would do is they'd run different programs or algorithms

[32:03]

run different programs or algorithms against the Bible and they would find for example hey I'm making up this one but it's roughly roughly what's happening they would say if you took the first letter of the third word on every page in this chapter and you just went to third word and every one of these it would spell out a message of something that actually happened so you'd say okay the third word of every word in the Bible in this in this section of the Bible says something like plane hits 911 tower that's actually the book was written before 9/11 so wasn't that but we'll say Kennedy assassinated you know or president shot or president shot with you know two numbers that represents you know the year you were shot now you can find that in the Bible not that specific example but it's a whole bunch of examples of that kind where if you take the fourth word but you you line them up or you you do some things and you can

[33:04]

or you you do some things and you can all of these predictions in the Bible that the author claimed were God talking to us and telling us what was going to happen but here's the problem we couldn't determine what was going to happen before it happened you could only find it after it happened so you could never look for a code and then find it and then look to the real world and then find that real thing happening it was all in the past but secondly some critics took war and peace which was not written by God and they ran the same the same algorithms against war apiece and guess what war and peace and every other large book has lots of accidental codes in it the accidental codes were if you depending on how you cherry pick what you're looking at I'll take the second the second letter of this word but then the next word I'll

[34:04]

this word but then the next word I'll take the third letter or whatever your algorithm is you will find all of these predictions if you want to call it that of things that you can verify happened now because it works on every book we can conclusively say okay there's nothing about the Bible except that it's a big book because it works on every big book somebody says you have this wrong Scott alright Jay Miller doc you have one chance to tell me what was wrong or I'm gonna block you because for those of you who knew you get blocked for saying you're wrong or you're naive on this podcast or this periscope the reason for that is not that you're I don't like competing opinions I do but I want the opinion I don't want the conclusion I don't want to hear you I don't want to hear you tell me I'm wrong tell me I'm wrong because you got plenty of characters here you know use the phone you don't have to give me a detail you could say you know Scott you're wrong

[35:07]

could say you know Scott you're wrong have you seen you know this person's analysis or you know you know there's some fact you don't have to give details you got plenty of characters to tell me why I'm wrong but if you say on ieave from wrong and that's all you say that you're in the blocking category just wanna make that clear and that's mostly just for the viewing pleasure everybody here we don't need the the unreasoned negativity I just I don't have any patience for him all right the Bible code is a lot like numerology and that is correct it is a lot like numerology so here's why if you had never heard the Bible code then everything else you see lately would look different like let's say for example the mounds and mounds of evidence that proves that the presence of the United States colluded with Russia how much evidence was there for that tons tons of evidence it was all kind of sketchy it wasn't it and it

[36:09]

kind of sketchy it wasn't it and it turns out that if you added it all together it didn't add up to anything now if you knew of the Bible code you would know that humans can routinely be a be surprised and fooled by stuff that looks like a whole bunch of evidence and is just coincidence that's what the Bible Code teaches you that that we are a species that can't tell the difference between coincidence and real-life when you look at you you look at the Democrats telling you that the president Trump has said they like to say a thousand different ways he's proven he's a white supremacist and you say to yourself look why is it I haven't seen even one of them well how could it be a thousand I read the news every day why haven't I noticed any and then the Democrats will say well I mean list them all and there will list one thing after another that you say yourself um okay I see what you're saying but that looks just like a coincidental choice of words

[37:11]

just like a coincidental choice of words like anybody else would have done it doesn't look like a pattern to me right now now look at Jeffrey Epstein oh this is the part where I lose you right look at Jeffrey Epstein why do you think he definitely got murdered by powerful people or the toons or whatever you believe why because look at all the coincidences man that many coincidences how could so many coincidences being meaningless because of the Bible code well not because of the Bible Code but understand the Bible code a whole bunch of coincidences means nothing nothing it's the moment you say can't be that many coincidences you've lost the trail of reason you're not on the trail of reason if your best reason for something is a whole bunch of coincidences because that exists exactly

[38:12]

coincidences because that exists exactly how the American public is fooled by the media they package coincidences you know each side doesn't so take the birther situation didn't seem like there were a lot of coincidences there why is it a coincidence that you know he happens to have you know Barack Obama husbands have a Muslim sounding name and he happened to have there was something irregular about the birth certificate isn't it a coincidence that that when he was first asked for it he didn't you know took him a while to produce it and you could come up with probably twelve coincidences that would tell you oh he must be a Muslim sleeper cell who was really born in Ethiopia or whatever the hell it was I don't care by the way just to be clear I've never I never bought the birther saying Obama's a residue bama's a

[39:13]

saying Obama's a residue bama's a citizen always was etc but consider how often packages of coincidences are sold to the public and it's all Bible code it's Bible code all the way down just like Turtles if you don't learn that lesson it's gonna be a hard life all right
there's a question about whether Trump's rhetoric causes white supremacists shooting
what do you think I'm gonna say do you think I'm gonna say the president Trump's rhetoric is a contribute let's say a contributing factor because there's never one variable but do you think President Trump's rhetoric about immigrants is a contributing cause of the white supremacists shooting in El Paso what do you think do you think it's a contributing cause your comments are

[40:17]

a contributing cause your comments are sort of backed up so I can't see the can't see it in real-time but I'll give you my answer you're not gonna like it the answer is yes yes the the president's rhetoric in my opinion there's no way to prove this but in my opinion it does make this type of crime top of mind same and I'm gonna make the same argument as I made for video games now this doesn't mean that the president should stop talking the way he's doing that's a slightly different topic here's the case I'm gonna make people do the things they can think of to do it's this is a great rule they should just always keep in mind people don't do things they can't think of to do tomorrow I will not go out and play the tuba I'm not even thinking about it you only

[41:18]

I'm not even thinking about it you only do the things you think of so one of the reasons I've said that the violent video games where you're shooting vast numbers of people is a causal element of mass shootings not because if brainwashes them to become shooters I don't think the evidence is there for that but it does give them the idea and if there were no such thing as any kind of entertainment content that made you think about shooting mass numbers of people a lot of people would never even consider it it would never even be a thing in their head now combine the idea that there is such a thing as mass shooting people and people have that in their head what's the next thing you need you need a target for whom you are not sympathetic you need a group of people that you can tell yourself ah I'm thinking about mass shootings I'm thinking about suicide I'm thinking about killing myself in a way that's

[42:18]

about killing myself in a way that's spectacular and awesome but I wanted to have meaning so I'm thinking about my video games and my mass shootings I'm thinking about suicide but I need to attach it to something with meaning what's happening in the world what's everybody talking about what an invasion from Mexico it's gonna ruin life in this country say some people well there I've got it it's my last element I'm thinking about suicide I'm thinking about mass shootings because I'm spending all my time looking at that content I just need an enemy does your president give them an enemy yep he does absolutely now should the president change his rhetoric because of this problem so that's a harder question because you could argue that people simply introducing topics influences people in lots of ways and you wouldn't want you wouldn't want to assign blame for the person who

[43:19]

assign blame for the person who introduces the topic or talks about it in a way that they think is honest so the way president from talks about immigration I would argue is honest meaning that that's how he sees it he sees people pouring across the border that could have an impact on this country he thinks negative based on just the numbers of them not the fact that immigration exists but just the numbers of them and he calls it an invasion is that anything but an honest opinion that describes the situation we're all watching that's sort of an honest opinion they uses a provocative word but not an aligned I would think that if you think it's a problem the word invasion kind of fits right
could you hold the president responsible for simply describing a problem within the domain of his job one of the most important parts of his job and in characterizing it as a problem I don't

[44:19]

characterizing it as a problem I don't think you can blame a politician for describing an observable problem that we're all observing that said is the way he talks about it a contributing variable to somebody having it in their head that if I'm gonna go out and shoot a bunch of people since maybe I already want to do that not me but I'm talking about the shooter what do I think of well you think of what's in the news so I think you can say that the news industry is equally the brain to blame and in the way they they amplify his language the way they focus on the word invasion etc so I think everybody's got some I would say a lot of people are contributing variables but the way we organize society we don't attribute blame to people in a legal sense except for the people who do the crime that typically it's the people doing the crime that get the legal blame well let's be adults everything is a is a

[45:22]

let's be adults everything is a is a multiple variable situation and one of the variables is what did you think of to do and certainly the news and the way it's covered and even what the leaders say is part of that so that's the adult way to look at it instead of saying it's all good or all bad or result guilty or he's all innocent why can't it be true that there's a little bit of responsibility which is different from saying he should be doing it differently that's a slightly different question right let's see what else I have a theory that part of the reason for the you know two movies on one screen you know the world being seen two different ways is that we're bad at pattern recognition but that's the only way we think we think in terms of patterns but we're just bad at it let me give you some example Trump uses the same rhetoric as white

[46:23]

Trump uses the same rhetoric as white supremacist so that's part of the claim today is that the way the white supremacists talk and the way the president talks have some overlap is that true or false I would assume it's true because you know what they both use the English language and there's probably lots of things you could find the overlaps like the Bible Code all right so is it true that there's some overlap I don't know probably is there any overlap between the things that Trump says and the local PTA talking about the school board probably no there's probably lots of coincidental overlaps and languages but that's just word association but here's the other pattern Trump uses the same rhetoric as Democrats so is it true that Trump uses the same rhetoric as white supremacist well not identical but is it true that there's some overlap in the choice of words I would say yes so what do you

[47:25]

words I would say yes so what do you make of that if that's the only thing at you say whoa boy supremacist talk this way
way president Trump talks this way there must be some connection but then you lose the other pattern the Trump uses the same rhetoric as Democrats he overlaps with two groups what do you make of the fact that President Trump uses the same rhetoric as Democrats and white supremacist doesn't that prove that Democrats are a way supremacist because the president uses the same rhetoric you know the word invasion the word infestation I'm sure there's some probably a Democrat was referred to a city as a you don't think that's ever happened I would say the president uses in the same rhetoric as white supremacists and Democrats in other words we're bad at pattern recognition we see patterns all the play all over the place here's another one critics say Trump goes easy on white

[48:26]

critics say Trump goes easy on white supremacists is that true yes yes that's true in my this is my opinion if I watch the the type of energy that the president puts into disavowing white supremacist I say to myself huh it feels like he goes harder at Rosie O'Donnell that he does it white supremacist it feels like he goes harder at Nancy Pelosi that he does at white supremacist now that's just an impression but remember I I'm you know on the president's side and even I think that even I think he goes lighter on white supremacist than my sense of whether the census of the way things should be would suggest so if that were my only pattern I would say with a Democrat set which is huh it does seem that he's suspiciously good to white supremacist but there's another pattern here it is President

[49:28]

another pattern here it is President Trump goes easy on anti feh according to who me according to me he goes easy on anti-fire identify the one that wants to kill me what do you think I think about that I don't like ante file I think he needs to go much much harder at them he just sort of threw them into a sentence and lumped them with the white supremacist is that going hard at them no I think he should be talking about them every freaking day that's what I think so we have two patterns one is that the people on the Left believe that President goes soft on white supremacist I look at that and I go I can see that I can definitely see that to the president goes soft on antiphon who I would like him to go harder and I see that too what's the real pattern do you see it yet
yet here's the real pattern he doesn't go

[50:29]

here's the real pattern he doesn't go that hard at Americans if that's the first time you realize that doesn't doesn't it give you a little shock the president never goes hard at American citizens think about it doesn't matter if they're empty fog doesn't matter if they're a white supremacist doesn't matter wait for it yes there are convicted prisoners he's not the one behind it but he's supported one behind it but he's supported the president goes easy on Americans consistently it doesn't matter if they agree with him it doesn't matter if they disagree he does go hard at individuals who are going hard at him so that's the thing so if

[51:31]

hard at him so that's the thing so if somebody has a name and you know we know their name it's Bob he'll go after Bob pretty hard if Bob goes after him that's what we all observe what if bob is part of the group does the president ever go after the group of Americans hard maybe there might be an example but I don't really see it he tends to treat groups of Americans as well that's sort of your opinion but individuals he goes after ours because that's always fair they identify themselves you know their name they said bad things as part of the entertainment that goes after them by name so here's another one if you're on the Left you say that Trump routinely insults people of color and women is that true does Trump routinely insult people of color and women absolutely all the time if you're not noticing that you're not noticing anything President Trump

[52:32]

noticing anything President Trump routinely does insult people of color and women all the time what's the other pattern President Trump insults all of his critics all of the time all of them if you only saw the pattern that he insults people of color and women which is true you'd say well therefore I guess he's a white supremacist and he said he's a sexist and a white supremacist if you know they insults all of his critics all the time what would you make of that pattern opposite you'd say are you telling me he's the first president who ever treated women and pieces and people of color the same he is the first person who ever gave enough enough respect to women and people of color that he treats them the same his first president to do it it's jarring isn't it but if you missed that pattern

[53:34]

isn't it but if you missed that pattern they treats everybody the same you're you're off on your own little false pattern-recognition here are some more patterns the Clinton body count that's a pattern right people who were about to out the Clintons they end up dead you see in the pattern there definitely does seem to be a pattern seems to happen a lot now here's what you don't see how many people do the Clintons know just in general a lot of people if you knew as many people as the Clintons how many people that you know personally would have died in accidents and got murdered the Clintons probably know I'm 10,000 people if you count all the people who work for them their supporters people have some kind of role is the fact that

[54:34]

have some kind of role is the fact that I don't know a hundred of them died in bad accidents does that tell you anything I don't know somebody says come on come on Scott can't you see the pattern are you listening to this periscope at all all right here's another pattern that people bad things happen in prisons because prisons can't control everything is that a pattern it is right don't bad things happen in prisons fairly regularly there and riots people killed in prison people people die all the time in prison it's probably a pretty common thing here's another pattern and here's the one that everybody keeps ignoring true or false Jeffrey Epstein routinely did things that other people would think were impossible or couldn't be done that you forgot that pattern didn't you that is a very consistent pattern

[55:36]

is a very consistent pattern Epstein did all kinds of things that other people would have found impossible he you know not only did he make half a billion dollars but he had a massive pedophile ring and got the President of the United States to fly with him on his private island to pedophile Island could you have done that no I'm guessing that you wouldn't want to do that but if you wanted to could you have done that and then once you've got caught the first time and convicted do you think you could have gotten Oh jail time that doesn't count the day time because you can go to work during the day do you think you could have gotten that lightest sentence for that crime know everything about Epstein says that he can do stuff that would appear impossible to ordinary people so what are the odds that he had the the ability

[56:38]

are the odds that he had the the ability to commit suicide in a situation that most people could not have pulled it off I don't the pattern to me it looks like he's exactly the guy who could do that of all the people I've ever heard about in my entire world name one who would have been more capable for that specific crime of convincing really the crime entirely dependent on convincing the guards that he wasn't a risk who is better at convincing people that he's not a risk when he actually is then Jeffrey Epstein nobody has ever been better at convincing people he's not a monster then the monster Jeffrey Epstein alright it's pattern I'm gonna make a prediction about guns here's my prediction you will never see a productive gun control debate you'll never see it part of the

[57:38]

debate you'll never see it part of the reason is that people don't have facts on their side because if you haven't done exactly what is being proposed it hasn't happened exactly in this country it's hard to know if it'll work but you're never going to see a long-form argument where somebody says you know there are 10 ways to approach this you could change this law you could you know implement this you could educate people you could do this whatever change the system they're probably 10 at least semi feasible ideas floating around do you think you'll ever see any kind of content in which either all ten or even one of them is debated without a time limit by people who know what they're talking about will you ever get to watch that happen know why there does not exist any kind of media platform to support that conversation so the thing that we need more than anything is a an adult conversation about what are the options

[58:41]

conversation about what are the options what can we predict about them and maybe can we try it for a little while is there something that we could try small temporarily see if it works will you ever see that conversation now is our government capable of having that conversation even internally no no they're not they are not capable of doing that is the news capable of doing that now nope is there any let's say famous pundit who is capable of doing that no no because every TV show radio show etc they at the very least they have a time limit
so no there is no platform to have the conversation so as a systems versus goal guy what do I suggest here it is stop working on gun control just stop stop

[59:44]

working on gun control just stop stop talking about it until we have a platform to talk about it productively now of course people will keep talking about it because that's what we do but what I'm suggesting is that we should stop focusing on the goal the goal is to have less gun violence but still protect the Second Amendment if we can so those are the goals but if we keep talking about the goals you can't get there that's another problem with goals I always talk about systems or better than goals you can't get there talking about goals but if somebody somewhere could create a platform and let me just give you a suggestion I'll use a real person just because it's easier to talk about real people I don't necessarily think you know this is the ultimate suggestion most of you are familiar with Dave Rubens show right now Dave Rubin is unique because he's a a gay man married on the left but he talks about a lot of

[1:00:45]

on the left but he talks about a lot of content that would be Trump friendly without losing his you know his basic philosophical core and so he's unusual in that he can cross lives and the way other people can't cross lines suppose and I'm not suggesting this for Dave because he's got his own business that works really well he doesn't need to take my suggestions but somebody like him will just use it as an example he has a show that he can produce whatever he wants in whatever life he wants on whatever topic he wants and he's unique and that I believe he could talk about this topic without you assuming he already has a side because if he asked me what is Dave Rubens view on gun control no I I watch a lot of his content I have no idea which is perfect right it's perfect because you don't know what his opinion is he's associated with the left he does a lot of content on right what the hell is his offending on gun control he may have said it once but I'm not sure he ever has cuz that you

[1:01:45]

I'm not sure he ever has cuz that you know he's not really in the he's not really in the opinion business so much as the letting other people get their opinions business so imagine somebody like him saying all right there are ten ideas I'm going to do ten episodes or whatever and this episode will just be about extending background checks and and we'll go as long as it takes and we'll have somebody on both sides who can do fact-checking in real-time so you've got your two debaters and then each of your debater has a at least one fact checker sitting off screen and somebody makes a claim the other person says no that's not true and then Dave says hold on fact checkers like we'll keep talking but you fact checkers check the claim and show us your sources and we'll double back to that now let's just keep talking okay you got your answer all right who's got a source you've got the New York Times you've got this now you might not be able to drill down to an answer because even the sources are unreliable

[1:02:47]

even the sources are unreliable wouldn't you say would you trust any real it's hard to trust any source when it comes to that but at least we can find out what is known you know we can we can at least get to a deeper level so imagine if you will creating some kind of a platform like that and really airing out all of the specific subtopics yeah somebody says it's too boring and I think you're right I one of the reasons that you don't have this platform is that it's not a big probably wouldn't be a big audience scanner unless you had a real celebrity type person doing it which is another reason you know dave rubin has a big audience already so you might be able to bring a lot of attention but you'd want yeah joe rogan is another one you know Joe Rogan is a little less political a lot less political so might not be the perfect vehicle just because the type of audience he has but somebody like that the other person who could do it is me what is my opinion on gun

[1:03:49]

it is me what is my opinion on gun control you don't no idea it's a little unclear isn't you you don't really know my opinion on gun control I mean I'll tell you my opinion is if you can find something reasonable to test small let's do it
is that a disagreeable opinion to anybody on the left or anybody in the right I think it probably would be disagreeable to people on the right who have the the slippery slope problem but keep in mind I'm just telling you my starting position like you know I'm about as close as you can get to open-minded on this question as anybody I would say as a as an absolute no gun confiscations of you know handguns and hunting rifles and stuff like that I mean the Second Amendment has to stand I think that's a that's a hard line but

[1:04:49]

think that's a that's a hard line but there's a lot of room to play that won't necessarily take away all your rights and so somebody needs to create a platform to have the actual discussion otherwise it's just a big waste of time and all it's going to be is to see which see which group can shout the loudest and and you know get the most people elected and there's no sense of a reason or logic or even a workable system that's even involved in this conversation where we're all gol thinking with no system whatsoever to have a productive conversation all right somebody says Brian lamb of c-span don't know about him but I don't can you get enough people to watch seasoning follow pregger you and watch his short videos the trouble with short videos they definitely have their place and Praeger you does a sensational job with their videos especially the if you saw Steve Cortes with his fine people

[1:05:51]

Cortes with his fine people hoax debunking last I checked he got four million views and it's probably much higher by now four million views debunking this is Steve Cortes debunking on Prager you with the video debunking the fine people hoax four billion views that's a fact so that might but unfortunately preggers you was associated with a team so it wouldn't be the the right system to use to have a unbiased conversation alright that's all I got for now I'll talk to you later