Episode 279 Scott Adams - Domestic Terror and Who Does It

hey where is everybody Tom get in here you're the fastest one Andrew unikz RAB mathias Andy Barry and deep southern come on in here hey juju and and I don't know what that name is and somebody with a bikini and Joe and all right gimme her as you might have already noticed I was not doing periscope this morning I'm in a different time zone doing some press for the for the paperback edition of wind Bigley so if you don't have win Bigley yet you don't know what everybody's talking about I feel sorry for you if you haven't read wind begley but on the other end you are very clever to wait because if you waited you can buy the paperback edition and it's lighter to carry on the plane so pick that up do me a favor all right somebody said I just interrupted them from watching the video of Ben Shapiro and I talking by the way if you haven't seen that you can find it just google it just google my name and Ben Shapiro it'll come up and I'm hearing that people really like it which is weird because when I left the interview I remember thinking to myself oh I wish I had done better you know I wish I had I wish I had said things a little differently but apparently people like it so maybe you should watch it alright so let me talk about two social experiments that I have been running on Twitter that many of you have been part of now I wasn't trying to hide it so everything I'm going to tell you was obvious in public but let me put the frame on it that I have yet so the first one was I was asking people to send me some information about George Soros to tell me specifically what was he funding how much of their budget did he fund because if it's only 1% it doesn't mean much if it's a hundred percent of some organizations budget well that means he's in charge so if we don't know what percentage he's giving to any organization we don't know what year he did it and we don't know what he's trying to achieve it's kind of hard to say what's going on and instead of getting useful information of the foreign that would say George Soros did this here's the link to it and here's why this is bad I didn't get anything like that but I got a whole bunch of people saying stuff such as well look at this video clip of his sixty minutes interview in which he said he enjoyed being a Nazi collaborator that didn't happen if you watch the unedited version of that it's completely different so first of all most of the people who are hating on George Soros are starting from a fake news standpoint the video in which it appears that he was enjoying being a Nazi collaborator is just fake news if you see the whole thing in context it doesn't mean what it looks to mean when you see it out of context secondly who the hell cares what does it matter to me what Soros did when he was 14 that doesn't affect me I only care what he's doing now so if you were pointing me to 1940s - tell me why you don't like George Soros today you haven't answered the question so here's my preliminary take and I'm open to revising this and indeed I think there might be a really good chance that someone will give me information that will cause me to revise it so I'm not locked in on this opinion but so far it appears that soros derangement syndrome is an equivalent of trump derangement syndrome it's just on the right instead of the left so I am completely unconvinced that there is an argument against George Soros which is coherent it might be that he talks like a vampire that people don't like that it might be something anti-semitic that people don't say out loud but they're sort of thinking it it might be because he does seem to be doing things that Israel doesn't like I don't know exactly what but to the to the degree that he tries to be balanced that would be bad if your interests are the interest of your country Israel is most interested in Israel as it should be the United States is most interested in the United States I think we should be Canada should be mostly interested in Canada so if George Soros is doing something that might be good for one country let's say good for Canada but less good for the United States the United States has a reason to complain about that but I'd like to see the data that would support them all right so enough about that I've talked about him before so I tried a similar experiment today on Twitter in which I've been seeing summaries of what types of people are causing this domestic terrorism the violence the killing and the summaries tend to say things such as there are X number of people who are white supremacists who who kill people and there are X number who are lefties who killed people to which I say I don't know if I trust that and so I wanted so what I asked for on Twitter was I asked for anybody who could give me a list of all the way supremacist or at least by political affiliation what what terrorist domestic terrorist stuff they've done and then I would compare that to a list of the other side say left-leaning people and maybe Islamist to just complete it and here's my contention if you have never seen a list of the one I described there is no information that's useful here and what happened was people massively tweeted me things that they thought were the answers to my questions but quite markedly or not and I'm going to read you some of the responses just so you can see how wild this is so that this is a like a really interesting in my opinion very interesting psychological experiment so what I was doing here is seeing if people had a blind spot and if they could see it so here was the original tweet I said can someone tweet me a detailed list detail being the operative word of domestic terror incidents sorted by political affiliation of the perpetrator and then I said and here's the fun part I said please do not not not and each of the knots was in capitals so please do not not not send me totals without details there was a worthless how many people responded by sending me exactly what I said in clear language do not not not send me to it totals without details quite a few how many people sent me a list of just the leftists quite a few how many people sent me to a source that talked about the totals without showing them how many people a lot how he sent me to someplace where I could do the research myself that's not what I asked for if the only answer is I can do the research for myself that means nobody did the research which is my hypothesis so if you want if you look at the comments they are hilariously blind spotted so there's some people send me the Wikipedia link which talks about it but doesn't show them you know the list next to each there I guess I would have to research their links and make the list myself but here's the problem if you have a list of what Breitbart says is all of the leftist violence and you have a list of let's say what CNN said just hypothetically of all the violence from white supremacists or even just people who are on the right could you compare those two lists and say this one is bigger than this one no you could not you could not because the method that those two entities used would of course be different so you wouldn't know anything so people who are sending me one side like hey I've got the answer for you and I think there were dozens of people who send me a Breitbart article showing six hundred some left-leaning acts of violence domestically what does that do to answer my question nothing it doesn't do anything it's the same as a blank page because if it doesn't on the same by the same author using the same methodology if it doesn't show you what's the other side you don't know anything is 600 a lot I don't even know it's a big country 600 might not even be a lot it is the violence on the right twice as much half as much I don't know so if you look at the comments it'll blow your mind when you see how clearly I asked the question knowing that either a hundred percent or something close to that would hallucinate the question so that they could answer it in a way that's compatible somebody's saying you're being thick Scott all right that's cognitive dissonance so the people who were coming in and just insulting me for asking the most the most reasonable question anybody ever asked are suffering a cognitive you know crisis because how many people were sure they knew the answer to who where the violence is coming from well a lot of people according to my my Twitter feed a lot of people thought that they that they they knew the answer that a lot of people thought they knew I saw Rose is an evil monster but when I asked them to show me even this slightest rudimentary reason even the slightest little useful piece of information it's just silence it's nothing so here's here are my preliminary conclusions which I'm willing to I'm willing to update so preliminary I believe that the people who think Soros is a monster don't know anything about them and they don't have an argument to back it up they do have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of articles in which other people gave their opinion I've read some of the articles because a lot of people forwarded me stuff and the articles have things such as soros wants to destroy Israel or Soros wants to destroy the United States to which I say did he say that well is that mind reading you know what where did he say anything like that somebody said why would Hungary ban him is that an argument is the argument that Hungary doesn't like George Soros and therefore he's bad for the United States is that an argument because Hungary is not the United States there are actually different countries with very different things going for them hungry well I I would get exhausted if I tried to list all the differences between Hungary and the United States so does Hungary have a good reason for banning him I don't know I haven't heard it but I've heard a lot of people say Hungary banned him now I believe the issue is that and correct me if I'm wrong the Hungary is very aggressive on borders I believe they have a border wall am I am I correct on that or at least a fence I believe Hungary closed their border and that Soros is more Pro immigration there are a lot of people who are pro-immigration who are not the devil and unless Soros is making a difference in that country he's just a player with an opinion all right so I believe that it is a conspiracy theory that Soros is the devil without you without giving you an opinion of whether he's done anything worthy of this I don't know but I can conclude and this part I'm confident of that maybe nearly all of the people who have a strong opinion about Soros it's not based on anything it's based on what they heard other people talking about without the without the supporting facts secondly I believe that any comparison of of domestic acts on the Left versus domestic acts of the right has never been made III believe that it's looked at through such a political lens that nobody's ever done an analysis where you could just compare look I made these two lists using the same criteria this list is bigger than this list if that's been done that would be great I'd love to see it but hundreds of people in my Twitter feed who have a strong opinion on this topic couldn't find one and we have Google if Google can find it right now let's talk about the who gets blamed for this is it that should the president be blamed could the president be blamed for the uptick in violence well I don't know if this is true but people have been tweeting around a list this show that shows that the domestic acts of violence spiked under Obama and then this would just be a continuation of that line but do I believe those graphs no because they're summaries I can't see the detail I don't made the graph so I don't know if that's true but we should at least figure that out for context you know is that was the trend up that is started under Obama or was it a sort of flat or declining trend and that in the age of Trump it went just like that which of those two things is true if you don't know the answer to that question you don't know a frickin thing about this topic I don't know the answer to that question so I'm talking about myself I don't know a frickin thing about this topic but I'm pretty sure you don't either yeah now I'm pretty sure other people don't as well so here's my take on it the the argument about whether the president should take some responsibility about it is a sort of a fake trick argument and by that I mean people are shifting the definition of what that means to to fit their to fit their political agenda here's here's the rational way to look at it the rational way to look at it is that there are different filters to look at this if you look at it from a legal filter the president is absolutely not responsible for the violent acts of a stranger even the anti-trump people agree with that secondly from a social perspective how should we treat each other socially what kind of civilization do we want how do we how we how do we want to judge each other from that filter even president Trump's critics also give him a pass and say you just can't judge you know one person's talk as the cause of a sudden strangers action that's not fair but if you were to look at it as a science person let's call that a scientist if you're going to look at it that way you would say if there are tens of millions of people listening maybe hundreds of millions listening to somebody who is speaking provocatively what are the odds that at least one person and let's say more than one but at least one person who has some mental issues will be triggered by that provocative speech to go out and do something that we wish they hadn't done the answer to that is about a hundred percent there's a hundred percent chance because the the population is so big that there's a hundred percent chance that the way you talk will trigger somebody but now let's put it in context was that true under President Obama I don't know neither do you but it probably was do you believe that nobody killed anybody with pull to the Obama administration while thinking that that was part of the reason I would guess that that's a fairly common thing to happen and part of it is that people look for excuses to put on their evil so people look for a reason they say well you know I want to kill somebody today I think it's because of Obama I think it's because of immigration right so you can't always trust people's reasons even if they're screaming them while they're shooting people those might be the excuses they might just be crazy people want to show people and they need a rationale for it so you have to watch out for that but then you also further have to put it in context by saying how does that compare to other things that affect the public for example what about some forms of music can music make somebody go kill people if you're normal now a normal person doesn't go kill people because they heard something ugly on a song but if you're talking about hundreds of millions of people listening to music and some of them are just just put it on repeat they've got their headphones on and all their hearing is kill this you know do that slap slap this punch that could those few people who are not mentally stable and millions could they be inspired to kill somebody because of music and the answer is a hundred percent yes you know almost no chance it affects everybody but a hundred percent chance somebody listening to music killed somebody because of it how about videogames does the average person become violent because they watched a video game absolutely not it's been tested I believe it's been tested they've put normal people in the room and doesn't really change it much they can tell the difference between fake violence and real violence but if you have hundreds of millions of people playing violent video games and some few of those hundreds of millions are mentally unstable could the video game be a reason or a trigger or a you know the last necessary variable to cause them to be violent yes a hundred percent chance the video games kill people a hundred percent chance there's not even any there's not a trace of doubt about that now so if you're if you're if you're trying to size how bad is that the Trump speaks provocatively and uses sort of you know punch um Kickham language how big a deal is that well it's probably if I had to just sort of use my best judgment based on what I know about the world and how it works probably similar to music probably similar to video games now that doesn't mean he should do it if you said Scott are you saying he should keep talking the way he used to talk I would say no I don't think so I I think that the smartest thing he could do with what six days until the midterm the smartest thing he could do is to say that he plans to stop doing that and that people should call him out if he does it again he should actually just you should invoke the help of the public that if he goes too far that they should call him out and then he should say I'm gonna try to tone this down the trouble is doing so would make it seem like he was taking responsibility for what's happened in the past that's very problematic so you'd have to be very careful about how he presented it it would be better to say we should all do this and all go first so if he puts it that way it goes down better now whenever I say something like this like the president should do X let me put on my humility hat I don't have a humility hat so I'll put on my humility my humility earphones now the reason I put on the humility headphones is I ask myself if I were to go back in time to 2015 you know if I were a time traveler and I could go back and somehow I met with candidate Trump and he said look here's my plan to be president here are all the tweets I'm gonna send for the next few years what do you think it's pretty pretty genius isn't it I think this will make me president I would have looked at his list and I would say oh god oh no you got to get rid of this one I gotta get rid of this one this was a mistake that one's a mistake you have to know that none of us would have advised him to act the way he acted and the way he acted made him president of the frickin United States so if you think you can look into all the things he did and say well ok I'll give you that this actually worked but these parts these parts I got to take out of there because these parts were clearly bad parts maybe maybe you might be right but it could be that the that the provocative talk that we we realize is going too far is exactly what makes him interesting and being interesting is what allows him to control our thoughts and that allows him to persuade so it might be that he shouldn't do this it might be that pulling you back a little bit would help him I would advise it I've seen you know I saw karl rove advise it I think I've seen every talking head in the world advise it on both sides but you know we don't really know it's a little it's a little more complicated then don't talk bad because bad things will happen because there are more variables involved alright so the so it is my opinion that it would be brilliant to dial it back and to announce he's dialing it back before the midterms because the the biggest complaint about the president right now is that he talks he talks being right so if your biggest problem is that you talk meme and you announce that you're gonna stop doing it right before people vote it's gonna have to put a little doubt in their heads and after the election he could go back to talking mean if he needs to but it would be a real effective thing to get in front of it and say yeah you know let's let's step back and you know maybe I'll try a try a few months of being nicer and see what happens I don't know if being nice will work we'll see so so that that's my frame on it you now the other thing I asked in the Twitter poll is whether fake news was a bigger or smaller problem than Trump's rhetoric and of course it's a highly unscientific highly biased poll but I think 75 percent said fake news was worse you know I would agree now let me ask you this if President Trump were not battling against fake news would he need to be as provocative as he is mad man suppose suppose the anti Trump press just covered the news straight just gave us the facts would President Trump feel the need to be as provocative as is I don't know the answer that but you have to ask that question because the fake news and Trump are not separate entities they're like one monster that when one moves the other moves with it when one hits the other hits back they are joined they don't like it neither them wants to be joined but the fact is that the media both yeah and you know the entire media not just the fake media but they are joined at the hip and so you cannot say that President Trump acts independently even when you're looking at his provocative language it's not independent of how the news is treating him he does what he needs to do to get the job done in his mind some of us would disagree about the method but he's clearly doing what he can do in the face of a hostile media and so to ask him to tone down while the media is staying at DEFCON 10 I'm not sure that's fair would it be fair to say Trump should change and the anti Trump media should just do what they've been doing I don't think so because if he started getting uninteresting and the news remained interesting he's at a great disadvantage so I think it would be fair to say it would be fair to him to say I'd really like to tone it down can he help me okay can you fix for example the Charlottesville fake news where Trump said both sides of the Statue issue were fine people or that that were finding people on both sides of that issue and the news the anti-trump news reported it as that he says white supremacists are fine people that never happened take that away go first go first CNN that's a challenge to you I know some of your producers are gonna see this go first just take back the Charlottesville hoax and see what the president does you know test it if you if you think if you think less provocative talk is good for the country go first yes somebody says nope they won't well I'm not I'm not optimistic that that would happen but the only point I'm making is that the president doesn't operate in a vacuum a huge part of why he chooses the strategies he does is because the context he's got to get above the noise and be the strongest voice right now the noise is so evil the only way to get above it is with a good dose of hyperbole which he does why because it works because it works that's why he does it then somebody said the Charlottesville thing is I have to read that kind of that dumbass comment sorry I can't stroll there for some reason somebody said Charlottesville is not a hoax because it is demeanor I'm sorry apologist again I'll delete the guy who thinks apologist is part of reason so the people calling me an apologist keep in mind that I disagree with the President on health care I think immigration could be better race relations should be better I disagree with statues etc so but the Charlottesville hoax is pretty clearly factually on my side here so you don't have to wonder if I'm shading it let me ask you this if you believe that the president was calling the white supremacists fine people do you think he also meant the other side or fine people meaning anti-shah do you think the president decided to label some people and anti-fog fine people no do you think that he went on television and decided that as a sitting president who as far as we can tell is not crazy decided there would be a good strategy to throw in with the white supremacists on national television no no that never happened it's ridiculous on its face and what he was asked to clarify he disavowed them in the clearest possible language yes it was about the statues and he probably didn't know exactly who was at the event he knew some of the players but not all of them and he made a standard comment that there are good people on both sides of the statue question now I happen to be on the opposite side from the President on the Statue question so I'm on the side that says which you know the statues are just decorations and if they're offensive well that's a bad decoration and they're clearly offensive to a significant portion of the population population why do you put up a decoration that's offensive it's the worst thing that's the worst idea in the world for a decoration erasing history is wrong yes that's why I'm not suggesting that you change the history books I'm not suggesting you change the Internet I'm suggesting you change your decorations do you ever read a curate your house why do you ever read a curate your house why not leave it the way it was for history do you want to change history the changing history thing is a terrible argument history should not be erased is a statue really history yet do you remember when you were in seventh grade history class and and the teacher said you know we were gonna use books we were gonna use books but instead we're just going to take you down to look at the statue because that's history now the statue is not history that's a dumb dumb argument a statue you know it's it's not history any more than everything else in the world is history right you can you can preserve all of your history without a statue in fact I live in a town that does not have a statue how do I learn history if statues are history all right I think you get my point then put it in a museum then people could go look at them yeah I'm not sure how easy it is to move these gigantic statues to museum but you know in principle that would be a fair thing to do the statue will be history when it's removed true if you move the statues to a different place where they could be put in context because I don't think that's offensive you know there there's such a thing as the Holocaust Museum but nobody's saying they're Pro Holocaust or if they are I don't want to be them but if you move the Confederate statues do their own Museum nobody's going to say you're praising you know slavery they're gonna say well you put it in context thank you no one worthy of a statue in California somebody said well baby I'll be the first I hope somebody's starting to carve my statue there's a lot of offensive art that's offensive to somebody where do you draw the line good good question and I think there's a good standard for that if a hundred percent of the public disliked a public decoration should you remove it let's say they were offended deeply offended most people say yes if a hundred percent of the people disliked it suppose it was just one person in the whole world just one person should you remove the statue or they are no it's just one person you got the whole public wants it to stay what if it's 40 percent of the public is deeply offended yes yes if 40 percent of the public is offended by a public statue you move that statue now how many people are deeply offended by the Confederate statues I don't know but it's probably somewhere in the 20 to 50 percent range somewhere in there is that enough to say we should get rid of it yes in my opinion a public statue that offends nearly all African Americans and a lot of other folks too is absolutely inappropriate it has nothing to do with history you can put it in a museum as people say take a picture of it all right the reason they are offended is because of the yeah slavery you know it's one thing to be offended by a piece of art because you don't like it it's another thing to be reminded of slavery that's a different situation going on for decades yeah I wouldn't make any I wouldn't compare Christmas decorations to slavery if you don't mind I think I'm gonna keep those separate topics what if it was 1% of people I think it was 1% there would be an argument to not get rid of it but it would also depend on their argument if the 1% had a pretty compelling argument I listen to it that doesn't mean I'll agree but I would certainly listen to an argument 1% is actually a lot of people you know it's not a high percentage but it's a lot of people I would certainly listen to what they had to say all right I believe I've said what I need to say so I didn't realize this but apparently I get I guess some small amount of money when people send me these super hearts or hearts or something so if anybody's inclined to do that please do I'm not sure exactly how it works but somehow you if you tap the side of your screen hearts appear and some of them are super hearts and I don't know what any of that means but for some reason periscope will give me some small amount of money if you do that which you don't need to do is optional what about 0.01 again it would depend on the the argument let's say there was a statue of well I don't know I can't think of an example but it's unlikely that point no 1% would be good enough to remove a statue you changed my mind in this subject I changed somebody's mind look at me being all persuasive and everything so whoever said that that I changed their mind props to you because you really rarely see anybody change their mind based on argument or or data it's a very rare thing and to to whoever it was who just went by I forgot to look at your name whoever said that they changed their minds I have a lot of respect for that because it's just so rare it's just a great quality just to be able to change your mind is is really terrific alright this is my TV shirt somebody asked me about my TV sure this is my TV shirt so tomorrow I'll be on Fox and Friends I'm scheduled to show up which doesn't mean I'll be on the air but I'll be showing up for the a30 Eastern Time so West Coast people have got to wake up early it's 5:30 Western so sometime after the a30 Eastern Time I'll be on there for a few minutes and I will explode some more minds you changed my mind about jump well let me ask you this question because this could be interesting how many of you have ever changed your mind about let's say a political topic because of me just shall be in the comments how many of you have changed your mind on anything doesn't matter what it is you could mention what it is or if you just say yes whichever you're comfortable with you've changed mine but not this time I'm just looking at your comments open your mind to Trump time to sport gab let's talk about gab so I find myself in a very awkward situation with gab so I'll just I'll just completely I'll be full disclosure all right because there's no right answer here so I'll just fully disclose and then you can do with it what you will I of course like free speech I of course don't like any any suggestion that Twitter would be shadow banning any conservative voices but here's the problem with a gab in theory gab would be a competitor to Twitter but because of their business model of allowing people who would not be allowed on Twitter it becomes a magnet for all the people that are sort of too misbehaved if I can use that word right yeah it's all subjective but in in Twitter context they're the misbehaviors or most drawn to gab the people who are not misbehaving in a way that Twitter cares about in other words people were not conservative why would they leave it would be crazy to leave Twitter if you're a liberal or if you're on the left or even if you're just not conservative it would be crazy to leave Twitter because that's the bigger more robust place or more people on there there's multiple points of view etc gab unfortunately because of their business model became a magnet for the people who got kicked off of gab and the people who are just duplicating their exposure on another platform that's not a business model I can imagine working so when people say hey weigh in here you've got a you've got a support gap I say it's not a free speech question it's not exactly a free speech question it's sort of a business model question and I feel like supporting gabs business model unintentionally supports people that I don't really want to support because if you get keep in mind that gab quite publicly kicked this the shooter of the of the synagogue they kicked him off deep platform to this as soon as they found out what he was up to but not until the shooting and and I think to myself if gab is kicking people off - how long will it be before they have to change their business model to be basically the same as Twitter's you know which is banning people who say things that you feel are dangerous or don't help the country so I think those two models have to either come together or a gap I don't see how they can make it now I am concerned as all of you are that the big tech companies are deep D platforming them so I think who was it their credit card processing companies there there's their server companies might be some other entities have D platform them now I don't like that because it kind of puts those people in a censorship position when they should be bankers you know the bag should just be a bank I don't think that they should be you know stifling free speech but so that's that's that's where I am on gab and so with the reason I don't say my opinion quickly like hey gab is great or hey I don't support them the reason I don't do that is it's complicated and I wanted to do that here gab does not promote violence I never said they did I I agree with you totally saying dangerous things are not allowed anywhere that is correct but keep in mind if you were if you were a neo-nazi but you had enough self-control not to actually advocate violence online you would have a happy place and that's problematic because people don't want to go we're the only people there are the ones who couldn't make it on Twitter it's just the business model just doesn't quite make sense even though I love the idea of it I have nothing against you know the of course the you know I'm Pro entrepreneurial people so nothing against the team I'm glad that people are enjoying it the people are using it but it's a tough one to just say you support it or you don't because it's complicated all right hello for a bishop ratch my old my old office kim.com is creating a an alternative to twitter we will believe that when we see it see the problem is that twitter has the I think you'd call it that Network effect in which if you're already on there there's not much incentive to leave somebody said they want the Scott Adams degree I've actually thought of defining what that would be so the the Scott Adams degree would be some kind of combination of things you've read or studied that would be interesting because I think that's place the world should go we should have degrees that are not conferred only by colleges you know I've said that someday if I could get the let's say the the Bill Gates degree which means I just learned two things that Bill Gates thinks a successful citizen should learn whatever that is it could be just borrowing a couple of classes from different places it could be books you have to read it could be you had to try a startup on your own could be anything but whatever Bill Gates says this is the Bill Gates degree if you do these things you've got the Bill Gates degree that could really do things forward and my next to the elevator I am oh you're in a ding but that was a some other ding but I had an extra elevator he has no degree himself that's true Bill Gates did well he has a high school degree you're sure sleeves were too long on Benton's video Ben Shapiro so that's the same shirt I'm wearing right now I thought it was the same shirt oh now I have another shirt I better watch that what's in the new chapter for win big Lee the new chapter is an update on my predictions so you can see how things went compared to you how I thought they would go some things I got wrong some things I got right I need a tailor I do need to tell her all right blech sit let's talk about blech sit so apparently reportedly Kanye designed the blech set design and t-shirt and I love the I guess it would be the the subtitle you know the title is blech sit and then the subtitle is we free I don't know why that is so perfect we free you know because it does the the persuasion wise what it does is it's a mistake right because the the proper way to said is we will be free or we're trying to be free or we are free but when you say we free it makes you stop and you can't not think about it longer so I don't know if Candace came up with that I don't know if Kanye came up with that but it is kind of genius it's kind of great I got to say specifically because you know exactly what it means and your brain can't get off the fact that there's a word missing now of course it might be you know it might might be also calling back to sort of an urban way to to express yourself and that just makes it perfect to I mean so it sort of hits a lot of notes Charlie did somebody says I don't believe that I don't believe I don't believe a white guy could suggest we free because it doesn't sound like it would be culturally the same so my guess is either a Candace or Kanye or somebody associated with them but it's a great slogan it's a great design - I love the design I love the slogan I love the name blex it some people have said it should be black sit but now flexing is better absolutely and we'll see if it makes any difference somebody says Kanye and Candace designed the shirts together well you know you always have to be careful there may have been somebody else involved as well so I don't want to I don't want to give credit without knowing exactly who but my guess is that at least at least Kanye and Candace were key authors of that I don't know else was you're sounding like Larry David a little a little probably a lot somebody said they're glad I'm on their team well you should be talked to hawk I just texting with hawk so Hawk has some things he wants to add to the discussion on rhetoric from the president and violence in society and I said I was very interested in seeing that so he'll be he'll be coming to us at some point soon on that topic and always interesting to hear his thoughts all right he's going off the rails people are saying well here's the thing I believe Hawk wants to make a positive difference in the world but it's a tough tough situation to try to find common ground when people are so polarized so if he tries a few different things if he tries a few approaches I would ask you to have a little bit of patience because nobody knows exactly what's going to work sometimes he needs to pace his team sometimes he needs to reach across and nobody knows exactly when is the right time and the right way to do that so he's out there in the streets he's out there and the you know he's in the trenches somebody says he hates us I don't see that in evidence because I've had enough personal conversations with hawk that I feel like I would have picked up like actual hatred and I'm not picking up a hint of it so I think what you're looking at is a communication strategy that doesn't work for you or you think you shouldn't use which is a little bit different than hating you it's actually a lot different what is his goal well he's an advocate for you know urban folks primarily the african-american community so his his objective I think is quite obvious he's trying to make things better in a variety of ways for a certain population that could use a hand nothing wrong with that all right that's enough I think we're going to stop now and I'll talk to you all later

hey where is everybody Tom get in here

you're the fastest one Andrew unikz RAB

mathias Andy Barry and deep southern

come on in here hey juju and and I don't

know what that name is and somebody with

a bikini and Joe and all right gimme her

as you might have already noticed I was

not doing periscope this morning I'm in

a different time zone doing some press

for the for the paperback edition of

wind Bigley so if you don't have win

Bigley yet you don't know what

everybody's talking about

I feel sorry for you if you haven't read

wind begley but on the other end you are

very clever to wait because if you

waited you can buy the paperback edition

and it's lighter to carry on the plane

so pick that up do me a favor all right

somebody said I just interrupted them

from watching the video of Ben Shapiro

and I talking by the way if you haven't

seen that you can find it just google it

just google my name and Ben Shapiro

it'll come up and I'm hearing that

people really like it which is weird

because when I left the interview I

remember thinking to myself oh I wish I

had done better you know I wish I had I

wish I had said things a little

differently but apparently people like

it so maybe you should watch it

alright so let me talk about two social

experiments that I have been running on

Twitter that many of you have been part

of now I wasn't trying to hide it so

everything I'm going to tell you was

obvious in public but let me put the

frame on it that I have

yet so the first one was I was asking

people to send me some information about

George Soros to tell me specifically

what was he funding how much of their

budget did he fund because if it's only

1% it doesn't mean much if it's a

hundred percent of some organizations

budget well that means he's in charge so

if we don't know what percentage he's

giving to any organization we don't know

what year he did it and we don't know

what he's trying to achieve it's kind of

hard to say what's going on and instead

of getting useful information of the

foreign that would say George Soros did

this here's the link to it and here's

why this is bad I didn't get anything

like that

but I got a whole bunch of people saying

stuff such as well look at this video

clip of his sixty minutes interview in

which he said he enjoyed being a Nazi

collaborator that didn't happen if you

watch the unedited version of that it's

completely different so first of all

most of the people who are hating on

George Soros are starting from a fake

news standpoint the video in which it

appears that he was enjoying being a

Nazi collaborator is just fake news if

you see the whole thing in context it

doesn't mean what it looks to mean when

you see it out of context secondly who

the hell cares what does it matter to me

what Soros did when he was 14 that

doesn't affect me I only care what he's

doing now so if you were pointing me to

1940s - tell me why you don't like

George Soros today you haven't answered

the question so here's my preliminary

take and I'm open to revising this and

indeed I think there might be a really

good chance that someone will give me

information that will cause me to revise

it so I'm not locked in on this opinion

but so far it appears

that soros derangement syndrome is an

equivalent of trump derangement syndrome

it's just on the right instead of the

left so I am completely unconvinced that

there is an argument against George

Soros which is coherent it might be that

he talks like a vampire that people

don't like that it might be something

anti-semitic that people don't say out

loud but they're sort of thinking it it

might be because he does seem to be

doing things that Israel doesn't like I

don't know exactly what but to the to

the degree that he tries to be balanced

that would be bad if your interests are

the interest of your country Israel is

most interested in Israel as it should

be

the United States is most interested in

the United States I think we should be

Canada should be mostly interested in

Canada so if George Soros is doing

something that might be good for one

country let's say good for Canada but

less good for the United States the

United States has a reason to complain

about that but I'd like to see the data

that would support them all right so

enough about that I've talked about him

before so I tried a similar experiment

today on Twitter in which I've been

seeing summaries of what types of people

are causing this domestic terrorism the

violence the killing and the summaries

tend to say things such as there are X

number of people who are white

supremacists who who kill people and

there are X number who are lefties who

killed people to which I say I don't

know if I trust that and so I wanted so

what I asked for

on Twitter was I asked for anybody who

could give me a list of all the way

supremacist or at least by political

affiliation what what terrorist domestic

terrorist stuff they've done and then I

would compare that to a list of the

other side say left-leaning people and

maybe Islamist to just complete it and

here's my contention if you have never

seen a list of the one I described there

is no information that's useful here and

what happened was people massively

tweeted me things that they thought were

the answers to my questions but quite

markedly or not and I'm going to read

you some of the responses just so you

can see how wild this is so that this is

a like a really interesting in my

opinion very interesting psychological

experiment so what I was doing here is

seeing if people had a blind spot and if

they could see it so here was the

original tweet I said can someone tweet

me a detailed list detail being the

operative word of domestic terror

incidents sorted by political

affiliation of the perpetrator and then

I said and here's the fun part

I said please do not not not and each of

the knots was in capitals so please do

not not not send me totals without

details there was a worthless how many

people responded by sending me exactly

what I said in clear language do not not

not send me to it totals without details

quite a few how many people sent me a

list of just the leftists quite a few

how many people sent me to a source that

talked about the totals without showing

them how many people a lot how he sent

me to someplace where I could do the

research myself that's not what I asked

for if the only answer is I can do the

research for myself

that means nobody did the research which

is my hypothesis so if you want if you

look at the comments they are

hilariously blind spotted so there's

some people send me the Wikipedia link

which talks about it but doesn't show

them you know the list next to each

there I guess I would have to research

their links and make the list myself but

here's the problem if you have a list of

what Breitbart says is all of the

leftist violence and you have a list of

let's say what CNN said just

hypothetically of all the violence from

white supremacists or even just people

who are on the right could you compare

those two lists and say this one is

bigger than this one no you could not

you could not because the method that

those two entities used would of course

be different so you wouldn't know

anything so people who are sending me

one side like hey I've got the answer

for you and I think there were dozens of

people who send me a Breitbart article

showing six hundred some left-leaning

acts of violence

domestically what does that do to answer

my question

nothing it doesn't do anything it's the

same as a blank page because if it

doesn't on the same by the same author

using the same methodology if it doesn't

show you what's the other side you don't

know anything is 600 a lot I don't even

know it's a big country 600 might not

even be a lot it is the violence on the

right

twice as much half as much I don't know

so if you look at the comments it'll

blow your mind when you see how clearly

I asked the question knowing that either

a hundred percent or something close to

that would hallucinate the question so

that they could answer it in a way

that's compatible somebody's saying

you're being thick Scott all right

that's cognitive dissonance so the

people who were coming in and just

insulting me for asking the most the

most reasonable question anybody ever

asked are suffering a cognitive you know

crisis because how many people were sure

they knew the answer to who where the

violence is coming from well a lot of

people according to my my Twitter feed a

lot of people thought that they

that they they knew the answer that a

lot of people thought they knew I saw

Rose is an evil monster but when I asked

them to show me even this slightest

rudimentary reason even the slightest

little useful piece of information it's

just silence it's nothing so here's here

are my preliminary conclusions which I'm

willing to I'm willing to update so

preliminary I believe that the people

who think Soros is a monster don't know

anything about them and they don't have

an argument to back it up they do have

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

articles in which other people gave

their opinion I've read some of the

articles because a lot of people

forwarded me stuff and the articles have

things such as soros wants to destroy

Israel or Soros wants to destroy the

United States to which I say did he say

that well is that mind reading you know

what where did he say anything like that

somebody said why would Hungary ban him

is that an argument is the argument that

Hungary doesn't like George Soros and

therefore he's bad for the United States

is that an argument because Hungary is

not the United States there are actually

different countries with very different

things going for them hungry well I I

would get exhausted if I tried to list

all the differences between Hungary and

the United States

so does Hungary have a good reason for

banning him I don't know I haven't heard

it but I've heard a lot of people say

Hungary banned him now I believe the

issue is that and correct me if I'm

wrong the Hungary is very aggressive on

borders I believe they have a border

wall am I am I correct on that or at

least a fence

I believe Hungary closed their border

and that Soros is more Pro immigration

there are a lot of people who are

pro-immigration

who are not the devil and unless Soros

is making a difference in that country

he's just a player with an opinion all

right

so I believe that it is a conspiracy

theory that Soros is the devil without

you without giving you an opinion of

whether he's done anything worthy of

this I don't know but I can conclude and

this part I'm confident of that

maybe nearly all of the people who have

a strong opinion about Soros it's not

based on anything it's based on what

they heard other people talking about

without the without the supporting facts

secondly I believe that any comparison

of of domestic acts on the Left versus

domestic acts of the right has never

been made III believe that it's looked

at through such a political lens that

nobody's ever done an analysis where you

could just compare look I made these two

lists using the same criteria this list

is bigger than this list if that's been

done that would be great I'd love to see

it but hundreds of people in my Twitter

feed who have a strong opinion on this

topic couldn't find one and we have

Google if Google can find it right now

let's talk about the who gets blamed for

this is it that should the president be

blamed could the president be blamed for

the uptick in violence well I don't know

if this is true but people have been

tweeting around a list this show that

shows that the domestic acts of violence

spiked under Obama and then this would

just be a continuation of that line but

do I believe those graphs no because

they're summaries I can't see the detail

I don't

made the graph so I don't know if that's

true but we should at least figure that

out for context you know is that was the

trend up that is started under Obama or

was it a sort of flat or declining trend

and that in the age of Trump it went

just like that which of those two things

is true if you don't know the answer to

that question you don't know a frickin

thing about this topic I don't know the

answer to that question so I'm talking

about myself I don't know a frickin

thing about this topic but I'm pretty

sure you don't either yeah now I'm

pretty sure other people don't as well

so here's my take on it the the argument

about whether the president should take

some responsibility about it is a sort

of a fake trick argument and by that I

mean people are shifting the definition

of what that means to to fit their to

fit their political agenda here's here's

the rational way to look at it the

rational way to look at it is that there

are different filters to look at this if

you look at it from a legal filter the

president is absolutely not responsible

for the violent acts of a stranger even

the anti-trump people agree with that

secondly from a social perspective how

should we treat each other socially what

kind of civilization do we want how do

we how we how do we want to judge each

other from that filter even president

Trump's critics also give him a pass and

say you just can't judge you know one

person's talk as the cause of a sudden

strangers action that's not fair

but if you were to look at it as a

science person let's call that a

scientist if you're going to look at it

that way you would say if there are tens

of millions of people listening maybe

hundreds of millions listening to

somebody who is speaking provocatively

what are the odds that at least one

person and let's say more than one

but at least one person who has some

mental issues will be triggered by that

provocative speech to go out and do

something that we wish they hadn't done

the answer to that is about a hundred

percent there's a hundred percent chance

because the the population is so big

that there's a hundred percent chance

that the way you talk will trigger

somebody but now let's put it in context

was that true under President Obama

I don't know neither do you but it

probably was do you believe that nobody

killed anybody with pull to the Obama

administration while thinking that that

was part of the reason I would guess

that that's a fairly common thing to

happen and part of it is that people

look for excuses to put on their evil so

people look for a reason they say well

you know I want to kill somebody today I

think it's because of Obama I think it's

because of immigration right so you

can't always trust people's

reasons even if they're screaming them

while they're shooting people those

might be the excuses they might just be

crazy people want to show people and

they need a rationale for it

so you have to watch out for that but

then you also further have to put it in

context by saying how does that compare

to other things that affect the public

for example what about some forms of

music can music make somebody go kill

people if you're normal now a normal

person doesn't go kill people because

they heard something ugly on a song but

if you're talking about hundreds of

millions of people listening to music

and some of them are just just put it on

repeat they've got their headphones on

and all their hearing is kill this you

know do that slap slap this punch that

could those few people who are not

mentally stable and

millions could they be inspired to kill

somebody because of music and the answer

is a hundred percent yes you know almost

no chance it affects everybody but a

hundred percent chance somebody

listening to music killed somebody

because of it

how about videogames does the average

person become violent because they

watched a video game absolutely not it's

been tested I believe it's been tested

they've put normal people in the room

and doesn't really change it much they

can tell the difference between fake

violence and real violence but if you

have hundreds of millions of people

playing violent video games and some few

of those hundreds of millions are

mentally unstable could the video game

be a reason or a trigger or a you know

the last necessary variable to cause

them to be violent yes a hundred percent

chance the video games kill people a

hundred percent chance

there's not even any there's not a trace

of doubt about that now so if you're if

you're if you're trying to size how bad

is that the Trump speaks provocatively

and uses sort of you know punch um

Kickham language how big a deal is that

well it's probably if I had to just sort

of use my best judgment based on what I

know about the world and how it works

probably similar to music probably

similar to video games now that doesn't

mean he should do it

if you said Scott are you saying he

should keep talking the way he used to

talk I would say no I don't think so

I I think that the smartest thing he

could do with what six days until the

midterm the smartest thing he could do

is to say that he plans to stop doing

that and that people should call him out

if he does it again he should actually

just you should invoke the help of the

public that if he goes too far that they

should call him out

and then he should say I'm gonna try to

tone this down

the trouble is doing so would make it

seem like he was taking responsibility

for what's happened in the past that's

very problematic so you'd have to be

very careful about how he presented it

it would be better to say we should all

do this and all go first so if he puts

it that way it goes down better now

whenever I say something like this like

the president should do X let me put on

my humility hat I don't have a humility

hat so I'll put on my humility my

humility earphones now the reason I put

on the humility headphones is I ask

myself if I were to go back in time to

2015 you know if I were a time traveler

and I could go back and somehow I met

with candidate Trump and he said look

here's my plan to be president here are

all the tweets I'm gonna send for the

next few years what do you think it's

pretty pretty genius isn't it I think

this will make me president I would have

looked at his list and I would say oh

god oh no you got to get rid of this one

I gotta get rid of this one this was a

mistake

that one's a mistake you have to know

that none of us would have advised him

to act the way he acted and the way he

acted made him president of the frickin

United States so if you think you can

look into all the things he did and say

well ok I'll give you that this actually

worked

but these parts these parts I got to

take out of there

because these parts were clearly bad

parts maybe maybe you might be right but

it could be that the that the

provocative talk that we we realize is

going too far

is exactly what makes him interesting

and being interesting is what allows him

to control our thoughts and that allows

him to persuade so it might be that he

shouldn't do this it might be that

pulling you back a little bit would help

him I would advise it

I've seen you know I saw karl rove

advise it I think I've seen every

talking head in the world advise it on

both sides but you know we don't really

know it's a little it's a little more

complicated then don't talk bad because

bad things will happen because there are

more variables involved alright so the

so it is my opinion that it would be

brilliant to dial it back and to

announce he's dialing it back before the

midterms because the the biggest

complaint about the president right now

is that he talks he talks being right so

if your biggest problem is that you talk

meme and you announce that you're gonna

stop doing it right before people vote

it's gonna have to put a little doubt in

their heads and after the election he

could go back to talking mean if he

needs to but it would be a real

effective thing to get in front of it

and say yeah you know let's let's step

back and you know maybe I'll try a try a

few months of being nicer and see what

happens

I don't know if being nice will work

we'll see so so that that's my frame on

it you now the other thing I asked in

the Twitter poll is whether fake news

was a bigger or smaller problem than

Trump's rhetoric and of course it's a

highly unscientific highly biased poll

but I think 75 percent said fake news

was worse you know I would agree now let

me ask you this if President Trump were

not battling against fake news would he

need to be as provocative as he is mad

man suppose suppose the anti Trump press

just covered the news straight just gave

us the facts would President Trump

feel the need to be as provocative as

is I don't know the answer that but you

have to ask that question because the

fake news and Trump are not separate

entities they're like one monster that

when one moves the other moves with it

when one hits the other hits back they

are joined they don't like it neither

them wants to be joined but the fact is

that the media both yeah and you know

the entire media not just the fake media

but they are joined at the hip and so

you cannot say that President Trump acts

independently even when you're looking

at his provocative language it's not

independent of how the news is treating

him he does what he needs to do to get

the job done in his mind some of us

would disagree about the method but he's

clearly doing what he can do in the face

of a hostile media and so to ask him to

tone down while the media is staying at

DEFCON 10 I'm not sure that's fair would

it be fair to say Trump should change

and the anti Trump media should just do

what they've been doing I don't think so

because if he started getting

uninteresting and the news remained

interesting he's at a great disadvantage

so I think it would be fair to say it

would be fair to him to say I'd really

like to tone it down can he help me okay

can you fix for example the

Charlottesville fake news where Trump

said both sides of the Statue issue were

fine people or that that were finding

people on both sides of that issue and

the news the anti-trump news reported it

as that he says white supremacists are

fine people that never happened take

that away go first go first CNN that's a

challenge to you I know some of your

producers are gonna see this go first

just take back the Charlottesville hoax

and see what the president does you know

test it if you if you think if you think

less provocative talk is good for the

country go first yes somebody says nope

they won't well I'm not I'm not

optimistic that that would happen but

the only point I'm making is that the

president doesn't operate in a vacuum a

huge part of why he chooses the

strategies he does is because the

context he's got to get above the noise

and be the strongest voice right now the

noise is so evil the only way to get

above it is with a good dose of

hyperbole which he does why because it

works because it works that's why he

does it then somebody said the

Charlottesville thing is I have to read

that kind of that dumbass comment sorry

I can't stroll there for some reason

somebody said Charlottesville is not a

hoax because it is demeanor I'm sorry

apologist again I'll delete the guy who

thinks apologist is part of reason so

the people calling me an apologist keep

in mind that I disagree with the

President on health care I think

immigration could be better race

relations should be better I disagree

with statues etc so but the

Charlottesville hoax is pretty clearly

factually on my side here so you don't

have to wonder if I'm shading it let me

ask you this if you believe that the

president was calling the white

supremacists fine people do you think he

also meant the other side or fine people

meaning anti-shah do you think the

president decided to label some people

and anti-fog fine people no do you think

that he went on television and decided

that as a sitting president who as far

as we can tell is not crazy

decided there would be a good strategy

to throw in with the white supremacists

on national television no no that never

happened it's ridiculous on its face and

what he was asked to clarify he

disavowed them in the clearest possible

language yes it was about the statues

and he probably didn't know exactly who

was at the event he knew some of the

players but not all of them and he made

a standard comment that there are good

people on both sides of the statue

question now I happen to be on the

opposite side from the President on the

Statue question so I'm on the side that

says which you know the statues are just

decorations and if they're offensive

well that's a bad decoration and they're

clearly offensive to a significant

portion of the population population why

do you put up a decoration that's

offensive it's the worst thing that's

the worst idea in the world for a

decoration erasing history is wrong yes

that's why I'm not suggesting that you

change the history books I'm not

suggesting you change the Internet I'm

suggesting you change your decorations

do you ever read a curate your house why

do you ever read a curate your house why

not leave it the way it was for history

do you want to change history the

changing history thing is a terrible

argument history should not be erased is

a statue really history yet do you

remember when you were in seventh grade

history class and and the teacher said

you know we were gonna use books we were

gonna use books but instead we're just

going to take you down to look at the

statue because that's history now the

statue is not history that's a dumb dumb

argument a statue you know it's it's not

history any more than everything else in

the world is history right you can you

can preserve all of your history without

a statue in fact I live in a town that

does not have a statue how do I learn

history if statues are history

all right I think you get my point then

put it in a museum then people could go

look at them yeah I'm not sure how easy

it is to move these gigantic statues to

museum but you know in principle that

would be a fair thing to do the statue

will be history when it's removed true

if you move the statues to a different

place where they could be put in context

because I don't think that's offensive

you know there there's such a thing as

the Holocaust Museum but nobody's saying

they're Pro Holocaust or if they are I

don't want to be them but if you move

the Confederate statues do their own

Museum nobody's going to say you're

praising you know slavery they're gonna

say well you put it in context thank you

no one worthy of a statue in California

somebody said well baby I'll be the

first

I hope somebody's starting to carve my

statue

there's a lot of offensive art that's

offensive to somebody where do you draw

the line good good question and I think

there's a good standard for that if a

hundred percent of the public disliked a

public decoration should you remove it

let's say they were offended deeply

offended

most people say yes if a hundred percent

of the people disliked it suppose it was

just one person in the whole world just

one person should you remove the statue

or they are no it's just one person

you got the whole public wants it to

stay what if it's 40 percent of the

public is deeply offended yes yes if 40

percent of the public is offended by a

public statue you move that statue now

how many people are deeply offended by

the Confederate statues I don't know

but it's probably somewhere in the 20 to

50 percent range somewhere in there is

that enough to say we should get rid of

it

yes in my opinion a public statue that

offends nearly all African Americans and

a lot of other folks too is absolutely

inappropriate it has nothing to do with

history you can put it in a museum as

people say take a picture of it all

right

the reason they are offended is because

of the yeah slavery you know it's one

thing to be offended by a piece of art

because you don't like it it's another

thing to be reminded of slavery that's a

different situation going on for decades

yeah I wouldn't make any I wouldn't

compare Christmas decorations to slavery

if you don't mind I think I'm gonna keep

those separate topics what if it was 1%

of people I think it was 1% there would

be an argument to not get rid of it but

it would also depend on their argument

if the 1% had a pretty compelling

argument I listen to it that doesn't

mean I'll agree but I would certainly

listen to an argument 1% is actually a

lot of people you know it's not a high

percentage but it's a lot of people I

would certainly listen to what they had

to say all right

I believe I've said what I need to say

so I didn't realize this but apparently

I get I guess some small amount of money

when people send me these super hearts

or hearts or something so if anybody's

inclined to do that please do I'm not

sure exactly how it works but somehow

you if you tap the side of your screen

hearts appear and some of them are super

hearts and I don't know what any of that

means but for some reason periscope will

give me some small amount of money if

you do that which you don't need to do

is optional

what about 0.01 again it would depend on

the the argument let's say there was a

statue of well I don't know I can't

think of an example but it's unlikely

that point no 1% would be good enough to

remove a statue you changed my mind in

this subject I changed somebody's mind

look at me being all persuasive and

everything

so whoever said that that I changed

their mind props to you because you

really rarely see anybody change their

mind based on argument or or data it's a

very rare thing and to to whoever it was

who just went by I forgot to look at

your name whoever said that they changed

their minds I have a lot of respect for

that because it's just so rare it's just

a great quality just to be able to

change your mind is is really terrific

alright this is my TV shirt somebody

asked me about my TV sure this is my TV

shirt so tomorrow I'll be on Fox and

Friends I'm scheduled to show up which

doesn't mean I'll be on the air but I'll

be showing up for the a30 Eastern Time

so West Coast people have got to wake up

early

it's 5:30 Western so sometime after the

a30 Eastern Time I'll be on there for a

few minutes and I will explode some more

minds you changed my mind about jump

well let me ask you this question

because this could be interesting how

many of you have ever changed your mind

about let's say a political topic

because of me just shall be in the

comments how many of you have changed

your mind on anything doesn't matter

what it is you could mention what it is

or if you just say yes whichever you're

comfortable with

you've changed mine but not this time

I'm just looking at your comments open

your mind to Trump time to sport gab

let's talk about gab so I find myself in

a very awkward situation with gab so

I'll just I'll just completely I'll be

full disclosure all right because

there's no right answer here so I'll

just fully disclose and then you can do

with it what you will I of course like

free speech I of course don't like any

any suggestion that Twitter would be

shadow banning any conservative voices

but here's the problem with a gab in

theory gab would be a competitor to

Twitter but because of their business

model of allowing people who would not

be allowed on Twitter it becomes a

magnet for all the people that are sort

of too misbehaved if I can use that word

right yeah it's all subjective but in in

Twitter context they're the misbehaviors

or most drawn to gab the people who are

not misbehaving in a way that Twitter

cares about in other words people were

not conservative why would they leave it

would be crazy to leave Twitter if

you're a liberal or if you're on the

left or even if you're just not

conservative it would be crazy to leave

Twitter because that's the bigger more

robust place or more people on there

there's multiple points of view etc gab

unfortunately because of their business

model became a magnet for the people who

got kicked off of gab and the people who

are just duplicating their exposure on

another platform that's not a business

model I can imagine working so when

people say hey weigh in here you've got

a you've got a support gap I say it's

not a free speech question it's not

exactly a free speech question it's sort

of a business model question and I feel

like supporting gabs business model

unintentionally supports people that I

don't really want to support because if

you get keep in mind that

gab quite publicly kicked this the

shooter of the of the synagogue they

kicked him off deep platform to this as

soon as they found out what he was up to

but not until the shooting and and I

think to myself if gab is kicking people

off - how long will it be before they

have to change their business model to

be basically the same as Twitter's you

know which is banning people who say

things that you feel are dangerous or

don't help the country so I think those

two models have to either come together

or a gap I don't see how they can make

it now I am concerned as all of you are

that the big tech companies are deep D

platforming them so I think who was it

their credit card processing companies

there there's their server companies

might be some other entities have D

platform them now I don't like that

because it kind of puts those people in

a censorship position when they should

be bankers you know the bag should just

be a bank I don't think that they should

be you know stifling free speech but so

that's that's that's where I am on gab

and so with the reason I don't say my

opinion quickly like hey gab is great or

hey I don't support them the reason I

don't do that is it's complicated and I

wanted to do that here gab does not

promote violence I never said they did I

I agree with you totally

saying dangerous things are not allowed

anywhere that is correct but keep in

mind if you were if you were a neo-nazi

but you had enough self-control not to

actually advocate violence online you

would have a happy place and that's

problematic because people don't want to

go we're the only people there are the

ones who couldn't make it on Twitter

it's just the business model just

doesn't quite make sense even though I

love the idea of it I have nothing

against you know the of course the you

know I'm Pro entrepreneurial people so

nothing against the team I'm glad that

people are enjoying it the people are

using it but it's a tough one to just

say you support it or you don't because

it's complicated all right hello for a

bishop ratch my old my old office

kim.com is creating a an alternative to

twitter we will believe that when we see

it see the problem is that twitter has

the I think you'd call it that Network

effect in which if you're already on

there there's not much incentive to

leave

somebody said they want the Scott Adams

degree I've actually thought of defining

what that would be so the the Scott

Adams degree would be some kind of

combination of things you've read or

studied that would be interesting

because I think that's place the world

should go we should have degrees that

are not conferred only by colleges you

know I've said that someday if I could

get the let's say the the Bill Gates

degree which means I just learned two

things that Bill Gates thinks a

successful citizen should learn whatever

that is it could be just borrowing a

couple of classes from different places

it could be books you have to read it

could be you had to try a startup on

your own could be anything but whatever

Bill Gates says this is the Bill Gates

degree if you do these things you've got

the Bill Gates degree that could really

do things forward and my next to the

elevator I am oh you're in a ding but

that was a some other ding but I had an

extra elevator he has no degree himself

that's true Bill Gates did well he has a

high school degree

you're sure sleeves were too long on

Benton's video Ben Shapiro so that's the

same shirt I'm wearing right now I

thought it was the same shirt oh now I

have another shirt I better watch that

what's in the new chapter for win big

Lee the new chapter is an update on my

predictions so you can see how things

went compared to you how I thought they

would go some things I got wrong some

things I got right I need a tailor I do

need to tell her

all right blech sit let's talk about

blech sit

so apparently reportedly Kanye designed

the blech set design and t-shirt and I

love the I guess it would be the the

subtitle you know the title is blech sit

and then the subtitle is we free I don't

know why that is so perfect we free you

know because it does the the persuasion

wise what it does is it's a mistake

right because the the proper way to said

is we will be free or we're trying to be

free or we are free but when you say we

free it makes you stop and you can't not

think about it longer so I don't know if

Candace came up with that I don't know

if Kanye came up with that but it is

kind of genius it's kind of great I got

to say specifically because you know

exactly what it means and your brain

can't get off the fact that there's a

word missing now of course it might be

you know it might might be also calling

back to sort of an urban way to to

express yourself and that just makes it

perfect to I mean so it sort of hits a

lot of notes Charlie did somebody says I

don't believe that I don't believe I

don't believe a white guy could suggest

we free because it doesn't sound like it

would be culturally the same so my guess

is either a Candace or Kanye or somebody

associated with them but it's a great

slogan it's a great design - I love the

design I love the slogan I love the name

blex it some people have said it should

be black sit but now flexing is better

absolutely

and we'll see if it makes any difference

somebody says Kanye and Candace designed

the shirts together well you know you

always have to be careful there may have

been somebody else involved as well so I

don't want to I don't want to give

credit without knowing exactly who but

my guess is that at least at least Kanye

and Candace were key authors of that I

don't know else was you're sounding like

Larry David a little a little probably a

lot

somebody said they're glad I'm on their

team well you should be talked to hawk

I just texting with hawk so Hawk has

some things he wants to add to the

discussion on rhetoric from the

president and violence in society and I

said I was very interested in seeing

that

so he'll be he'll be coming to us at

some point soon on that topic and always

interesting to hear his thoughts all

right

he's going off the rails people are

saying well here's the thing

I believe Hawk wants to make a positive

difference in the world but it's a tough

tough situation to try to find common

ground when people are so polarized so

if he tries a few different things if he

tries a few approaches I would ask you

to have a little bit of patience because

nobody knows exactly what's going to

work sometimes he needs to pace his team

sometimes he needs to reach across and

nobody knows exactly when is the right

time and the right way to do that so

he's out there in the streets he's out

there and the you know he's in the

trenches somebody says he hates us I

don't see that in evidence because I've

had enough personal conversations with

hawk that I feel like I would have

picked up like actual hatred and I'm not

picking up a hint of it so I think what

you're looking at is a communication

strategy that doesn't work for you or

you think you shouldn't use which is a

little bit different than hating you

it's actually a lot different what is

his goal well he's an advocate for you

know urban folks primarily the

african-american community so his his

objective I think is quite obvious he's

trying to make things better in a

variety of ways for a certain population

that could use a hand nothing wrong with

that all right that's enough

I think we're going to stop now and I'll

talk to you all later