Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2688 Segments
MainContent Two Movie Screen

Back to episode — Episode 2688 CWSA 12/13/24

Context —

all get it. You could hate it. You could not like it. But we get it. Father pardoning the son. We get it. CNN this isn't a gotcha. But what's interesting is that Jake Tapper on CNN he played it as a gotcha. Like he played it as a clear inconsistency with Biden that maybe should be noted. No that shouldn't be noted. There's no story here whatsoever. Man helps his son. You don't need to ask any extr…

← Previous segment →

trying to make a deal to the military. Don't you feel like that's sort of obviously missing? Wouldn't that be the most obvious thing you want to say? It's one thing to say it's not Homeland Security and it's not the FBI and that they don't know anything about it. It's another thing to say we asked all of the departments in our government and they all said it's not us. That's what I want to hear. I want to hear we checked with everybody who could even remotely possibly be involved with a drone and they all assured us that it's not them. Now even that could be a lie but it's so obviously omitting the most likely people who would be involved in it which is the military. I didn't think it was the FBI. I didn't think it was Homeland Security. I thought it was the military. The vendors maybe. Not the military per se.

What do you make of the fact that none of the sightings have been corroborated by electronic detection? What I make of that is nothing because the drones, many of them were flying under radar so that wouldn't catch them. And by the time the person with the fancy machines shows up the sightings are probably over. And some of them are just airplanes and some of them are private drones and stuff. So it does bring up the question if this drone stuff is nothing but mass delusion. And yesterday I would have said it's not mass delusion but there's mass delusion on top of it. Meaning that at a minimum 95% of the videos and photos you see online are fake. And minimum 95%. Is the other 5% real? I don't know. But I know there's no detection of it. I know I haven't seen a picture that looked real yet. So I have personally spent a lot of time looking at videos and photos that are allegedly in New Jersey and other places. I haven't personally seen anything that looked real. And what I mean by that is I look at the video and I go, okay an orb. How hard would it be to make a video with a fake orb? It'd be real easy. So I just I don't know. I would say that I'm going to move the possibility of it being literally nothing—like there's no drones—the possibility that went from yesterday I would have said 10% but I'm going to raise that to 30%. I think there's a good 30% chance that there's not been a single drone. That there's not been a single unexplained car-sized drone. There's a good 30% that's never happened but people are wildly reporting that it did. That would be a mass hysteria. And mass hysteria are so common, so common that you just because it sounds unlikely don't rule it out for that it sounds unlikely. But it's the most common thing that happens in society. Mass hysteria. We do it all the time. This could be one. But I still think there are enough of the in-person sightings and stories that make me think there's something up there. Even if 95% of them are just aircraft and private drones and nothing to worry about there seems like there's something up there. The fact that the government is so sure that they're not dangerous pretty much I can take as a confirmation that the government is involved and they know what they are. Anyway the news on it is ridiculous and social media reports all look absurd to me. So I'll say it again. I haven't personally—and I've looked at a lot of the videos—I haven't personally seen anything that looks to me like, "Oh that's a real unexplained phenomenon." Not yet. It's just blurry pictures.

The NASDAQ, where stocks go to get listed for trading, one of the places, they got slapped down by a court because they were trying to require the companies that were listed on their exchange to have DEI in their corporate boards. So NASDAQ was trying to regulate the companies that sign up to be on their listing by saying you've got to have at least a woman on the board and either somebody who is a different race and/or LGBTQ. So I wonder how many boards were tempted to just say, all right guys we got a woman that was easy but as far as I know none of you are LGBTQ. Is that correct? And everybody's like no we're not. You know, darn it. All right we're either going to have to replace one of you with an LGBTQ so I can be listed on the NASDAQ or one of you is going to have to change your lifestyle. Can I get a volunteer to be LGBTQ just while we do the paperwork? And then one will be like yeah I'll do that. Sure. What do I have to do? Do I have to have sex with somebody who's my same sex? No you just have to say you are because it's really not about what you've done physically it's about how you identify. So we've got to fill out this paperwork so I need you to identify as gay for 10 minutes. 10 minutes? Yeah I can give you gay for 10 minutes. Yeah all right. Paperwork filled out.

Al

Context —

l right obviously the DEI stuff and the identity stuff is ridiculous. Obviously DEI destroys everything it touches. This would have destroyed the NASDAQ because companies would have said I'll just list somewhere else. Or it would have created a competitor. Imagine if the NASDAQ just put itself out of business by becoming so hard to work with that everybody said well I think I'll go to the New York…

Next segment → →