Back to episode — Episode 1224 Scott Adams - When to Disagree With the Experts Because That is an Essential Skill
Context —
l predictors. So when I disagree with climate change I'm not disagreeing with scientists on science. I'm disagreeing with scientists on my expertise not theirs. My expertise. I have another expertise too which is again persuasion. And so I have a theory of why maybe scientists could be fooled or biased or subject to confirmation bias at least on the financial part, financial predictions. And it i…
← Previous segment →e in the country runs the country every time. No exception.
All right and we watched that Antifa and Black Lives Matter and Democrats, they controlled violence in the streets and there's good reason to believe that that affected the Supreme Court to want to stay out of the election because they didn't want more violence. So under this situation where violence appears to be our political system now, if you want to not have that be your government, you know street violence, the only response to that since the police appear to have been neutered, you know politically neutered, the police aren't going to help you and it looks like we're not going to employ the army and because that would have its own problems, the only way that this gets fixed that I can think of is that the number of conservatives who show up is way more than the number of other people who might have violence on their mind.
Now don't bring guns. Don't bring knives or bombs. Like I'm not suggesting that anybody bring weapons of death to any kind of an event. But if Antifa were outnumbered five to one in the street where they were trying to make trouble, five to one would probably make a lot of these things go away. So I would say that if conservatives don't actually literally organize and have names of people who have signed up to literally go onto the street the moment it's needed and you don't have five times as many of them, there's no point in having an election. There really isn't. Because and the Proud Boys have up everything.
Let me say this. I don't have a problem with the Proud Boys stated philosophy. I know they're accused of things which is not within their stated philosophy. They're accused of being racist or whatever but that's not part of their deal. I don't know if any of them are racist. They're probably racist everywhere. But the Proud Boys unfortunately they brought their brand into the mix and while I believe that they were well-intentioned in many cases, sometimes I think they just like to fight, but I think they were sort of well-intentioned. They're patriots. But they completely up the situation because they drew all the attention and they were too easy to paint as the bad guys.
The people who need to be in the street needs to be everybody but them. Even though they're the most capable in terms of fighting, the most effective, the most effective would be people who are not part of an organization. You don't want them to show up and say hey we're Proud Boys. You want people to show up and say we're conservatives or we want to save the country or patriots or something. You don't want them part of a club. As soon as you make them part of a club then anybody who does something bad in the club messes up the whole thing, right? So as soon as you say it's a club any one bad apple in that club ruins the whole club in terms of political opinion. So just don't bring a club. I mean an organization club. You can you know the other club probably a bad idea too.
So you t
Context —
hink lawyers are pretty good at arguing, right? You'd say that maybe artists are not good at it but lawyers are real good at it. And I hear a lawyer, Ross Garber, who is literally an impeachment lawyer and he teaches at Tulane Law School. So a very qualified guy in the law. And he tweeted this to me. He said I have done election investigations mostly on behalf of Republicans. So he's saying that h…
Next segment → →