Episode 559 Scott Adams - Google’s Brainwashing Technology Successes, Andrew Yang on Women

mm that was not my best version of the theme song right there not my best but that means everything today is gonna be straight uphill oh good news today man got a lot to talk about and it's all fun it's all good stuff would you please grab your Stein your chalice your tankard possibly your glass your copper your mug maybe sir mr.

flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for this simultaneous sip Oh sublime well if you haven't noticed the the Krypto news world is getting all excited because because millionaire genius Eric fitmin who I believe is watching right now hi Eric did a shout-out to the web token my startups crypto and now there's Chinese websites talking about it it's on Yahoo News it's on a bunch of sites and one word from Eric makes the world go crazy so we had one of our biggest days I think our biggest day in terms of trading was the moment that Eric mentioned it so lots of stuff happening there if you want yours go to when hub comm to buy it directly or you could leave maybe get a get a bargain if you go too hot bit dot IO and trade it there all right it's not that I I'm running a poll right now on Twitter and which I'm asking people is the fact that Democrats are favoring Joe Biden and saying that he has the best chance to win because that's the reason they're favoring him they say he has the best chance to win is that not a racist dog whistle it's sort of a sexist dog whistle but is it not a racist dog whistle I mean according to the rules I don't make the rules the rules are created by the people I'm talking about not by me but by their definition what could it possibly mean to say thee has the best chance of winning do they know that Cory Booker is running do they know that caramel heiress is running do they know that Elizabeth Warren is running here's my question is there anybody who thinks that Joe Biden would do a better job in the office than any of the three people I just mentioned okay can anybody say that he would do a better job than one of those three people I don't think so so what is it that makes him the person who could win is it because he speaks better in public well that's not true is it because he's younger and more energetic no is it because of his experience well unfortunately his experience is sort of negative because he's got things in his past there were opposite of current democratic thinking is it because he's so nimble as a politician well no he's the gaffe machine if you were to look at any one of his qualities is it because he's the smartest no is it because he has the best policies doesn't seem that way so if he doesn't have any individual quality that's better than the individual qualities of the people who are lower in the polls what can we determine about Democrats I think is racist and by the way I'm not joking can you see it any other way because once I say it you can sort of see it like it's invisible until the first time you hear it but the fact the fact that he doesn't have any quality that's better than the other pack and yeah he's clearly the favored the only one who can win I don't know what else he has except he's an old white guy now I know people are gonna say name recognition but name recognition is irrelevant in terms of who's going to be you know running against Trump because by the time you get to the you know the final the final run everybody has name recognition whoever Trump runs against is going to be really really really well known so it doesn't matter at this point I can see why people would you know maybe vote for him because they haven't heard of the others at this point but it's one thing to say that he's getting the most votes because he has name recognition that's not racist would you agree it's not racist to say somebody has more name recognition that's just you can do a poll you can determine that that's just the fact there's no racism as part of that but to take that to the next level and say he has the best chance of winning based on what based on the fact that a lot of Democrats are also racist and sexist is that what makes him better than all the people who are smarter younger and more nimble and have had policies that are more compatible I don't know feels like racism to me so I just put that out there because it's fun so there's a New York Times article in which they have acknowledged that Google can brainwash citizens at will have you seen that you know I I floated the idea the other day was a yesterday in which you could have the social media platforms identify people who are starting to get radicalized by what they're watching and what they're typing what they're saying and what they're responding to and if you identified them sort of in a digital way if the system identified them you could if you chose to start feeding them content that would deprogram any bad impulses and I said I'm pretty sure that we already have the technology that could do that and it's confirmed so the New York Times confirmed it that Google does have the technology to identify what you're watching and reprogram your brain any way they want it's it's a yeah it's big article about it now the context was not the way I just described it but it says that pretty clearly what it says is that there was some I guess some liberal who got who got radicalized by watching a bunch of You.

Tube by people who were will say associated with the right but they're more edgy and that once once this person the subject of the article once that person was exposed to things that are from the right sort of the Steven Stefan Molyneux kind of stuff that You.

Tube started suggesting things that were even further to the right so You.

Tube actually reprogrammed this guy from watching fairly innocuous content you know the steven crowder is stefan molyneux 'he's they're provocative but they're certainly not you know racist and any in any way that i would recognize that word but youtube was feeding this poor guy edgy reg year racist stuff until he started watching it so youtube actually turned a non racist into a racist and they and they essentially admit that they have that technology think about it youtube through their algorithm and according to the new york times reporting and according to the person they were talking about actually brainwashed a liberal into a racist that actually is what the reporting happened now you could ask yourself you know would that have happened anyway was he leaving that way and it wasn't really what he watched on You.

Tube maybe maybe internally he was already gonna go that way and it didn't matter but I don't think so I mean that might be true for this individual but I'm fairly certain that if they can cause you to watch different things based on the recommendation algorithm they can reprogram you because why you watch is what you become did you hear that what you absorb in terms of information and content is what you become it does turn you into a different person so think about that should it be legal for a platform to brainwash you well let me put it in the starkest terms it is now it is now I would say demonstrated beyond any doubt that I have and I think it would be easily demonstrated beyond any doubt that Congress would have if they looked into it in fact there's a a a critic Tristen you'll you'll probably remind me of his last name tryst and whoever who's worked on this kind of stuff and says directly that is brainwashing people now somebody says isn't advertising brainwashing the answer is it's a hybrid when you watch an advertisement you know what their intention is Tristan Harris yes that was the name I looking for when you see an advertisement you know it's an advertisement you know that somebody is trying to persuade you to buy a product and you can feel it working or not working you know in real time that is brainwashing it's influences persuasion you could put ever whatever word you want on it but what's different is its above board they're saying here's an advertisement if you watch this we're going to try to talk you into our product we all get that we understand it it's ubiquitous that doesn't seem evil simply because you have an option of turning away and they're telling you exactly what there's no no deception whatsoever but if You.

Tube is giving you a recommendation algorithm that's taking you down a channel that you would not have gone and the result of that is brainwashing that's not full disclosure that is them brainwashing you for profit because that's why they do it they do it to measure to measure how long you stay in the video how many of you click that sort of thing that is pure brainwashing now why is that legal ask yourself why that's legal let me ask you this if somebody had a brainwashing website in which they said okay I'm a hypnotist and I'm gonna brainwash people coming here and let's say it was aboveboard they said I'm gonna brainwash you would it be legal I don't think you would now I don't know what specific law that violates but I think of an actual hypnotist at a site and said I'm just brainwashing people I'm reprogramming you people I'll even tell you I'm doing it because it's still gonna work and it would would that be legal I've seen a number of cases where I thought I was going to find a site like that and they seemed to be banned in some way there's some kind of ban against actually intentionally brainwashing people think about the internet if you do a search for somebody who says okay I'm gonna brainwash you now I don't think you'll find it and you can find anything on the Internet so I think there's something illegal about it but I don't know the details so if Congress if Congress were presented with this proposition how would they act the proposition is that Google is intentionally brainwashing citizens without their consent what would Congress do about that well I don't know if that's even illegal is it illegal should it be illegal feels like you should be illegal but I don't know there's so much other influ in the world yet where do you draw the line see the problem is the influence used to be something that not too many people were good at as long as people were not good at advertising and you didn't noticed that that much if people weren't good at manipulating you yeah doesn't really matter because they weren't good at it anyway but now we have the science Google in particular has literally brain scientists looking at all this stuff to ridicu which will cause you to be brainwashed by those things you're addicted to now so we've taken a skill persuasion that was just sort of hit or miss wasn't that powerful and raised it to a professional you know military level literally so at that point that's just brainwashing and I don't know how that remains legal except maybe the Congress doesn't understand it or the public doesn't understand it all right so certainly we have I think we have strong evidence that Google could brainwash people against violence if they chose to set their algorithms to do that but we don't know if they will here's the question for you I'm gonna give you a oh and also in that same article I watched the continued conflation of the people on the far right or I don't even like to call them far-right but it's the people who are literally the KKK it's races and stuff and they get conflated with You.

Tube stars that are just concerned yeah so the the Crowder's and Molyneux they're you know they they inhabit kind of their own space but New York Times likes to throw them in with the you know the worst people in the world just to make it all sound like it's the same thing but but the worst part about this is they're talking about this kid who got a young guy who got radicalized by looking at You.

Tube videos and they throw Joe Rogan into the bus Joe Rogan what has he got to do with anything and here's the problem and I saw this coming a mile away do you remember when you first heard the term intellectual darkweb and I guess was it Brett Weinstein who came up with it I'm not sure who came up with it but but there was there was a notion for a while that there was a certain group of people that they would put in this category so Weinstein Oh Erik I'm sorry not not very Erik when see that you know Erik would be in and Weinstein and I guess Jordan Peterson and they threw Joe Rogan in there and I don't know who else was there but but for a while people were asking me you know do i blog in that group and i yeah and saya Maris and I resisted it with all of my power well the last thing I wanted to do Dave Rubin yeah he would be in the group usually considered that group the last thing that I would ever want is to be associated with a group doesn't matter what the group is unless I've intentionally joined because I didn't want to get the treatment that Joe Rogan just got Joe Rogan is as far as you can get from whatever these you know bad ideas are that that are being associated with the far right I'm pretty sure he doesn't embrace any of that but because he got lumped in here's here's how it works he got lumped in with the intellectual dark dark web which people have illegitimately conflated with being right-wing which then people continued to conflate illegitimately with being neo-nazis see how this works I can see this coming from a mile away just so when I first came up I was like no no no I'm not in that group support poor Joe Rogan who has done nothing but talk to some people literally that's all he's done he's talked to a few people who were in this intellectual dark web and that gets him associated in an article with somebody who got radicalized into a neo I see is that fair is that fair to Joe Rogan no that's about as unfreakin fair as you could possibly get it's like it my head almost exploded when i when i read that the New York Times was throwing Joe under the bus I mean there's the that's despicable there's no way there's no other way to say that you know you want to call it news maybe it's news ish but it's despicable to do that sort of thing it's just despicable all right let's look at something else have you noticed that the Democrat candidates all look extra boring somebody says I'm next I actually looked through the article to see my if my name was there and it wasn't so I had to read the whole damn article just to be sure I had not been sucked into that intellectual dark web continuum until I was you know the horrible most horrible person in the world anyway so Trump has made all the Democrats look boring and this is a bigger problem than do you think because if you're boring it's just hard to get elected you know when was the last time that the more boring candidate won the election that's a that's anonymous question I don't even I don't know the answer to my own question which I should if I if I ask it you know in that kind of a way can you think of an example where the more boring candidate one Carter who do you Carter run against anyway so in our current media obsessed world I don't think the boring candidate can win unless they have some other gigantic advantage I don't know what that was or whatever that is and I think I think that that's what's happening because wouldn't you say that both the left and the right are looking at the Democrats and it's this gigantic group of them and they're all saying they're boring that's true right every but everybody agrees that there's not a single person and how many are there twenty there's not a single person who isn't boring what are the odds that you would have that many people running for president and they're all boring and the answer is they're not the answer is they're not boring at all they're only boring because President Trump exists if President Trump had never exists would anybody be calling him boring right if there had never been a candidate and then a president Trump you would never hear that this group of Democrats were boring because they wouldn't seem that way to you they would seem kind of interesting Hey look there's Andrew you hang in there at cetera all right so I've got a I have a thought experiment for you but it goes like this so I was talking about You.

Tube and apparently You.

Tube is now banning the the most racist KKK neo-nazi material on You.

Tube and so that's all that material that's associated with being over the line is being banned and apparently that's legal they can ban it because it's a speech and whatnot but let me ask you this what would happen if all of those you know the the super racist people whether they're white supremacist or whether the KKK some group neo-nazis what would happen what would happen if they formed a religion what if they formed a religion around their most obnoxious beliefs and then they went further and said we don't believe in violence suppose they renounced violence as part of their religious platform and said yes we renounce violence but we still want to believe all these things and talk about all these horrible racist things would they be protected because it was a religion I think so right and let's let's make it more interesting as a thought experiment let's say there was a country called elbonia and the elbonian had a religion that was super racist but not violent super racist but they issued issued violence would they be allowed to immigrate to this country would we say well it's a religion we don't like it oh you know it's a religion would we allow them to the country I don't know I don't know the answer that but it's it it's a brain bender my favorite story is there there are some comedians who are putting on a so-called straight Pride Parade in Boston and we heard about this now forget about the politics of it because I don't I don't think it's terribly important but the just the the fact that they would do it at all is hilarious so I thought that I thought just the fact that somebody was trying to get away with this I don't see us so much as a political act as a political theater you know large-scale prank sense of humor kind of a thing so I don't take it too seriously but it does have a serious message it's just that I don't take that part too seriously but here's the fun part they just they just named their grand marshal well they did two things that are funny the first thing they did was they used Brad Pitt's picture and part of their promotion until Brad Pitt Brad Pitt's management called them and told him stop doing it and that gave them some extra press so the first so they've done two smarter things so far smart in terms of pranks first of all having a straight Pride Parade and embosses is funny just also right off the bat because you know so wrong that it's funny then having Brad Pitt you know illegally using his face as as some kind of an image for the thing is even more hilarious and it's better because they got in trouble for it and then that became part of the story so it was great for publicity and by the way I think Brad Pitt probably thought it was funny but you know you have to take care of your image you have to take care of business but I can't imagine the Brad Pitt did but laughs when he heard it he probably laughed and said okay I got to stop this but it's kind of funny I'm just guessing and I'm just guessing from public public perception of Brad Pitt that he looks like he has a sense of humor that's all I'm saying but then they wouldn't and step further and they named their grand marshal for the straight Pride Parade and they named Milo Annapolis who accepted so Milo you doubtless the gayest man in America I spent selected as the Grand Marshal of the straight Pride Parade I gotta hand it to him I gotta hand it to him whoever is doing this parade thing it's clearly for the laughs they're they're doing everything that you would do to get the right kind of sort of humorous attention and I I don't I don't have any thoughts about the politics of it but the humor of it and the the prank of it all it's well done that's all I'm saying let's talk about Andrew yang so Andrew yang tweeted something that i retweeted I think probably people thought I was you know maybe agreeing with his message but that wasn't why I retweeted it so I'm gonna read what he said and then I think you'll know I had to read it so this is Democratic candidate Andrew yang talking about abortion and he says the following in his tweet Andrew yang says I respect the different feelings that Americans have on this issue meaning abortion but I would personally defer to women when it comes to protecting women's reproductive rights and will act to protect their rights you will defer to women now the way I read it I think it's the correct way you say he's not talking about the individual woman who's having the baby that would be I would defer to you know that would be one thing I believe he's talking about women as a group being the primary decision-makers for it now some of you were saying it's a cop-out maybe but it matches very well with my opinion it's it's compatible because I've said something similar but Andrew yang leaves out the important part that makes my opinion brilliant and his opinion lacking a component are you ready for it I'm gonna tell you my opinion and then you can watch in the comments then nobody can understand what I'm saying in fact I might even take some calls to prove this because it'll be far I'm going to say something super clear but watch how you can't understand it now maybe my best estimate is a third of you will understand exactly what I'm saying because it's gonna be simple it'll be very clear but 2/3 of you won't be able to hear it because you're gonna think I'm saying something else and then you're gonna get mad at me in comments for something I didn't say here it goes my view on abortion is that no matter what rules you have half of the country is going to think it's the worst thing in the world we're agreed with that right doesn't matter if you're pro-abortion the anti abortion would you agree then no matter what happens rule wise half the country will think it's the worst thing in the world that's not going to change do you agree with that there's nothing you can do with the law that will change the fact that half the countries on different sides okay point that's the first point now what do you do in a situation where your best-case scenario is that half of the country thinks it's an abomination what's your best strategy is your best strategy oh well we should get the best law we can have no that doesn't solve it it doesn't solve it because you're still going to end up with half of the country thinking it's an abomination so in that specific situation and only that situation where you're never going to have a satisfying result the answer will never be under the answer will never be satisfying you can't get there it's not to be had under those conditions what's the best solution well half the people would say the best solution is you go my way half would say the best solution let's go my way but if you go and level up and you're looking down and saying a leader at the two sides who can never agree what it would the leader do that would be the best thing for these two groups they can't decide of course they know what's best it's their side I don't smash my side but you're a leader you don't get to take sides per se you got to be a leader I would say that when it's a life-and-death decision you want the most credible law because half of the country is gonna hate it no matter what the law is if half the country hates a law to the point of revolution you need to do what you can to make sure that that law is credible credible even if you don't like it the best you can do your best you can do for abortion is the law that half the people think is an abomination but but here's my point but they respect the process the process is credible they don't like where it went but they they can live with it because they respect the process so if it was constitutional that's a good process if it went through the court systems that's a good process the reason that there's somewhat of an acceptance of laws that half the country feel are an hour an aberration or or a horror is that it went through the Supreme Court and because we give some respect to the Supreme Court people are willing to say our I hate this with every fiber of my being but the way we got there is at least credible ish now of course people say that the Supreme Court was making up the Constitution and adding things to it and I think that was true but at least the process looks credible ish now what yang is saying is is a weaker version of what I'm saying what I'm saying is you can't get - happy forget it happy can't be had because half the country is gonna hate it no matter what but you can get to a stable situation and stability is the best you can do and if you want stability you want a set of laws that people are not going to think are not credible the most credible laws you could have are the ones that women as a strong majority if you can guess such a thing prefer and their men have recused themselves from now some of you are going to jump in to your sake but but but Scott women when you poll them have the same opinion as men so that has nothing to do with my point it doesn't matter what the woman's opinion is it only matters that it was favored or had a bigger say than the men who also had the right to be part of it men have a right to vote and have a right to speak but if we recuse ourselves it amplifies the voices of women and if the voices of women become the ones where the will say that the strongest voices on the topic and that leads us to whatever it leads us to doesn't matter which side it leads us to that's going to be more credible than if I had weighed in and changed people's minds because think about it I can change people's minds I could change minds on the topic of abortion you know I have that ability should I I don't think so if I did change anybody's mind and it doesn't matter which way I changed it I would be a man who had a little bit too much say on this topic not because it's illegal for me to have a say not because it's unethical it's not illegal it's not unethical for me to have a big influence but if I did the result would not be as credible it would come from a weaker source which is me now I'm watching the comments to see how many people you helped make the babies doesn't matter I'm saying watch how many of your comments are sort of the not relative relevant to my point why wouldn't you be a person who has been allowed to be born have a say I do not that means somebody says it's done because we don't defer to a certain groups to make decisions that doesn't address my point the law is clear it's murder that doesn't address my point women what would put financial responsibility doesn't address my point because I do think men should have a say in the finances so I'm excluding the financial part of it so you're not disagreeing with mayor there I'm just leave your comments to see if you can understand this point do female fetuses get a right to vote how does that have anything to do with a we would would the law be more credible if a fetus could vote some people would not feel the law was credible true doesn't address my point because some people are going to be unhappy no matter what your point is about autonomy not really no it isn't that's not on my point all right I'm just looking at your comments didn't you merely describe laws in general no nothing like that I was describing a very special case somebody says my girlfriend killed my child it was as much my child as it was first doesn't doesn't address my point you're avoiding processed comments I didn't see any that were on point somebody says they understand my point but they disagree with it okay but you're not arguing with it somebody says how does a woman get pregnant if now for a male doesn't address my point right so you're saying lots most of the people are all pretty much everyone who's disagreeing is simply saying a statement that's a fact hey men are part of the process of having babies that's not an argument that's just a fact you giving facts without reasons there's nothing so that's not nothing somebody says my girlfriend killed my child is not fair for her to have more say I didn't say it was fair so you're on a different point have you seen an ultrasound you're relevant to my point and yes somebody says I don't care about your point well that's fair you know you don't have to care Scott you said nothing concrete yes I did I said that if you can't get a solution that society likes your best solution this is the most credible law even if half the people don't like it that's pretty specific and there's somebody here who says you didn't say anything because you can't hear this point my I think so what I'm going getting at is that no matter how clearly I state that I'm talking about credibility this is the best you could do people can't hear it because they're locked into their their two sides stuff somebody says now I'm confused what's your point again that well that my point was that you couldn't hear my point the point is that nobody will agree there will always be two sides and you can never make them happy your best solution is a law that's credible and the most credible law about abortion would be one that women as a majority feel comfortable with whichever way it goes pretty clear right somebody says but what would you take this to other issues would you take this to men all the issues every case is different but yes as a general statement there could be many only issues that I would rather men's opinion be the dominant opinion just this isn't one of them all right somebody says I could change the minds of society but I won't because so somebody's asked me why I wouldn't change people's minds on abortion okay that was somebody who doesn't understand my point right if you're asking that question you've missed the simplest point in the world and that was really what I wanted to demonstrate I wanted to see how many of you couldn't understand it life is the only point yeah that's that doesn't address my point yeah suddenly say this is the fascinating it's fascinating to watch people not be able to hear it it's one thing to disagree with it but see how hard it is for people to even hear it I'm just leave your comments because they're pretty fascinating so somebody said I should clarify by saying that women should have the dominant say in women and men certainly have the right to speak and have the right to vote but they could help the process most by letting women have the dominant vote or the dominant influence the same somebody says it's not clear because who decides what's credible who decides is Society on average and let me ask you this would you disagree with the statement that abortion laws whether they're tight or loose doesn't matter that if women as a majority favor them that's the most credible situation for society even if men let's say slightly disagreed or something I think that statement stands by itself somebody says what if the decision is only women and it's still 50/50 well it's gonna go one way it's it's not gonna be 50/50 it's gonna be fifty one forty nine eventually because you have to you have to decide all right it looks like I've beaten you down and I've said it enough is that all I wanted to say today I think so believe so oh of course the New York Times is reporting that the the president's tariff deal with Mexico are they the terror threat to get Mexico to do a better job with controlling illegal immigration so the president says Mexico agreed you know the tariffs worked essentially or the terror threat worked and the New York Times is reporting that unnamed people will say that it was already going to happen so it's no big deal didn't I tell you that was going to happen do you remember I told you yesterday just wait for somebody to say it was already going to happen anyway there was sort of the obvious fake news but then the fake news comes out and it's unnamed sources so I would I would relegate that story to the fake news bin because it's the category of fake news which is unnamed sources said something happened in a meeting and it's not confirmed it's not news it's fake news now it could I suppose someday one of those will be true but you should treat it as fake news just like you would treat a Bigfoot sighting if CNN said guy gets a picture of Bigfoot your first thought should be well that's not true but if later you know provides a DNA sample and you a dead body if a Bigfoot you can change your mind but when you first hear it unnamed sources say something happened in a meeting and Bigfoot spotted those are the same story you should give them the same credibility all right that's all I got for now now I will talk to you later

mm that was not my best version of the

theme song right there not my best but

that means everything today is gonna be

straight uphill oh good news today man

got a lot to talk about and it's all fun

it's all good stuff

would you please grab your Stein your

chalice your tankard possibly your glass

your copper your mug

maybe sir mr. flask a vessel of any kind

fill it with your favorite liquid I like

coffee and join me now for this

simultaneous sip Oh

sublime well if you haven't noticed the

the Krypto news world is getting all

excited because because millionaire

genius Eric fitmin who I believe is

watching right now hi Eric did a

shout-out to the web token my startups

crypto and now there's Chinese websites

talking about it it's on Yahoo News it's

on a bunch of sites and one word from

Eric makes the world go crazy so we had

one of our biggest days I think our

biggest day in terms of trading was the

moment that Eric mentioned it so lots of

stuff happening there if you want yours

go to when hub comm to buy it directly

or you could leave maybe get a get a

bargain if you go too hot bit dot IO and

trade it there all right it's not that I

I'm running a poll right now on Twitter

and which I'm asking people is the fact

that Democrats are favoring Joe Biden

and saying that he has the best chance

to win because that's the reason they're

favoring him they say he has the best

chance to win

is that not a racist dog whistle it's

sort of a sexist dog whistle but is it

not a racist dog whistle I mean

according to the rules I don't make the

rules the rules are created by the

people I'm talking about not by me but

by their definition what could it

possibly mean to say thee has the best

chance of winning do they know that Cory

Booker is running do they know that

caramel heiress is running do they know

that Elizabeth Warren is running here's

my question is there anybody who thinks

that Joe Biden would do a better job in

the office than any of the three people

I just mentioned

okay can anybody say that he would do a

better job than one of those three

people I don't think so so what is it

that makes him the person who could win

is it because he speaks better in public

well that's not true is it because he's

younger and more energetic no is it

because of his experience well

unfortunately his experience is sort of

negative because he's got things in his

past there were opposite of current

democratic thinking is it because he's

so nimble as a politician well no he's

the gaffe machine if you were to look at

any one of his qualities is it because

he's the smartest no is it because he

has the best policies doesn't seem that

way so if he doesn't have any individual

quality that's better than the

individual qualities of the people who

are lower in the polls

what can we determine about Democrats I

think is racist and by the way I'm not

joking can you see it any other way

because once I say it you can sort of

see it like it's invisible until the

first time you hear it

but the fact the fact that he doesn't

have any quality that's better than the

other pack and yeah he's clearly the

favored the only one who can win I don't

know what else he has except he's an old

white guy now I know people are gonna

say name recognition but name

recognition is irrelevant in terms of

who's going to be you know running

against Trump because by the time you

get to the you know the final the final

run

everybody has name recognition whoever

Trump runs against is going to be really

really really well known so it doesn't

matter at this point I can see why

people would you know maybe vote for him

because they haven't heard of the others

at this point but it's one thing to say

that he's getting the most votes because

he has name recognition that's not

racist

would you agree it's not racist to say

somebody has more name recognition

that's just you can do a poll you can

determine that that's just the fact

there's no racism as part of that but to

take that to the next level and say he

has the best chance of winning based on

what based on the fact that a lot of

Democrats are also racist and sexist is

that what makes him better than all the

people who are smarter younger and more

nimble and have had policies that are

more compatible I don't know feels like

racism to me so I just put that out

there because it's fun so there's a New

York Times article in which they have

acknowledged that Google can brainwash

citizens at will have you seen that you

know I I floated the idea the other day

was a yesterday in which you could have

the social media platforms identify

people who are starting to get

radicalized by what they're watching and

what they're typing what they're saying

and what they're responding to and if

you identified them sort of in a digital

way if the system identified them

you could if you chose to start feeding

them content that would deprogram any

bad impulses and I said I'm pretty sure

that we already have the technology that

could do that and it's confirmed so the

New York Times confirmed it that Google

does have the technology to identify

what you're watching and reprogram your

brain any way they want it's it's a yeah

it's big article about it now the

context was not the way I just described

it but it says that pretty clearly what

it says is that there was some I guess

some liberal who got who got radicalized

by watching a bunch of YouTube by people

who were will say associated with the

right but they're more edgy and that

once once this person the subject of the

article once that person was exposed to

things that are from the right sort of

the Steven Stefan Molyneux kind of stuff

that YouTube started suggesting things

that were even further to the right so

YouTube actually reprogrammed this guy

from watching fairly innocuous content

you know the steven crowder is stefan

molyneux 'he's they're provocative but

they're certainly not you know racist

and any in any way that i would

recognize that word but youtube was

feeding this poor guy edgy reg year

racist stuff until he started watching

it so youtube actually turned a non

racist into a racist and they and they

essentially admit that they have that

technology think about it youtube

through their algorithm and according to

the new york times reporting and

according to the person they were

talking about actually brainwashed a

liberal into a racist that actually is

what the reporting happened now you

could ask yourself you know would

that have happened anyway was he leaving

that way and it wasn't really what he

watched on YouTube maybe maybe

internally he was already gonna go that

way and it didn't matter but I don't

think so I mean that might be true for

this individual but I'm fairly certain

that if they can cause you to watch

different things based on the

recommendation algorithm they can

reprogram you because why you watch is

what you become did you hear that what

you absorb in terms of information and

content is what you become it does turn

you into a different person so think

about that should it be legal for a

platform to brainwash you well let me

put it in the starkest terms it is now

it is now I would say demonstrated

beyond any doubt that I have and I think

it would be easily demonstrated beyond

any doubt that Congress would have if

they looked into it in fact there's a a

a critic Tristen you'll you'll probably

remind me of his last name tryst and

whoever who's worked on this kind of

stuff and says directly that is

brainwashing people now somebody says

isn't advertising brainwashing the

answer is it's a hybrid when you watch

an advertisement you know what their

intention is Tristan Harris yes that was

the name I looking for when you see an

advertisement you know it's an

advertisement you know that somebody is

trying to persuade you to buy a product

and you can feel it working or not

working you know in real time that is

brainwashing

it's influences persuasion you could put

ever whatever word you want on it but

what's different is its above board

they're saying here's an advertisement

if you watch this we're going to try to

talk you into our product we all get

that we understand it it's ubiquitous

that doesn't seem evil simply because

you have an option of turning away and

they're telling you exactly what

there's no no deception whatsoever

but if YouTube is giving you a

recommendation algorithm that's taking

you down a channel that you would not

have gone and the result of that is

brainwashing that's not full disclosure

that is them brainwashing you for profit

because that's why they do it they do it

to measure to measure how long you stay

in the video how many of you click that

sort of thing that is pure brainwashing

now why is that legal ask yourself why

that's legal let me ask you this if

somebody had a brainwashing website in

which they said okay I'm a hypnotist and

I'm gonna brainwash people coming here

and let's say it was aboveboard

they said I'm gonna brainwash you would

it be legal I don't think you would now

I don't know what specific law that

violates but I think of an actual

hypnotist at a site and said I'm just

brainwashing people I'm reprogramming

you people I'll even tell you I'm doing

it because it's still gonna work and it

would would that be legal I've seen a

number of cases where I thought I was

going to find a site like that and they

seemed to be banned in some way there's

some kind of ban against actually

intentionally brainwashing people think

about the internet if you do a search

for somebody who says okay I'm gonna

brainwash you now I don't think you'll

find it and you can find anything on the

Internet so I think there's something

illegal about it but I don't know the

details so if Congress if Congress were

presented with this proposition how

would they act the proposition is that

Google is intentionally brainwashing

citizens without their consent

what would Congress do about that well I

don't know if that's even illegal is it

illegal should it be illegal feels like

you should be illegal but I don't know

there's so much other influ

in the world yet where do you draw the

line see the problem is the influence

used to be something that not too many

people were good at as long as people

were not good at advertising and you

didn't noticed that that much if people

weren't good at manipulating you yeah

doesn't really matter because they

weren't good at it anyway

but now we have the science Google in

particular has literally brain

scientists looking at all this stuff to

ridicu which will cause you to be

brainwashed by those things you're

addicted to now so we've taken a skill

persuasion that was just sort of hit or

miss wasn't that powerful and raised it

to a professional you know military

level literally so at that point that's

just brainwashing and I don't know how

that remains legal except maybe the

Congress doesn't understand it or the

public doesn't understand it all right

so certainly we have I think we have

strong evidence that Google could

brainwash people against violence if

they chose to set their algorithms to do

that but we don't know if they will

here's the question for you I'm gonna

give you a oh and also in that same

article

I watched the continued conflation of

the people on the far right or I don't

even like to call them far-right but

it's the people who are literally the

KKK it's races and stuff and they get

conflated with YouTube stars that are

just concerned yeah so the the Crowder's

and Molyneux they're you know they they

inhabit kind of their own space but New

York Times likes to throw them in with

the you know the worst people in the

world just to make it all sound like

it's the same thing but but the worst

part about this is they're talking about

this kid who got a young guy who got

radicalized by looking at YouTube videos

and they throw Joe Rogan into the bus

Joe Rogan what has he got to do with

anything

and here's the problem and I saw this

coming a mile away

do you remember when

you first heard the term intellectual

darkweb and I guess was it

Brett Weinstein who came up with it I'm

not sure who came up with it but but

there was there was a notion for a while

that there was a certain group of people

that they would put in this category so

Weinstein Oh Erik I'm sorry not not very

Erik when see that you know Erik would

be in and Weinstein and I guess Jordan

Peterson and they threw Joe Rogan in

there and I don't know who else was

there but but for a while people were

asking me you know do i blog in that

group and i yeah and saya Maris and I

resisted it with all of my power well

the last thing I wanted to do Dave Rubin

yeah he would be in the group usually

considered that group the last thing

that I would ever want is to be

associated with a group doesn't matter

what the group is unless I've

intentionally joined because I didn't

want to get the treatment that Joe Rogan

just got Joe Rogan is as far as you can

get from whatever these you know bad

ideas are that that are being associated

with the far right I'm pretty sure he

doesn't embrace any of that but because

he got lumped in here's here's how it

works

he got lumped in with the intellectual

dark dark web which people have

illegitimately conflated with being

right-wing which then people continued

to conflate illegitimately with being

neo-nazis see how this works I can see

this coming from a mile away just so

when I first came up I was like no no no

I'm not in that group support poor Joe

Rogan who has done nothing but talk to

some people literally that's all he's

done he's talked to a few people who

were in this intellectual dark web and

that gets him associated in an article

with somebody who got radicalized into a

neo

I see is that fair is that fair to Joe

Rogan no that's about as unfreakin fair

as you could possibly get

it's like it my head almost exploded

when i when i read that the New York

Times was throwing Joe under the bus I

mean there's the that's despicable

there's no way there's no other way to

say that you know you want to call it

news

maybe it's news ish but it's despicable

to do that sort of thing it's just

despicable all right let's look at

something else have you noticed that the

Democrat candidates all look extra

boring somebody says I'm next I actually

looked through the article to see my if

my name was there and it wasn't so I had

to read the whole damn article just to

be sure I had not been sucked into that

intellectual dark web continuum until I

was you know the horrible most horrible

person in the world anyway so Trump has

made all the Democrats look boring and

this is a bigger problem than do you

think because if you're boring it's just

hard to get elected you know when was

the last time that the more boring

candidate won the election

that's a that's anonymous question I

don't even I don't know the answer to my

own question which I should if I if I

ask it you know in that kind of a way

can you think of an example where the

more boring candidate one Carter who do

you Carter run against

anyway so in our current media obsessed

world I don't think the boring candidate

can win unless they have some other

gigantic advantage I don't know what

that was or whatever that is and I think

I think that that's what's happening

because wouldn't you say that both the

left and the right are looking at the

Democrats and it's this gigantic group

of them and they're all saying they're

boring that's true right every but

everybody agrees that there's not a

single person and how many are there

twenty

there's not a single person who isn't

boring what are the odds that you would

have that many people running for

president and they're all boring and the

answer is they're not the answer is

they're not boring at all

they're only boring because President

Trump exists if President Trump had

never exists would anybody be calling

him boring right if there had never been

a candidate and then a president Trump

you would never hear that this group of

Democrats were boring because they

wouldn't seem that way to you they would

seem kind of interesting Hey look

there's Andrew you hang in there at

cetera all right so I've got a I have a

thought experiment for you but it goes

like this so I was talking about YouTube

and apparently YouTube is now banning

the the most racist KKK neo-nazi

material on YouTube and so that's all

that material that's associated with

being over the line is being banned and

apparently that's legal they can ban it

because it's a speech and whatnot but

let me ask you this what would happen if

all of those you know the the super

racist people whether they're white

supremacist or whether the KKK some

group neo-nazis what would happen what

would happen if they formed a religion

what if they formed a religion around

their most obnoxious beliefs and then

they went further and said we don't

believe in violence

suppose they renounced violence as part

of their religious platform and said yes

we renounce violence but we still want

to believe all these things and talk

about all these horrible racist things

would they be protected because it was a

religion I think so right

and let's let's make it more interesting

as a thought experiment let's say there

was a country called elbonia

and the elbonian had a religion that was

super racist but not violent

super racist but they issued issued

violence would they be allowed to

immigrate to this country would we say

well it's a religion we don't like it oh

you know it's a religion would we allow

them to the country I don't know I don't

know the answer that but it's it it's a

brain bender my favorite story is there

there are some comedians who are putting

on a so-called straight Pride Parade in

Boston and we heard about this now

forget about the politics of it because

I don't I don't think it's terribly

important but the just the the fact that

they would do it at all is hilarious so

I thought that I thought just the fact

that somebody was trying to get away

with this I don't see us so much as a

political act as a political theater you

know large-scale prank sense of humor

kind of a thing so I don't take it too

seriously but it does have a serious

message it's just that I don't take that

part too seriously but here's the fun

part they just they just named their

grand marshal well they did two things

that are funny

the first thing they did was they used

Brad Pitt's picture and part of their

promotion until Brad Pitt Brad Pitt's

management called them and told him stop

doing it and that gave them some extra

press so the first so they've done two

smarter things so far smart in terms of

pranks first of all having a straight

Pride Parade and embosses is funny just

also right off the bat because you know

so wrong that it's funny then having

Brad Pitt

you know illegally using his face as as

some kind of an image for the thing is

even more hilarious and it's better

because they got in trouble for it and

then that became part of the story so it

was great for publicity and by the way I

think Brad Pitt probably thought it was

funny but you know you have to take care

of your image you have to take care of

business but I can't imagine the Brad

Pitt did

but laughs when he heard it he probably

laughed and said okay I got to stop this

but it's kind of funny I'm just guessing

and I'm just guessing from public public

perception of Brad Pitt that he looks

like he has a sense of humor that's all

I'm saying

but then they wouldn't and step further

and they named their grand marshal for

the straight Pride Parade and they named

Milo Annapolis who accepted so Milo you

doubtless the gayest man in America

I spent selected as the Grand Marshal of

the straight Pride Parade

I gotta hand it to him I gotta hand it

to him whoever is doing this parade

thing it's clearly for the laughs

they're they're doing everything that

you would do to get the right kind of

sort of humorous attention and I I don't

I don't have any thoughts about the

politics of it but the humor of it and

the the prank of it all it's well done

that's all I'm saying

let's talk about Andrew yang so Andrew

yang tweeted something that i retweeted

I think probably people thought I was

you know maybe agreeing with his message

but that wasn't why I retweeted it so

I'm gonna read what he said and then I

think you'll know I had to read it so

this is Democratic candidate Andrew yang

talking about abortion and he says the

following in his tweet Andrew yang says

I respect the different feelings that

Americans have on this issue meaning

abortion but I would personally defer to

women when it comes to protecting

women's reproductive rights and will act

to protect their rights you will defer

to women now the way I read it I think

it's the correct way you say he's not

talking about the individual woman who's

having the baby that would be I would

defer to you know that would be one

thing I believe he's talking about women

as a group being the primary

decision-makers for it

now some of you were saying it's a

cop-out maybe but it matches very well

with my opinion it's it's compatible

because I've said something similar but

Andrew yang leaves out the important

part that makes my opinion brilliant and

his opinion lacking a component are you

ready for it

I'm gonna tell you my opinion and then

you can watch in the comments then

nobody can understand what I'm saying in

fact I might even take some calls to

prove this because it'll be far I'm

going to say something super clear but

watch how you can't understand it now

maybe my best estimate is a third of you

will understand exactly what I'm saying

because it's gonna be simple

it'll be very clear but 2/3 of you won't

be able to hear it because you're gonna

think I'm saying something else and then

you're gonna get mad at me in comments

for something I didn't say here it goes

my view on abortion is that no matter

what rules you have half of the country

is going to think it's the worst thing

in the world we're agreed with that

right doesn't matter if you're

pro-abortion the anti abortion would you

agree then no matter what happens

rule wise half the country will think

it's the worst thing in the world that's

not going to change do you agree with

that there's nothing you can do with the

law that will change the fact that half

the countries on different sides okay

point that's the first point now what do

you do in a situation where your

best-case scenario is that half of the

country thinks it's an abomination

what's your best strategy is your best

strategy oh well we should get the best

law we can have no that doesn't solve it

it doesn't solve it because you're still

going to end up with half of the country

thinking it's an abomination so in that

specific situation and only that

situation where you're never going to

have a satisfying result the answer will

never be under the answer will never be

satisfying you can't get there it's not

to be had

under those conditions what's the best

solution well half the people would say

the best solution is you go my way half

would say the best solution let's go my

way but if you go and level up and

you're looking down and saying a leader

at the two sides who can never agree

what it would the leader do that would

be the best thing for these two groups

they can't decide of course they know

what's best it's their side I don't

smash my side but you're a leader you

don't get to take sides per se you got

to be a leader I would say that when

it's a life-and-death decision you want

the most credible law because half of

the country is gonna hate it no matter

what the law is if half the country

hates a law to the point of revolution

you need to do what you can to make sure

that that law is credible credible even

if you don't like it the best you can do

your best you can do for abortion is the

law that half the people think is an

abomination

but but here's my point but they respect

the process the process is credible they

don't like where it went but they they

can live with it because they respect

the process so if it was constitutional

that's a good process if it went through

the court systems that's a good process

the reason that there's somewhat of an

acceptance of laws that half the country

feel are an hour an aberration or or a

horror is that it went through the

Supreme Court and because we give some

respect to the Supreme Court people are

willing to say our I hate this with

every fiber of my being but the way we

got there is at least credible ish now

of course people say that the Supreme

Court was making up the Constitution and

adding things to it and I think that was

true but at least the process looks

credible ish now what yang is saying is

is a weaker version of what I'm saying

what I'm saying is you can't get

- happy forget it happy can't be had

because half the country is gonna hate

it no matter what but you can get to a

stable situation and stability is the

best you can do and if you want

stability you want a set of laws that

people are not going to think are not

credible the most credible laws you

could have are the ones that women as a

strong majority if you can guess such a

thing prefer and their men have recused

themselves from now some of you are

going to jump in to your sake but but

but Scott women when you poll them have

the same opinion as men so that has

nothing to do with my point it doesn't

matter what the woman's opinion is it

only matters that it was favored or had

a bigger say than the men who also had

the right to be part of it men have a

right to vote and have a right to speak

but if we recuse ourselves it amplifies

the voices of women and if the voices of

women become the ones where the will say

that the strongest voices on the topic

and that leads us to whatever it leads

us to doesn't matter which side it leads

us to that's going to be more credible

than if I had weighed in and changed

people's minds because think about it

I can change people's minds I could

change minds on the topic of abortion

you know I have that ability

should I I don't think so if I did

change anybody's mind and it doesn't

matter which way I changed it I would be

a man who had a little bit too much say

on this topic not because it's illegal

for me to have a say not because it's

unethical it's not illegal it's not

unethical for me to have a big influence

but if I did the result would not be as

credible it would come from a weaker

source which is me now I'm watching the

comments to see how many people

[Music]

you helped make the babies doesn't

matter I'm saying watch how many of your

comments are sort of the not relative

relevant to my point why wouldn't you be

a person who has been allowed to be born

have a say I do not that means somebody

says it's done because we don't defer to

a certain groups to make decisions that

doesn't address my point the law is

clear it's murder that doesn't address

my point women what would put financial

responsibility doesn't address my point

because I do think men should have a say

in the finances so I'm excluding the

financial part of it so you're not

disagreeing with mayor there I'm just

leave your comments to see if you can

understand this point do female fetuses

get a right to vote how does that have

anything to do with a we would would the

law be more credible if a fetus could

vote

some people would not feel the law was

credible true doesn't address my point

because some people are going to be

unhappy no matter what your point is

about autonomy not really no it isn't

that's not on my point all right I'm

just looking at your comments didn't you

merely describe laws in general no

nothing like that I was describing a

very special case somebody says my

girlfriend killed my child it was as

much my child as it was first doesn't

doesn't address my point you're avoiding

processed comments I didn't see any that

were on point

somebody says they understand my point

but they disagree with it okay but

you're not arguing with it somebody says

how does a woman get pregnant if now for

a male doesn't address my point right so

you're saying lots most of the people

are all pretty much everyone who's

disagreeing is simply saying a statement

that's a fact hey men are part of the

process of having babies that's not an

argument that's just a fact you giving

facts without reasons there's nothing so

that's not nothing somebody says my

girlfriend killed my child is not fair

for her to have more say I didn't say it

was fair so you're on a different point

have you seen an ultrasound you're

relevant to my point and yes somebody

says I don't care about your point well

that's fair you know you don't have to

care Scott you said nothing concrete yes

I did I said that if you can't get a

solution that society likes your best

solution this is the most credible law

even if half the people don't like it

that's pretty specific and there's

somebody here who says you didn't say

anything because you can't hear this

point my I think so what I'm going

getting at is that no matter how clearly

I state that I'm talking about

credibility this is the best you could

do people can't hear it because they're

locked into their their two sides stuff

somebody says now I'm confused what's

your point again that well that my point

was that you couldn't hear my point the

point is that nobody will agree there

will always be two sides and you can

never make them happy your best solution

is a law that's credible and the most

credible law about abortion would be one

that women as a majority feel

comfortable with whichever way it goes

pretty clear right

somebody says but what would you take

this to other issues would you take this

to men all the issues every case is

different but yes as a general statement

there could be many only issues that I

would rather men's opinion be the

dominant opinion just this isn't one of

them all right somebody says I could

change the minds of society but I won't

because so somebody's asked me why I

wouldn't change people's minds on

abortion okay that was somebody who

doesn't understand my point right if

you're asking that question you've

missed the simplest point in the world

and that was really what I wanted to

demonstrate I wanted to see how many of

you couldn't understand it life is the

only point yeah that's that doesn't

address my point

yeah suddenly say this is the

fascinating it's fascinating to watch

people not be able to hear it it's one

thing to disagree with it but see how

hard it is for people to even hear it

I'm just leave your comments because

they're pretty fascinating

so somebody said I should clarify by

saying that women should have the

dominant say in women and men certainly

have the right to speak and have the

right to vote but they could help the

process most by letting women have the

dominant vote or the dominant influence

the same somebody says it's not clear

because who decides what's credible who

decides is Society on average and let me

ask you this would you disagree with the

statement that abortion laws whether

they're tight or loose doesn't matter

that if women as a majority favor them

that's the most credible situation for

society even if men let's say slightly

disagreed or something I think that

statement stands by itself somebody says

what if the decision is only women and

it's still 50/50 well it's gonna go one

way it's it's not gonna be 50/50 it's

gonna be fifty one forty nine eventually

because you have to you have to decide

all right it looks like I've beaten you

down and I've said it enough is that all

I wanted to say today I think so believe

so oh of course the New York Times is

reporting that the the president's

tariff deal with Mexico are they the

terror threat to get Mexico to do a

better job with controlling illegal

immigration so the president says Mexico

agreed you know the tariffs worked

essentially or the terror threat worked

and the New York Times is reporting that

unnamed people will say that it was

already going to happen so it's no big

deal

didn't I tell you that was going to

happen do you remember I told you

yesterday just wait for somebody to say

it was already going to happen anyway

there was sort of the obvious fake news

but then the fake news comes out and

it's unnamed sources so I would I would

relegate that story to the fake news bin

because it's the

category of fake news which is unnamed

sources said something happened in a

meeting and it's not confirmed it's not

news it's fake news now it could I

suppose someday one of those will be

true but you should treat it as fake

news just like you would treat a Bigfoot

sighting if CNN said guy gets a picture

of Bigfoot your first thought should be

well that's not true but if later you

know provides a DNA sample and you a

dead body if a Bigfoot you can change

your mind but when you first hear it

unnamed sources say something happened

in a meeting and Bigfoot spotted those

are the same story you should give them

the same credibility all right that's

all I got for now now I will talk to you

later