Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive July 10, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

s. They think they're using the facts, and they'll tell you they're using the facts. But there's a real difference between a fact-based jury, where they're really going to just follow the law, they're really going to make sure the facts are the facts, and they're only going to stick to that — 10 to 20 percent. How are the rest of the trials decided if not on the facts? How they feel, right? So it…

← Previous segment →

ovies on the same screen. We think we're looking at the same thing, but we're interpreting it as completely different movies. And you see it in all kinds of contexts. But one of the ways you know if your movie is the right one — and I hesitate to even say right. Let me adjust that. Not the right one. Some movies predict better. That doesn't mean you're right. It just means you predict better for some reason.

And every now and then I like to say, okay, how did your movie do? Did it predict? So there are two movies on this question of the gigantic problem in this country with white supremacy. One movie says it's a giant problem. White supremacists under every bed, and they're more active than ever. And maybe something about Trump stirred them up, and now it's the biggest problem in the country. So that's one movie.

The other movie is I don't think that's true. I don't know where they are. Because could you imagine — just imagine all the things I've been accused of. Imagine all the things that people have said about me. Imagine all the people I've had contact with during this political thing. Many of them would be considered the most scurrilous of the deplorables, right? Imagine all the people I've had detailed conversations with. I don't know where these white supremacists are.

Definitely racism exists everywhere. It's just pervasive everywhere. And I definitely agree that there's structural, systemic racism. You can see it. I mean, the way it's defined as some sort of a semi-permanent disadvantage for one group. Yeah, you can see that. That's subjective. But when you say there's a whole bunch of white supremacists, I haven't met one. Now I can't say they don't exist. I'm just telling you that in my movie, I don't know where the hell they are.

So when I heard — or really after the fact I heard, but I would have predicted — that there was this White Lives Matter event that was being organized for nationwide, various places around the country, in which the white supremacists were going to show up and protest for White Lives Matter. If you would ask me how do you think that's going to go, I would have said I don't know if anybody is going to show up, because in my movie those people don't exist.

Now people who would want to just sort of push back on Black Lives Matter with White Lives Matter, they exist, right? But they're just more people in the political realm who want to push their points, etc. No more or less racist than the average person, in my opinion. But what happened? Basically nobody showed up. A handful of people.

Now that matches my movie. Doesn't mean mine's right. This is very important. One bit of evidence doesn't mean you got the right movie, but it's compatible with my movie. So if it's not compatible with your movie, how do you explain it? What's your explanation about why all these people didn't show up? I don't know. Maybe they didn't want to get caught. But if these people are afraid to even be in public, I don't know that it's the biggest problem in the world. Doesn't feel like a big old trend that's going to sweep the country if all you can get is a handful of people in the whole freaking country.

Other examples of this would be my movie is that whenever there's an anonymous source, that's my movie. So every time I see an anonymous source, I say in public, "Nope, you're never going to see any evidence to support that anonymous source." How often am I right? Well, every time that I can think of. I mean, I'm sure I've been wrong, but it feels like just about every time. They were afraid of being attacked by Antifa. Yeah, were they? Do you think these armies of white supremacists which we're told exist, you think that they were afraid of these 90-pound Antifa folks? Maybe. Maybe you can't rule it out, but it doesn't seem right now in our big old simulation here.

Have I told you that there's something weird about how problems come in immediately behind the last problem, or things look a little too much like other things? There's just something about our reality, especially lately. And I am aware that this is a perceptual thing, right? But does it not look like the coincidence of stories just doesn't look coincidental anymore? It just feels like you knew this was going to happen.

What am I talking about? Well, first of all, we had the story of the Windsor police officer in which one pepper-sprayed the service member who was afraid to get out of his car. He didn't want to reach down to take his seatbelt off because he thought he'd get shot. He was afraid of the police. And I said when I saw the video that, well, somebody's got to get fired. I mean, one of those police officers needs to be fired like immediately. And he was.

So in my movie, I saw somebody acting badly. I said, well, that person should get fired, and they were. But here's what's wrong with the story. It's not quite perfect, because the guy who got fired is Joe Gutierrez. It's not the whitest name, is it? Joe Gutierrez. So the guy who got pepper-sprayed was part Black, part Hispanic, but he got pepper-sprayed by the Hispanic guy. So just when you thought you were going to get this perfect little George Floyd companion story, just coincidentally, just sort of perfectly matching the headline, but it didn't. Yeah, darn it. The guy who acted the worst was named Gutierrez. So it kind of ruins that narrative.

Oh, but don't worry. Don't worry. It was backfilled immediately, because that's what the simulation does. And tragically there is yet another shooting of yet another young Black man. And nothing I say about this should be construed as a joke, okay? Can we agree on that? Nothing I say, even if you feel like it was, it's not. That's not my intention. Tragedy is a tragedy.

But honest to God, when I saw this story that somebody named — is it Duante or Dante? D-A-U-N-T-E, right? When I saw that a man with that name had been shot by police, I thought this was an old story. Because I swear to God there's something about his name that makes it exactly like the name of somebody who should be in this story. Am I wrong? Doesn't this feel a little too on the nose, just his name? It feels — oh, I'm being helped here in the comments. Duante, Dante. Doesn't Dante sound exactly like somebody you heard of in the news who was shot by police in a sketchy situation? It just feels like a made-for-the-news name, which is weird.

Again, that's probably just psychological priming on my part, but I swear to God when I saw the news I thought they were talking about something that happened some years ago. But unfortunately it's new.

And what's the first thing we heard about it? The first thing we heard is that the police shot him, or they stopped him because he had some kind of issue with his air freshener, and then he got killed for having an air freshener. So that's the first version of the story. Does that sound like it's real? No. The first version of the story in this kind of situation, whatever it is, the first version is never real, right? It doesn't matter if it's exculpatory or damning to the police. The first version is never real.

Now we're learning that maybe he had a warrant for his arrest. We're hearing that he tried to get back in the car when he wasn't supposed to. What if you're a police officer and you have somebody that you think is resisting arrest? We don't have that in evidence, right? So I'm speaking hypothetically. We don't know anything about this case really. But it's reported that the person who allegedly was resisting arrest turned to get back into his car when he wasn't supposed to.

Now if you're a police officer and you think somebody's dangerous — let's say there's a warrant for the arrest, who knows if a weapon was involved and whatever the warrant was from, who knows if even that the warrant part is real — but if somebody turns their back to a police officer in the context of resisting arrest and their back is turned and they're leaning into their car, we just heard of somebody getting shot for doing exactly that, right? And the person who did exactly that was reaching for a knife. We heard. Who knows if that's true. But if somebody's resisting arrest and they turn to get something and you can't see their hands, you're creating a very dangerous situation.

Do I think he should have been shot? Probably not. Probably not. My first reaction is the police should have done something different or better. But we certainly don't

Context —

know the details of this situation, and so it's like we're just guessing at this point. But how perfect is this that it happened in Minnesota, right? And it happened during the George Floyd trial. It's a little too perfect. Now does this sort of thing happen so often that of course it was going to happen in Minnesota, of course during the Floyd trial, because it happened so often? Yeah, I'm just…

Next segment → →