Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2475 Segments
NewsReaction Media & Fake News

Back to episode — Episode 2475 CWSA 05/15/24

Context —

Now, did you really need a study to know that? That if somebody is operating a dangerous motor vehicle at 80 miles an hour and they're looking at their phone, do you need to do a scientific study to find out if there's something wrong with that person's priorities? Maybe their empathy? Well, I think it's a little more complicated than being psychopaths. I think some people just have a different re…

← Previous segment →

house. But the "get out" is a reminder that you are two people. You're not one person. There's one of you that lives in the completely imaginary world of your mind, and the other one lives in the real world. But the only one that has a problem is the imaginary one. So you can starve the imaginary one of its energy by just saying, "Get out. I choose to walk through this doorway and now I'm in the real world."

I guarantee, based on the comments I got back this morning, I guarantee that a healthy percentage of you just solved one of the biggest problems in your whole life. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I wake up in the morning. I remind you I don't really need to work, but this is why I do it. Because it has some value. And I find that waking up without at least the potential to add something to the world is sort of meaningless and stupid. So I like to make sure I've got at least one thing going on at all times that could make a difference. And we'll see if that makes a difference. I guarantee that'll work for some percentage of you. Guarantee it. Because the overwhelming response from the people who tried it is just too strong.

All right. That is your gift for the day. And I'll ask you tomorrow how many of you tried it. And even by tomorrow, watch the comments. It'll be a wall of comments who said, "Oh my God, I tried that and it worked. The greatest reframe ever."

Maybe there's a technology called ShotSpotter that allows the police to know where a gunshot has been fired in their city. And wokeness is reporting on the X platform that Senator Warren and Senator Markey and Representative Ayanna Pressley, they're trying to get rid of ShotSpotter in Boston. Why? Why would you want to get rid of a technology that helps you know where there's some violence with guns? Can you guess? Take a guess. Why would you want to get rid of it? Well, it turns out that they put most of the ShotSpotters, the technology, in black neighborhoods. And they're saying that's racist. So get rid of them.

Do you know why they put them in the black neighborhoods? It wasn't because they're black. They put them in the high-crime neighborhoods. Now, what exactly do Warren, Markey, and Pressley think they're going to get out of this that's good for the people of Boston? Were the people in Boston clamoring for less or slower police response to shootings? Was somebody asking for that? It's like, "Hey, there was a shooting in my neighborhood and the police were here in seconds. That's pretty racist. Aren't they supposed to be there quickly if there's a crime?" I don't understand any part of the story. Is there something missing? Is it possible the story was reported with important context left out? Or is it just as stupid as it looks? I'm going to go with I think it's just as stupid as it looks. I think so.

How could everything be racist? So I was seeing a clip that Tucker Carlson was talking to quarterback Aaron Rodgers. And Tucker was saying that during the Occupy Wall Street years, when there were big protests about all the rich people on Wall Street, that it was just that same time when that was at its peak that the New York Times suddenly had a substantial increase in references to racism and racist and racism and white supremacy. And then suddenly the narrative changed. And it was no longer about, "Hey, those are rich people." It was all about, "Hey, those white people."

That's right. The allegation is this. And I've always said this, by the way. I've told you that I've been the victim of extreme racism in my career. Extreme. I lost my job at a bank for being a white guy. I lost my job at the phone company for being a white guy. My TV show was basically canceled because I wasn't African-American and they were going to do a block on UPN of just black programming. So I've been super, super discriminated against. But I sometimes forget to tell you this: all of the discrimination was at the hands of white men and white women. I've never been discriminated against, as far as I know, by a black person. Like ever. I can't think of any case where that's ever happened. How about an Asian-American discriminate against me? Can't think of a time. How about a Hispanic-American discriminating against me anytime in my life? Can't think of one. Anybody who is half black discriminated against me ever? Not once. I mean, I can't think of any time. But how many times have rich white people discriminated against me? Well, a lot. A lot.

And let me tell you, rich white people are the worst. I think I can say that, right? Because I'm a rich white guy. I can criticize my own people. I believe that's fair. I believe criticizing my own people is fair. So sometimes people misunderstand me when they say that I'm a victim of extreme racial discrimination and gender. It's all from white men and a little bit from women. But mostly, mostly it's white men. Who do you think canceled me from newspapers? Do you think there were a lot of black owners of newspapers? There might be some, but I'm not even aware of any actually. So no, white people. White people canceled me. It's always white people.

And the Occupy Wall Street thing just sort of brings that up. It's like, wait a minute. There was all this pressure against rich white people and then suddenly there's all this CRT and ESG and DEI. And it's all we're talking about. It sounds a lot like the rich white people threw in a little diversion, doesn't it? That's what it feels like. Don't know what's true, but that's what it feels like.

Just before I got on, I saw there was a huge improvement in the full self-driving feature on the Teslas. So something that'll make it five to 10 times more self-driving, meaning that far fewer human interactions. And at the same time, apparently the California Air Resources Board, the CARB, never even heard of them, have some kind of deal where they're going to raise my California gas prices 50 cents next year and every year after in order to reduce emissions. They're actually going to just price me out of gas. Now this is in addition to the existing gas tax. So it's not like just a gas tax. It's raising the gas tax 50 cents a gallon. And that's real. That apparently that's going to actually happen.

Now at the same time I was trying to decide between a nice American Bronco gas vehicle, mostly because I like their look and they seem to have utility, or a Tesla. Now I'm not sold on electric cars just bec

Context —

ause I don't have a charger in my house. But if I put one in I suppose it wouldn't be the biggest deal because I don't take long trips anyway usually. So I think that if California is going to try to price me out of gas, unless I'm going to move, I might want to go for the Tesla. But then somebody said that the insurance is more for the electric cars. Is that true? Is insurance more for a Tesla th…

Next segment → →