Excellent podcast, one of my all-time favorites. Adams is brilliant. (Though I disagree with him often). The host of the podcast - Coleman? - was so measured, so thoughtful. And Noem was insightful and respectful. I really enjoyed this.
@@DeathRayGraphicsHe understood there was risk in what he said, admits he underestimated it, but is more or less ... not happy, but, understanding and comfortable with the outcome. In his words, "Free speech is expensive," and (paraphrased), "I've got F you money."
Great interview. I listen to Scott's podcast and I've read his books so I already know a lot of what he said, but you raised some interesting push back that I haven't heard before and it was good to hear his response on that.
This is quickly becoming one of the best podcasts out there. If you arent holding dissenting political opinions and thinking otherwise "dangerous" thoughts, are you even living?
So this is interesting: I got zero ad breaks during the first 57 minutes of this interview, but since the part of the interview addressing the racial comments I've had had three commercial breaks. In the space of 12 minutes of interview time.
amazing analysis by the three of you,...Scott's examples of why he said things and took the direction that he did are easy to understand and back his viewpoints...these ideas in the presentation were clear and persuasive ...
Scott Adams still hasn't done any research. 1) "It's ok to be white" originated as a white supremacist slogan from 4Chan users to troll the Anti-Defamation League. They posted this slogan all across college campus while they were having a meeting about diversity in order to get the ADL to denounce the slogan on social media, so the white-supremacists could denounce the ADL as an anti-white hate group and give credence to their "White Replacement Theory." 2) The Rassumen Poll that Scott Adams shared had 1000 participants, 130 were black, 34 disagreed/strongly disagreed with the slogan. 3) Scott Adams used 34 black people who may or may not have known about the 4Chan troll, to then label all black people as a hate group and validate the "White Replacement Theory." 4) Scott Adams is either ignorant of these facts, or a bigot.
It would be interesting if the people calling Adams names can rebut the things he says. They all claim they don't want to give him a platform but that's not why they don't engage with him.
Ready and willing to rebut, sir. The thing about Scott is that he is a "I'm just asking questions", guy. Trying to isolate his true opinions using his own words is like nailing Jell-O to a wall. He only says what he means while simultaneously leaving rhetorical escape hatches that he can use against his opponents when they quote him. He's a decent bullshit artists, I will give him that. I think this is why he is attracted to Trump, who holds Little Brains in the same contempt that he does.
@@DeathRayGraphicsFunny, I still haven't heard you rebut anything he said. Just a bunch of 'word salad's stroking your ego for an imaginary rebuttal you never gave.
OK@@DeathRayGraphics. Please rebut his most recent controversial idea that African Americans are being enjoined by CRT to view those of us with European ancestry as their oppressors. Or if that's too heavy a lift pick anything that he is famous for, such as the concept of systems over goals or the value of establishing a talent stack. Or something short and simple like his calling out the press for the Trump "fine people" and "drinking bleach" hoaxes. Pick any you like and disprove his assertion. Or run away, as I expect you will do.
sure. i'm only 5 minutes in and he says the dumbest fucking things. there's no such thing as "alternate electors" like he is claiming. that was just a word invented in 2020 to justify doing crimes. there is only fake electors, and there was nothing legal about pretending to be an elector to overthrow a democratic election. they are now finding this out the hard way, as they are being charged with crimes and they'll probably end up in jail. unfortunately for them, they will have to contend with the law, and not the retarded thing scott adams believes.
Professors are under tremendous pressure to publish. Promotions, tenure, employment contract renewal, and professional status are all heavily dependent on publication record. If a little fudging (and sometimes a lot of fudging) is needed to get a paper published, it is naive to think it isn't happening.
@1:32:24 Norm just doesn't get it... even after Coleman just spelled it out... Norm, you guys are all dancing around a very simple moral principle worth holding: don't judge individuals because of their group generalizations, but that does not apply, to issues of safety. Ergo, Tucker isn't bigotted... he has just taken notice of some group generalizations, which is itself, not a forbidden knowledge to possess such knowledge.
Tucker was watching a video clip. It wasn't an issue of his safety. It was an issue of Tucker feeling let down by his fellow whites who failed to demonstrate the superior honor that Tucker believes whites to posses.
@JaredCzaia I disagree that its not an issue of saftey... how people fight, is something that is worth holding generalizations about (because of saftey concerns, especially if your a man and might be expected to get into fights to defend yourself or loved one's)... in the interest of your own safety, these are considerations worth contemplating beforehand (granted that was not the purpose that Tucker was employing this amoral "knowledge of stereotypes" for, in this case). Generalizations are at base morally neutral: we should strive not to use them against individuals, but pretending that generalizations can't be generally true, and useful for safety concerns, is silly. I see Tucker's "positive" stereotype as the mirror image of a negative stereotype about non-whites (but again, this negative is the kind of thing that especially a man, who might be expected to get into fights, is worth considering beforehand)... so I dont think your critique that it was a racist 'positive' stereotype matters: think of it from the point of view of an individual navigating low resolution thought-experiments based on the way the world is. Reality is not politically correct, and so we cant blame Tucker for having a sense that he would generally be up against a dishonorable adversary if he was to fight against a non-white, there is of course a chance of the same when fighting a white person too, statistics mean little in actual situations. I agree that Tucker's verbage is problematic, in that he is using the language of normative ethics, ie it can be argued he is invested in a white identity, "thats not how a white man SHOULD fight", but I think in either interpretation, you have to add psychological intentionality, in terms of what Tucker thinks about the status of stereotypes and their problematic use in general. I dont believe Tucker is a racist, he is bravely expressing his own unfiltered thoughts, including his low resolution maps of the world (stereotypes), instead of pretending that he doesn't have any stereotypes, which is not only the dishonest status quo, but also profoundly silly, because it creates cognitive dissonance.
@@philosophy_by_psyche how would you define racism, if not the belief that one racial group is intrinsically superior to another? It seems the goalposts are being moved in whatever way can exonerate Tucker.
@JaredCzaia in this case, intrinsic superiority or inferiority has to do with the explanation for the existence of the stereotype, which I think there is no evidence of this kind of speculating on behalf of Tucker: if anything, he casts doubts and worry over his own thinking even, didnt he? Why isn't that good enough for you to think that he doesn't believe the generalization is intrinsic.. believing generalizations themselves can be intrinsic is itself a rationality-challenged position in itself, is it not? Your position pretends to be neat and clean, but what you are falling to confront is the inconvenient truth of the generalization. Yes, its only a generalization, so its morally dangerous and intrinsically factually-limited to use against an individual when avoidable; but you can't expect people not to take cognizance of generalizations, I believe it takes some moral restraint to exercise non-racialism, in not applying generalizations against individuals... I dont think it's that hard to do, and I believe Tucker when he talks about judging individuals by their characters... your berating of people for even holding generalizations/stereotypes because you have the power to assume their beliefs about intrinsically possessed traits, I find disturbing, are you implying you don't recognize patterns like generalizations in the world, and that anyone who does must be a racist for collecting such observations? Anyway... I won't speculate further as to your worldview. It just seems eminently convenient and obtuse in its judgments based in inferencing racist beliefs... you are seemingly towing the stupid Ibram x kendi line though: that noticing any racial group discrepancy amounts to a racist idea. Is that your view? If it is, I dont think we will find any common ground.
@@philosophy_by_psyche Well, just sticking with dictionary definitions - there are two kinds of racist. One is to believe a given race is superior, and the other more pernicious kind is to act on that belief by seeking to subjugate members of other races. You seem to be offering a defense of type 1 racism. You don't seem to find this type of racism immoral when it is statistically accurate or corresponds to someone's experience. From a moral perspective, I believe all humans have inherent dignity that does not vary by race. I know black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes in the US - but I believe it would immoral to make it my business to spread this data or its corresponding anecdotes far and wide apropos of nothing - because I would have to consider my motivation for doing so. Tucker has made it his business to spread the word that, for example, immigrants make America poorer and dirtier. That's not explicitly racist, and his type 1 racist comment wasn't meant to broadcasted, but you put the two together and you've got a powerful man intentionally stoking the fear and anger of his fellow whites who he incidentally believes are superior.
So Mr. Adam's wants it to be proven that the election wasn't stolen. I thought he might have gotten a raw deal and was a reasonable guy when his cartoon was canceled but now I find him not to be a serious person.
He’s not a serious person. Read his article on how to reprogram a Hilary supporter. I didn’t like her then and don’t like her now, but even I thought it was the biggest pile of asinine nonsense full of half-baked assumptions. He believes what he wants to believe.
He is internet king of false premise and hasty generalization and you two were unable to challenge him. "They're corrupt. Period." (No, not the exact quote.) It should be easily challenged, but you didn't.😮
@@whooptydoo6256No. Yet, that is his generalization. He's a cynic who sees a story, then declares that the organization is corrupt based on his interpretation of the story . There was a weak attempt with the cardiologist example to challenge, but little else. Cynicism is an addiction. He's an addict.
Just crickets from the FBI on that investigation... Also Kari Lake, contending in Arizona Governors race, just recently the courts have ruled in her favor that the signature checking procedure used in the election was invalid, and I think they will be recounting many votes.
Even an honest and well-run system is going to have a margin of error. You add people with very strong incentives tied to the output of the system that will exponentially increase 'errors' (corruption) of the output. You then add opacity at several key process points in the system, it is virtually guaranteed the output will be corrupted. The important question isn't if the election was corrupted. The important question is to what extent was it corrupted and is that greater than actual spread of votes between the candidates.
The projection of white nationalism onto Tucker for his comment suggests to me how terribly fearfully peopled traumas are. I see tucker as one moving away from negative corporate constraint towards a community base belief. We are all in this together. His comment acknowledges an unfair power dynamic and suggests an inappropriate exploitation of it.
@@aprilnelly You are only making a rod for your own back. If Tucker wasn't implying that some other "race" are the one's who behave that way, then he was even *more* conspicuously playing the role of Guardian of White Virtue. He comes out looking like shit either way.
Idk, sounds like a bit of mind reading. Like Noam, I can also remember a time, before "white people" were "invented". Italians, Jews, Irish, etc. This reductive term, similar to "poc", represents the inverse of diversity. Serves a divide and conquer, top down narrative. I wont have much to do with it myself.
@@mcav22 on your next vacation go to Haiti or to a Black Country in Africa, instead of going to Canada or Western Europe. Hope you and your family make it back.
but who's to blame.. until FBI remembers how many agitators had involved (which now they pretend they lost track, nor bother to deny it), you can't put it on anyone,; also, that''s not a measurement / qualifier of being a "insurrection"
@@Dm3qXY The right wind insurrectionists who tried to stop Congress from certifying the election results are to blame for the deaths. in·sur·rec·tion /ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/ noun a violent uprising against an authority or government.
I'm so glad Scott brought up the original meaning of 'discriminate'. For decades the Marxist left, as one of its cornerstone strategies, has controlled thought through the use of language. It makes up new words and concepts (what they would call constructs) in order to shape reality to their will. It is also common practice for the left to completely redefine words in order to support their propagandistic philosophies. Case in point: Originally discriminate meant to recognize a distinction; to differentiate. "babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion" Over the past few generations discriminate has been redefined as a word of oppression, used by the oppressors: to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, sex, age, or disability. "existing employment policies discriminate against women"
Coleman it is worse than you say, in Rwanda and Sri Lanka the identification of identity with oppressor and oppressed has ended in violence!!!!!!!!! And genocide!!!!!
42:30 is the response to those that incorrectly state Scott Adams is just a cartoonist. As he often states, Dilbert is based on real situations and coworkers he knew and his experience inside large organizations. Cartooning just made the infornation easier to consume.
Wow, I've never listened to Scott, but for recently when he "stepped in it" on race. But I am now a fan of his ability to put words to what many of us know but can't express so eloquently.I think its a shame that "maga" Americans are stuck with Trump.
@@yashamaga13 I'm sure it's like Christmas day to you. (Hey, why don't you write the cop who murdered him a love letter? I think he's in cell block D.)
I would not have read anything in particular into Tucker's statement that white mean don't fight that way because he's *probably* thinking about the duel (ironically like a boxing match or a dustup in a bar). The statement isn't inherently exclusive. He identifies with white guys because... he's not invisible. He's white. What characterizes this acknowledgment is that it's not idealism, but a recognition of the reality *in its own terms*. Any group whose conflicts are best settled by a duel (interesting convergence with the word dual) would be able to say "my ethnicity X doesn't fight that way" as a kind of expression of an ideal. (The re-cognition "I am, like the aggressors, white." is non-idealistic, though there is clearly an ideal being expressed.) The problem isn't with the re-cognition, but oddly enough with the dyadic notion of idealism, as opposed for instance to the triadic notion of *the sign*. It has more to do with the way things should be, so it's equivalent in some ways to "these truths we hold to be self evident" even though they're clearly not self-evident to most people, as our current "betters" in media are showing us. This is a perfect illustration of how idealism is fundamentally unworkable on it's own. It always requires a grammatical mediator with the ground. You don't condemn people for their percepts. As a "white guy", Barry Nevitt, put it: "'UNDERSTANDING is neither an answer, nor a point of view, nor a value judgement. Understanding or COMPREHENSION means grasping every facet of a current situation from every side with every sense and faculty not only outside, but inside out. Understanding exposes the relations of visible events with their hidden grounds or “premises” or environments." Noam's suspicion that something is wrong is correct, but he hasn't recognized that it has to do with an imbalance between the elements of the interpretant that is inherent in our current mentality, rather than with some moral failing of Tucker's. He's got the same tendency, as we all do. It's a problem... However, it is not an inherent property of human nature. It's a property of the post-Gutenberg mentality... and it *will* change.
Science gave you the device your typing this comment on, it also gave you an extended life, transportation that can get you large distances in minutes and/or hours depending on where your going, it gave you clean water without cholera in it etc. Look, not all "scientific" progress is good, especially if it isn't tempered by morality and personal responsibility. Scientific and material progress is good only when it is tempered with morality and as we have seen most of the modern advances aren't. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, I see too many CON-servatives doing that. Actual conservatives should be trying to restore the family, morality and personal responsibilty to guide the progress, not throw it out like we have.
1:30:41 Is it surprising that 'white' people perceive themselves as white when that is how the wider society categorizes them? All 'white' people of various ethnic grouos are lumped together with no care for their particular ethnic identities. The same is true of 'Asians' and 'black' people in this context. The complex ethnic diversity that actually exists has been flattened into more abstract and superficial race categories across the board. It seems strange to suggest white people should be unique in rejecting this when it is hiw society treats them.
What people call “race” are just a bunch of broad cosmetic features shared by people from particular regions. It has always been a bullshit term. People in this country only “perceive” themselves as member of a race when it serves their economic and political interests. It’s just class armor.
I agree with that. I don't fault Tucker for thinking of himself as white, but I do fault him morally and intellectually for thinking of whites as too noble to engage in mob violence.
@@JaredCzaia Is that sense of chosen-ness not the epitome of thinking of yourself as "white"? XD You are letting Tucker off the hook for exactly what you are condemning!
@@DeathRayGraphics one cannot let someone off the hook for something they condemn someone for. That's a contradiction. I condemn him for regarding whites as morally superior and I do not condemn him for identifying as white.
I probably agreed with Scott the baldy guy on most of his recent positions, but I don't like him 'framing' everything... this isn't Framingham, this is Truthingham! & Noam seemed especially semitic
Scott is pedaling furiously to save his reputation after his heinous race comments. I’m sure he’s thinking about legacy and he’s on a tour of any podcast that will have him to try and mend his reputation. Persuasion and wordplay are the tools he’s trying to use but it’s so transparent and he is nowhere near as smart as he thinks. Desperate and lame.
There is no reputation left to save. I am surprised, however, at both Coleman and the other guy. They are so eager to slot Adams into the “victim of wokeness” category that they have not done any homework to learn just how far down the rabbit hole Scott has been for years. The words that finally got him dropped by his clients are not even as bad as many things he has said in recent years. At some point, the cumulative weight of one’s sly racism does not warrant giving one the benefit of the doubt. These guys were WAYYYYY too accommodating.
@@johannesswillery7855 You seem to be operating under the illusion that I am somehow unhappy. I am probably happier than any other Scott Atoms critic alive, because I am perhaps the only one who has ever forced him to publicly eat shit :)
I don't get how anyone could be persuaded by a person speaking in such an obviously manipulative way with the constant overt spin machine cranked up to 11. It's hard to find a single paragraph that doesn't have a red flag that screams "you don't want whatever this person is selling"
YAAY, you can have some candy!Your choice is between "dirt candy" (that tastes like dirt) or the cheapest,crappiest candy there is(maybe Smarties) wow great, meaning, "(that sucks)It's a shame that "maga"Americans are stuck with Trump. Buts thats part of the corrupted system we live with.(he's the smarties)everything else offered seems to be dirt candy. When it SHOULD NOT BE that way.
26:43 Adams is losing the argument about the election being fair... "Can I do an experiment?" Just nonsense. For instance, I agree the two parties largely control the political system and that is deeply unfair. Trump didn't make a suggestion about that, nor about something in particular was flawed in his election loss.
@@AaronHawley Scott is a master of hopping down off his fence to "just ask the questions" that reveal his exact, cynical political positions, then hopping back on the fence and acting like he was occupying the disinterested center the whole time.
nah, he was more like comitting to a standard (through evidence - which i'd say is not available) for agreeing it was invlalid.. because cheating or not, in order to have peace, we have to get to a point where we accept the results.. Scott also said that if the republicans had access to same tools for "playing the game", losing is on them for not playing better than the winners.. neither Scott nor Hughes like it, but you just have to shake hands on it at some point .. and btw that's one of the reasons democracy has periodical elections.. if a mistake is made, at least it's not permanent... ...unless you never care to correct the flawed system, with auditability for example.
Noam, I think you’re wrong about the white identity thing, simply because that’s the label that gets applied. I’m Italian and have to deal with a bunch of anti-white racism. And no I would never jump someone with 2 other people, it’s lowdown. And you don’t get special treatment and dispensation as a Jew, sorry pal. You completely missed the point and I really think you should try to understand it.
If 75% of people agree to some degree that it's not okay to be white, you'd be a fool to live around a large group of those people, because even though no single individual will give you a problem, the likelihood that there will be some segment of that population that hates you and thinks you are the cause of their problems, is 100% over any medium length of time. If that dislike manifested itself in being mean to the other group, then no one would care, but it has manifested in violence towards white people by people who are looking for an easy target to blame. It's not bigoted, it's logical from any reasonable perspective that valued self preservation
There is a reason you don’t see politicians pushing for Blockchain Voting. 😂
The man makes perfect sense and he is absolutely correct. We're so worried about offending people that we can't even speak the truth anymore.
Thank you for interviewing Scott!
Excellent podcast, one of my all-time favorites. Adams is brilliant. (Though I disagree with him often). The host of the podcast - Coleman? - was so measured, so thoughtful. And Noem was insightful and respectful. I really enjoyed this.
Scott became free after cancellation.
You mean after he cancelled *himself*, right?
@@DeathRayGraphicsHe understood there was risk in what he said, admits he underestimated it, but is more or less ... not happy, but, understanding and comfortable with the outcome.
In his words, "Free speech is expensive," and (paraphrased), "I've got F you money."
He is soooo canceled that he is making regular appearances in conservative circle amd making more money.
felt like it only touched the surface on the important things to discuss. Needs 10 more episodes
Agree I’m still not sure what Scott truly thinks about the race issue
To the guy on the left, the next time zoom offers you a background called “glitch out”, don’t choose it.
Great interview. I listen to Scott's podcast and I've read his books so I already know a lot of what he said, but you raised some interesting push back that I haven't heard before and it was good to hear his response on that.
Brilliant show. Well done all round. What a pleasure to hear a proper intelligent discussion.
I liked his emergent intelligence from large language models! Where statistics on what word comes next after a word, sentence, paragraph!
Terrific conversation
This is quickly becoming one of the best podcasts out there.
If you arent holding dissenting political opinions and thinking otherwise "dangerous" thoughts, are you even living?
Scott is a great spokesman for our side. Thanks for hosting him.
Bs. It's all about Scott and he switches side daily.
The backside?
@@robbiesharp311 Eh. No. I have been listening to him 4 years and you are a liar.
So this is interesting: I got zero ad breaks during the first 57 minutes of this interview, but since the part of the interview addressing the racial comments I've had had three commercial breaks. In the space of 12 minutes of interview time.
This was a great discussion! 👍👍👍
Scott was right, that interview was amazing.
- Johnny Barback, Ex Cellar Employee
Hello old friend!
Which EP of coffee did he talk about it on?
amazing analysis by the three of you,...Scott's examples of why he said things and took the direction that he did are easy to understand and back his viewpoints...these ideas in the presentation were clear and persuasive ...
Scott Adams still hasn't done any research.
1) "It's ok to be white" originated as a white supremacist slogan from 4Chan users to troll the Anti-Defamation League. They posted this slogan all across college campus while they were having a meeting about diversity in order to get the ADL to denounce the slogan on social media, so the white-supremacists could denounce the ADL as an anti-white hate group and give credence to their "White Replacement Theory."
2) The Rassumen Poll that Scott Adams shared had 1000 participants, 130 were black, 34 disagreed/strongly disagreed with the slogan.
3) Scott Adams used 34 black people who may or may not have known about the 4Chan troll, to then label all black people as a hate group and validate the "White Replacement Theory."
4) Scott Adams is either ignorant of these facts, or a bigot.
Scott is masterful
It would be interesting if the people calling Adams names can rebut the things he says. They all claim they don't want to give him a platform but that's not why they don't engage with him.
Ready and willing to rebut, sir.
The thing about Scott is that he is a "I'm just asking questions", guy. Trying to isolate his true opinions using his own words is like nailing Jell-O to a wall. He only says what he means while simultaneously leaving rhetorical escape hatches that he can use against his opponents when they quote him.
He's a decent bullshit artists, I will give him that. I think this is why he is attracted to Trump, who holds Little Brains in the same contempt that he does.
Scott is a master debater@@DeathRayGraphics
@@DeathRayGraphicsFunny, I still haven't heard you rebut anything he said. Just a bunch of 'word salad's stroking your ego for an imaginary rebuttal you never gave.
OK@@DeathRayGraphics. Please rebut his most recent controversial idea that African Americans are being enjoined by CRT to view those of us with European ancestry as their oppressors. Or if that's too heavy a lift pick anything that he is famous for, such as the concept of systems over goals or the value of establishing a talent stack. Or something short and simple like his calling out the press for the Trump "fine people" and "drinking bleach" hoaxes. Pick any you like and disprove his assertion. Or run away, as I expect you will do.
sure. i'm only 5 minutes in and he says the dumbest fucking things. there's no such thing as "alternate electors" like he is claiming. that was just a word invented in 2020 to justify doing crimes. there is only fake electors, and there was nothing legal about pretending to be an elector to overthrow a democratic election. they are now finding this out the hard way, as they are being charged with crimes and they'll probably end up in jail. unfortunately for them, they will have to contend with the law, and not the retarded thing scott adams believes.
Great conversation, guys!
And yes, I did but the book.
Both books, in fact.
Cheers!
Wonderful show full of intelligent conversation, Bravo!
The guy is pure gold!
Professors are under tremendous pressure to publish. Promotions, tenure, employment contract renewal, and professional status are all heavily dependent on publication record. If a little fudging (and sometimes a lot of fudging) is needed to get a paper published, it is naive to think it isn't happening.
I agree with the "reframing" it is VERY true on all levels.
"It would be okay for a jew to say it but not a white person." Hypocrisy much.
@1:32:24 Norm just doesn't get it... even after Coleman just spelled it out... Norm, you guys are all dancing around a very simple moral principle worth holding: don't judge individuals because of their group generalizations, but that does not apply, to issues of safety. Ergo, Tucker isn't bigotted... he has just taken notice of some group generalizations, which is itself, not a forbidden knowledge to possess such knowledge.
Tucker was watching a video clip. It wasn't an issue of his safety. It was an issue of Tucker feeling let down by his fellow whites who failed to demonstrate the superior honor that Tucker believes whites to posses.
@JaredCzaia I disagree that its not an issue of saftey... how people fight, is something that is worth holding generalizations about (because of saftey concerns, especially if your a man and might be expected to get into fights to defend yourself or loved one's)... in the interest of your own safety, these are considerations worth contemplating beforehand (granted that was not the purpose that Tucker was employing this amoral "knowledge of stereotypes" for, in this case). Generalizations are at base morally neutral: we should strive not to use them against individuals, but pretending that generalizations can't be generally true, and useful for safety concerns, is silly. I see Tucker's "positive" stereotype as the mirror image of a negative stereotype about non-whites (but again, this negative is the kind of thing that especially a man, who might be expected to get into fights, is worth considering beforehand)... so I dont think your critique that it was a racist 'positive' stereotype matters: think of it from the point of view of an individual navigating low resolution thought-experiments based on the way the world is. Reality is not politically correct, and so we cant blame Tucker for having a sense that he would generally be up against a dishonorable adversary if he was to fight against a non-white, there is of course a chance of the same when fighting a white person too, statistics mean little in actual situations. I agree that Tucker's verbage is problematic, in that he is using the language of normative ethics, ie it can be argued he is invested in a white identity, "thats not how a white man SHOULD fight", but I think in either interpretation, you have to add psychological intentionality, in terms of what Tucker thinks about the status of stereotypes and their problematic use in general. I dont believe Tucker is a racist, he is bravely expressing his own unfiltered thoughts, including his low resolution maps of the world (stereotypes), instead of pretending that he doesn't have any stereotypes, which is not only the dishonest status quo, but also profoundly silly, because it creates cognitive dissonance.
@@philosophy_by_psyche how would you define racism, if not the belief that one racial group is intrinsically superior to another? It seems the goalposts are being moved in whatever way can exonerate Tucker.
@JaredCzaia in this case, intrinsic superiority or inferiority has to do with the explanation for the existence of the stereotype, which I think there is no evidence of this kind of speculating on behalf of Tucker: if anything, he casts doubts and worry over his own thinking even, didnt he? Why isn't that good enough for you to think that he doesn't believe the generalization is intrinsic.. believing generalizations themselves can be intrinsic is itself a rationality-challenged position in itself, is it not?
Your position pretends to be neat and clean, but what you are falling to confront is the inconvenient truth of the generalization. Yes, its only a generalization, so its morally dangerous and intrinsically factually-limited to use against an individual when avoidable; but you can't expect people not to take cognizance of generalizations, I believe it takes some moral restraint to exercise non-racialism, in not applying generalizations against individuals... I dont think it's that hard to do, and I believe Tucker when he talks about judging individuals by their characters... your berating of people for even holding generalizations/stereotypes because you have the power to assume their beliefs about intrinsically possessed traits, I find disturbing, are you implying you don't recognize patterns like generalizations in the world, and that anyone who does must be a racist for collecting such observations? Anyway... I won't speculate further as to your worldview. It just seems eminently convenient and obtuse in its judgments based in inferencing racist beliefs... you are seemingly towing the stupid Ibram x kendi line though: that noticing any racial group discrepancy amounts to a racist idea. Is that your view? If it is, I dont think we will find any common ground.
@@philosophy_by_psyche Well, just sticking with dictionary definitions - there are two kinds of racist. One is to believe a given race is superior, and the other more pernicious kind is to act on that belief by seeking to subjugate members of other races.
You seem to be offering a defense of type 1 racism. You don't seem to find this type of racism immoral when it is statistically accurate or corresponds to someone's experience.
From a moral perspective, I believe all humans have inherent dignity that does not vary by race. I know black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes in the US - but I believe it would immoral to make it my business to spread this data or its corresponding anecdotes far and wide apropos of nothing - because I would have to consider my motivation for doing so.
Tucker has made it his business to spread the word that, for example, immigrants make America poorer and dirtier. That's not explicitly racist, and his type 1 racist comment wasn't meant to broadcasted, but you put the two together and you've got a powerful man intentionally stoking the fear and anger of his fellow whites who he incidentally believes are superior.
So Mr. Adam's wants it to be proven that the election wasn't stolen. I thought he might have gotten a raw deal and was a reasonable guy when his cartoon was canceled but now I find him not to be a serious person.
He’s not a serious person. Read his article on how to reprogram a Hilary supporter. I didn’t like her then and don’t like her now, but even I thought it was the biggest pile of asinine nonsense full of half-baked assumptions. He believes what he wants to believe.
An expert should be able and willing to debate and face questions!
Per Bureau of JUstice Statistics
Black on white 537,204 90.5%
White on black 56,394 9.5%
He is internet king of false premise and hasty generalization and you two were unable to challenge him. "They're corrupt. Period." (No, not the exact quote.) It should be easily challenged, but you didn't.😮
Did he say " all corrupt ALL the time " ? Maybe relisten to that
@@whooptydoo6256No. Yet, that is his generalization. He's a cynic who sees a story, then declares that the organization is corrupt based on his interpretation of the story . There was a weak attempt with the cardiologist example to challenge, but little else. Cynicism is an addiction. He's an addict.
@@jackdupp2047 Gotta agree. I think his logic about election corruption is very surface level and doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
I can't believe how seriously you all take yourselves given the sub par nature of some of the content
Why would Coleman know what goes on on CNN and not on Fox?
Two people worth respect.
No fan of Trump but that light "disinfectant" has been used in plumbing for years. It's decades old at least.
So has snaking pipes. Maybe THAT will cure COVID!
Coleman was a lot more entertaining than the two old white guys
TDS alert
Just crickets from the FBI on that investigation... Also Kari Lake, contending in Arizona Governors race, just recently the courts have ruled in her favor that the signature checking procedure used in the election was invalid, and I think they will be recounting many votes.
Even an honest and well-run system is going to have a margin of error. You add people with very strong incentives tied to the output of the system that will exponentially increase 'errors' (corruption) of the output. You then add opacity at several key process points in the system, it is virtually guaranteed the output will be corrupted. The important question isn't if the election was corrupted. The important question is to what extent was it corrupted and is that greater than actual spread of votes between the candidates.
I feel like a forever muse
Some of the best theories in astronomy are not very good; inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
The projection of white nationalism onto Tucker for his comment suggests to me how terribly fearfully peopled traumas are. I see tucker as one moving away from negative corporate constraint towards a community base belief. We are all in this together. His comment acknowledges an unfair power dynamic and suggests an inappropriate exploitation of it.
Then answer this question on behalf of Tucker: Who DOES “fight like that”?
@@DeathRayGraphics your question feels like a zero sum inquiry. Tucker feeling unsettled by violence doesn't really fit this narrative I dont think.
@@aprilnelly You are only making a rod for your own back. If Tucker wasn't implying that some other "race" are the one's who behave that way, then he was even *more* conspicuously playing the role of Guardian of White Virtue. He comes out looking like shit either way.
Tucker wasn't simply unsettled by violence. He was unsettled by whites failing to show the honor he believed them to uniquely posses.
Idk, sounds like a bit of mind reading. Like Noam, I can also remember a time, before "white people" were "invented". Italians, Jews, Irish, etc. This reductive term, similar to "poc", represents the inverse of diversity. Serves a divide and conquer, top down narrative. I wont have much to do with it myself.
“ LEVEL OF DELUSION ..”
Pot Kettle black
That was my point of pulling out of this one ., 24:39
The issue is when politics becomes ideology gets involved, then we have pollution!
We have example of Ukraine 2014 where a ejected president was chased off!!!!
And who got killed?
And got blamed?
You’d have to listen to his podcast daily to get the insight into his comment on suicide.
Sorry Scott… It’s not programming its DNA.
It’s the same story in every country on earth where they live in groups.
#loserthink
@@mcav22 on your next vacation go to Haiti or to a Black Country in Africa, instead of going to Canada or Western Europe. Hope you and your family make it back.
Noam Dworman and Sam Harris I wonder where they learn their talking points #TheMediaIstheVirus
5 people died as a result of the insurrection.
but who's to blame.. until FBI remembers how many agitators had involved (which now they pretend they lost track, nor bother to deny it), you can't put it on anyone,; also, that''s not a measurement / qualifier of being a "insurrection"
@@Dm3qXY The right wind insurrectionists who tried to stop Congress from certifying the election results are to blame for the deaths.
in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
I'm so glad Scott brought up the original meaning of 'discriminate'.
For decades the Marxist left, as one of its cornerstone strategies, has controlled thought through the use of language. It makes up new words and concepts (what they would call constructs) in order to shape reality to their will. It is also common practice for the left to completely redefine words in order to support their propagandistic philosophies.
Case in point: Originally discriminate meant to recognize a distinction; to differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
Over the past few generations discriminate has been redefined as a word of oppression, used by the oppressors: to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, sex, age, or disability.
"existing employment policies discriminate against women"
I'm sure Noam lives in a black neighborhood.
Are we gonna talk about the MOUTAINS of video evidence showing officers being told to LET them in the Capitol?
Coleman it is worse than you say, in Rwanda and Sri Lanka the identification of identity with oppressor and oppressed has ended in violence!!!!!!!!! And genocide!!!!!
Scott is his own biggest fan.
😊
God these people talk slowly. Its bearable sped up to 1.75 (playback speed).
just listen slower
42:30 is the response to those that incorrectly state Scott Adams is just a cartoonist. As he often states, Dilbert is based on real situations and coworkers he knew and his experience inside large organizations. Cartooning just made the infornation easier to consume.
How many found guilty of insurrection??
Wow, I've never listened to Scott, but for recently when he "stepped in it" on race. But I am now a fan of his ability to put words to what many of us know but can't express so eloquently.I think its a shame that "maga" Americans are stuck with Trump.
You still riding with Deep State Biden?
1:10:56 “where are the videos of asians & whites attacking black people?”..colin flaherty used to ask the same question..videos came there none
You never heard of Derek Chauvin? Innnnnteresting.
Oh you mean when that junkie ODd while the cop was on his shoulders? I remember that
@@yashamaga13 I'm sure it's like Christmas day to you. (Hey, why don't you write the cop who murdered him a love letter? I think he's in cell block D.)
I would not have read anything in particular into Tucker's statement that white mean don't fight that way because he's *probably* thinking about the duel (ironically like a boxing match or a dustup in a bar). The statement isn't inherently exclusive. He identifies with white guys because... he's not invisible. He's white. What characterizes this acknowledgment is that it's not idealism, but a recognition of the reality *in its own terms*. Any group whose conflicts are best settled by a duel (interesting convergence with the word dual) would be able to say "my ethnicity X doesn't fight that way" as a kind of expression of an ideal. (The re-cognition "I am, like the aggressors, white." is non-idealistic, though there is clearly an ideal being expressed.) The problem isn't with the re-cognition, but oddly enough with the dyadic notion of idealism, as opposed for instance to the triadic notion of *the sign*. It has more to do with the way things should be, so it's equivalent in some ways to "these truths we hold to be self evident" even though they're clearly not self-evident to most people, as our current "betters" in media are showing us. This is a perfect illustration of how idealism is fundamentally unworkable on it's own. It always requires a grammatical mediator with the ground. You don't condemn people for their percepts. As a "white guy", Barry Nevitt, put it:
"'UNDERSTANDING is neither an answer, nor a point of view, nor a value judgement. Understanding or COMPREHENSION means grasping every facet of a current situation from every side with every sense and faculty not only outside, but inside out. Understanding exposes the relations of visible events with their hidden grounds or “premises” or environments."
Noam's suspicion that something is wrong is correct, but he hasn't recognized that it has to do with an imbalance between the elements of the interpretant that is inherent in our current mentality, rather than with some moral failing of Tucker's. He's got the same tendency, as we all do. It's a problem... However, it is not an inherent property of human nature. It's a property of the post-Gutenberg mentality... and it *will* change.
Science gave us Lobotomies, Thalidomide for morning sickness and DDT for removing kids lice. I'll take a hard pass, thanks.
You left out the Covid vax.
Yes!! Good catch.@@Kenneth-ts7bp
Climate Change Hoax too.@@Kenneth-ts7bp
Science gave you the device your typing this comment on, it also gave you an extended life, transportation that can get you large distances in minutes and/or hours depending on where your going, it gave you clean water without cholera in it etc. Look, not all "scientific" progress is good, especially if it isn't tempered by morality and personal responsibility. Scientific and material progress is good only when it is tempered with morality and as we have seen most of the modern advances aren't. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, I see too many CON-servatives doing that. Actual conservatives should be trying to restore the family, morality and personal responsibilty to guide the progress, not throw it out like we have.
Those other guys who got Vic Shokun fired won't come foreward because their sons were on the board with Hunter.😊
This entire interview was a breath of fresh air
Funniest episode of the Comedy Cellar podcast by a mile
1:30:41 Is it surprising that 'white' people perceive themselves as white when that is how the wider society categorizes them? All 'white' people of various ethnic grouos are lumped together with no care for their particular ethnic identities. The same is true of 'Asians' and 'black' people in this context. The complex ethnic diversity that actually exists has been flattened into more abstract and superficial race categories across the board. It seems strange to suggest white people should be unique in rejecting this when it is hiw society treats them.
What people call “race” are just a bunch of broad cosmetic features shared by people from particular regions. It has always been a bullshit term. People in this country only “perceive” themselves as member of a race when it serves their economic and political interests. It’s just class armor.
I agree with that. I don't fault Tucker for thinking of himself as white, but I do fault him morally and intellectually for thinking of whites as too noble to engage in mob violence.
@@JaredCzaia Is that sense of chosen-ness not the epitome of thinking of yourself as "white"? XD You are letting Tucker off the hook for exactly what you are condemning!
@@DeathRayGraphics one cannot let someone off the hook for something they condemn someone for. That's a contradiction. I condemn him for regarding whites as morally superior and I do not condemn him for identifying as white.
I probably agreed with Scott the baldy guy on most of his recent positions, but I don't like him 'framing' everything... this isn't Framingham, this is Truthingham! & Noam seemed especially semitic
Oh boy here we go
mail in ballots
Ok, I get it, it's a comedy channel, hence the comedy.
Scott is pedaling furiously to save his reputation after his heinous race comments. I’m sure he’s thinking about legacy and he’s on a tour of any podcast that will have him to try and mend his reputation. Persuasion and wordplay are the tools he’s trying to use but it’s so transparent and he is nowhere near as smart as he thinks. Desperate and lame.
Get over yourself. And your hate.
There is no reputation left to save. I am surprised, however, at both Coleman and the other guy. They are so eager to slot Adams into the “victim of wokeness” category that they have not done any homework to learn just how far down the rabbit hole Scott has been for years. The words that finally got him dropped by his clients are not even as bad as many things he has said in recent years. At some point, the cumulative weight of one’s sly racism does not warrant giving one the benefit of the doubt. These guys were WAYYYYY too accommodating.
@@DeathRayGraphics I will be happy to send you a kitten to pet.
@@johannesswillery7855 You seem to be operating under the illusion that I am somehow unhappy. I am probably happier than any other Scott Atoms critic alive, because I am perhaps the only one who has ever forced him to publicly eat shit :)
@@DeathRayGraphics All I can say is you need to pet your kitten. Since you already have one.......
I don't get how anyone could be persuaded by a person speaking in such an obviously manipulative way with the constant overt spin machine cranked up to 11.
It's hard to find a single paragraph that doesn't have a red flag that screams "you don't want whatever this person is selling"
#nikkobriteramos
Laundry list persuasion
YAAY, you can have some candy!Your choice is between "dirt candy" (that tastes like dirt) or the cheapest,crappiest candy there is(maybe Smarties) wow great, meaning, "(that sucks)It's a shame that "maga"Americans are stuck with Trump. Buts thats part of the corrupted system we live with.(he's the smarties)everything else offered seems to be dirt candy. When it SHOULD NOT BE that way.
It is unfair due to brain damage, Scott Adams is sick.
Just a couple critical races that were clearly miscounted.
35:36. Scott still believes that one really big hoax even though he spotted these recent smaller hoaxes.
🤷🏾♀️
We see this in Israeli settlement close to Palestinian areas!!!
Scott Adams sounds like a conspiracy theory guy on a street corner. An answer for everything but none of it makes sense.
What doesn't make sense?
26:43 Adams is losing the argument about the election being fair... "Can I do an experiment?" Just nonsense. For instance, I agree the two parties largely control the political system and that is deeply unfair. Trump didn't make a suggestion about that, nor about something in particular was flawed in his election loss.
@@AaronHawley Scott is a master of hopping down off his fence to "just ask the questions" that reveal his exact, cynical political positions, then hopping back on the fence and acting like he was occupying the disinterested center the whole time.
Yes, what? Or is it sufficient for you to fling dung?
Sounds like you're the one having a problem trying to make sense of what Scott Adam's is saying. Maybe comprehension is not your forte..
Wow, Hughes really believes the election wasn't rigged. I will take that bet.
nah, he was more like comitting to a standard (through evidence - which i'd say is not available) for agreeing it was invlalid.. because cheating or not, in order to have peace, we have to get to a point where we accept the results.. Scott also said that if the republicans had access to same tools for "playing the game", losing is on them for not playing better than the winners.. neither Scott nor Hughes like it, but you just have to shake hands on it at some point .. and btw that's one of the reasons democracy has periodical elections.. if a mistake is made, at least it's not permanent... ...unless you never care to correct the flawed system, with auditability for example.
Noam, I think you’re wrong about the white identity thing, simply because that’s the label that gets applied. I’m Italian and have to deal with a bunch of anti-white racism. And no I would never jump someone with 2 other people, it’s lowdown. And you don’t get special treatment and dispensation as a Jew, sorry pal. You completely missed the point and I really think you should try to understand it.
I think you should re-listen to exactly what I said. You are getting it all wrong.
@@comedycellarclips I will do that, cheers
Scott has a nice soothing voice, but he’s delusional about Jan 6. There were plenty of guns that day. Thankfully none were fired.
Ashli Babbitt
Not one person was foumd to have a gun. One person was shot and killed. Unarmd Ashley Babbitt was shot thru a closed door by a capital police officer.
This guy sucks.
Poor guy canceled for being a bigot
2023 definition of Bigot: People who disagree with democrats.
If 75% of people agree to some degree that it's not okay to be white, you'd be a fool to live around a large group of those people, because even though no single individual will give you a problem, the likelihood that there will be some segment of that population that hates you and thinks you are the cause of their problems, is 100% over any medium length of time. If that dislike manifested itself in being mean to the other group, then no one would care, but it has manifested in violence towards white people by people who are looking for an easy target to blame. It's not bigoted, it's logical from any reasonable perspective that valued self preservation
Really?
Sooo tragic 😢
I’m sorry they did this to you