Back to episode — Episode 1710 Scott Adams - Start Your Week Off Right With The Simultaneous Sip & Weird Headline Views
Context —
neous sip. But it happens now. Go. Here's your persuasion tip of the day. If you didn't already know this, when you associate something that people like, a pleasure that's a known pleasure, with some other thought or stimulation, you can take some of the goodness from the thing you like and it gets transferred over to the thing you associate with, as long as it's sort of a fresh thing that people…
← Previous segment →r was this big event and they would play the same song before each game and you'd be so charged up in a variety of ways, if you know what I mean, because it was college after all, and it would be so fun to be there that that song, even if I hear it today years later, you get just an immediate dopamine hit. So use that. Use that technique to extend the things you like.
Rasmussen had a poll asking people, is illegal immigration getting worse? So Rasmussen asked that poll and 55 percent said yes, illegal immigration is getting worse. 27 percent said no, no, no, no, no, it's not getting worse. 27. 27. That's about a quarter of the people who responded. About a quarter. If you were to round it off it's roughly 25, which means absolutely nothing to the people who have never seen this live stream before. But if you've been here before you know how funny this is right now because 25 is roughly the number of people who get every poll question wrong. It doesn't matter how easy the question is. Question is, is oxygen good for humans? 64 percent said yes, 26 percent said no. No, people don't need oxygen. Oh no.
Meanwhile in censorship news, Juanita Broderick had her account locked on Twitter for what they say is misinformation about COVID. Here is what she tweeted and you be the judge. Is this misinformation or fact? She tweeted, "When will this vaccine crap be over? Big Pharma has profited enough for the next hundred years. Stop pushing vaccines that don't work." And oh, here comes the bad part: "Alter DNA." She posted on Saturday, "Alter DNA. Alert, alert, alert." Censorship code of silence. Juanita has been neutralized. Has been neutralized.
Now to be clear, I don't think the vaccinations alter your DNA. I don't think that's true. But separately, was it a good idea for her to be censored? That's really the question. Yeah, you could argue whether she's right or wrong I suppose, and I don't think she's right. I don't think so. But how would I know really? What exactly would be my qualifications for answering that question? I don't know. Seems like the news seems pretty convinced it's not altering your DNA. But how would I know really? So I wonder if there isn't a better way to handle something like this. For example, if the altering the DNA part was the offending part, could you alter the Twitter interface to simply flag the part that mainstream experts disagree with? Would that be offensive to you? Would you consider that a violation of free speech if Twit
Context —
ter simply had a policy of, instead of banning people, now remember you're going to compare it to banning people and not necessarily for every person who says everything that's wrong but just people who are bannable in that bannable range, would you be okay with the bannable part simply connecting to a source? Maybe not a fact checker. No, no, because we don't trust the fact checkers, right? But I…
Next segment → →