Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive October 9, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

onsolation prize. There's a consolation prize, and it is that making fun of Democrats is sort of fun. It's a little bit better than I was hoping, and a lot of it has to do with the material they're serving up now. I'm going to say that President Trump did serve up some good material himself for his critics. I think he'll have the best four years of any president, but he did serve up a lot of red m…

← Previous segment →

gets any bigger than that. And apparently they were using the media as part of that, Politico in particular, among others, probably all of the other big media. How is that not the biggest story in the world? It's amazing.

All right, let's go on. You all want to talk about Representative Swalwell, who coincidentally, because the simulation is running out of processing power, you'll see that. And I've told you this before, you'll run into too many repeats. For example, the biggest story in the country is about a representative in Congress. What were the odds it would be my representative? Well, pretty low, but there it is. So again, I'm only teasing because coincidences are generally just coincidences and confirmation bias. But if you start looking for it, it's sort of a fun exercise to see how often you'll see it if you tune your brain to expect it. Now, just for fun, just for fun, look for all the repeats and things that would look like you're a computer simulation that's running out of memory so it's repeating stuff. For example, could the biggest story in the news be about my representative, somebody I've met in person? What are the odds that one of the biggest stories in the world is somebody I know? Okay, I mean, I bet a lot of people, but that's one thing. And then what are the odds that the main character in the story, who is not Swalwell himself, is named Fang Fang? Did I, can you confirm, I want you to confirm that I've been telling you now for a few weeks, I guess, that you would see the simulations serve up names that are like duplicates. Did I not tell you that the simulation would start serving up duplicate names? Confirm this, because anybody who hears me say that is going to say you didn't say that. You didn't predict that the duplicate names would be coming. I want you to see it in the comments that I predicted duplicate names were coming. And then yeah, you see it confirmed. It's in the comments now.

Of all the weird things I've predicted, is that the weirdest? Is that the weirdest thing I've ever predicted? And it's because you can see it happening. We're seeing just the same people popping up all the time and now just the same names of things, right? Yeah, you're seeing in the comments. I'm not making this up. I actually predicted that the news would start using duplicate names, and here it is. The headline: Fang Fang. And we're hearing a little bit more about this story. It turns out that Fang Fang had a sort of a name for her boyfriend, allegedly. She called him Fart Fart. So it was Fang Fang and Fart Fart. Very cute couple. Now I say they're a couple, but I do not have evidence that they were ever actually a couple, so I don't think it's fair that, especially since he's married, I don't think it's fair that we should assume that this is true. You know, there's allegations that he had a sexual relationship with her, but we don't have evidence. In fact, when Swalwell's staff was asked whether he had a sexual relationship with this alleged Chinese spy, here's what his staff said. And you know, I think you can trust this. The staff says, well, here's the, it says we asked Swalwell's office, this is what the news reported, and his staff replied by saying that they couldn't comment on whether or not Swalwell had a sexual relationship with Fang because that information might be classified.

So I guess we'll never know, because according to his staff, whether or not this married representative was having sex with a Chinese spy, they can't tell us because it might be classified. Now let me give some advice to Representative Swalwell. I know you, maybe you don't need some advice from me, but it goes like this. If your staff has ever been asked if you've had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy, the correct answer is no. Now, under the condition that he had not had sex with a Chinese spy, the answer is always no. There's not really a second way to answer that that doesn't sound like yes. I'll get back to you sounds like sort of maybe you did. I can't talk about it because it might be what they call it, might be classified. That's really saying yes. So Representative Swalwell, you might want to make some changes on your staff, because I think they just confirmed you had sex with a Chinese spy.

Context —

Now if I'm doing the performance review for my staff, that's going to come up. I'll be there, you know, given the performance review like, all right, all right, Bob, let's see, looking at your performance over the year. There was, yeah, you were very punctual. That's a plus for you, Bob. Good job in that punctuality. I like a lot of your writing. You know, you did some good writing and some projec…

Next segment → →