Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2527 Segments
NewsReaction Media & Fake News

Back to episode — Episode 2527 CWSA 07/05/24

Context —

o she's going to have to answer the question: When she knew the president wasn't up to the job, what she did about it, and why she repeatedly told us that he was fine. Yes, Peter Hannan, those are exactly the right questions. If she can't answer those questions, could you trust her with the nuclear codes? Those are really, really good questions. I've often thought that the public should be more i…

← Previous segment →

not drunk in public. Yeah she was drunk as hell." Am I supposed to not notice that she acts exactly like a drunk person but not all the time? Which is exactly the tell for a drunk person. If she acted like this all the time then I'd say, "Oh that's maybe just how she acts." Because she probably wouldn't be drunk all the time. But you see those laughing things and the weird things she says every now and then. Those are clearly drunk. Do you agree?

Now you could say it's some other form of inebriation but I'll just use drunk to handle the other forms as well. Probably alcohol. My guess is alcohol. It looks like alcohol. So how many of you would agree? Because to me it's screamingly obvious that she's drunk in public on a regular basis. Do you disagree? I'm looking at the comments because I don't know if you do. Do you agree that some of it is just who she is but a lot of it is just obviously drunk and they're just not telling us? You think the press doesn't know that she's drinking her lunch? Of course they know. Of course they know. They're doing it to you again.

And much as I love Mark Levin's summary I think he buried the lead. The lead is drunk. That's the lead. If you don't deal with that question and deal with it seriously you're going to have a drunk president. And that's a pretty big contrast to somebody who has never had a sip of alcohol running against you. It's a big contrast. Now I don't think that Trump can say she's drunk. You maybe could say she looks drunk but that would be a little too far beyond what is a proven thing. It's not proven. I just think it's obvious. Right? Anyway I guess we'll keep ignoring that.

Here's what I think. I think America is now experiencing a form of massive Gell-Mann Amnesia. I talk about this a lot because if you don't understand what this is the whole world is confusing. So Gell-Mann was the name of a famous physicist — you most have heard this before — who noticed that when he read a story about physics, his own expertise, he knew it was bullshit. But when he read the very next story about anything else he just assumed it was true. And then one day after seeing this pattern reoccur that the physics stories were always wrong but he thought everything else was right, being the smart physicist that he was he said, "Wait a minute. Isn't it slightly more likely that all of the news is wrong all the time and I only notice it when it's my own area of expertise?"

And that's exactly what's happening. The news is pretty much fake all the time when it's the big geopolitical stuff. It's not fake when it says there's a hurricane. Right, hurricane is real. It's not fake when it says somebody died. They died. But it's fake when they put the spin on it, the narrative, that sort of stuff.

So here's what's happening to the entire country. So we have this situation where Democrats now know completely with certainty — regular Democrat voters — they know with certainty that the entire media lied to them about a critic

Context —

al, critical thing. And they know it wasn't a mistake. That's important. They know it wasn't a mistake. They know they were lied to for years by their trusted media. Will the Gell-Mann approach kick in and make all the Democrats think, "Well that was just that one story"? Because that's what Gell-Mann amnesia would be. It's like, "Well okay I guess I got that one thing wrong but this other story i…

Next segment → →