Category Archives: SCOTT ADAMS

Project Veritas’s latest Facebook exposé and Scott Adams’s Slaughtermeter

Project Veritas’s new exposé by political bias at Facebook reminded me that Scott Adams said a year ago that Big Tech would make a Trump loss a 100% certainty.

Last year, Scott Adams created something called the “Slaughtermeter,” which was his mental tally of how badly Trump would be slaughtered in the upcoming 2020 election. It’s a straight-line meter that looks at events on a given day and, using that day as a metric, determines where Trump is on a sliding scale of election success. A zero on the Slaughtermeter would mean that Trump’s chances of winning in 2020 are zero, while a one-hundred would mean he is certain to win.

On May 24, 2020, Adams was very pessimistic about Trump’s chances of winning the election. His pessimism was because social media and other tech companies, all of which are leftist from the top down, were already showing that they were determined to use their massive power to prevent Trump from winning again.

I have downgraded the slaughter meter from a hundred and forty percent, where I said to myself the competition for presidency is so weak that I couldn’t imagine any situation other than Trump dominating the election. I’ve reset that to zero. My current thinking is that the president has no chance of reelection now.

Adams’s starting point was the way in which YouTube routinely blocks entirely or demonetizes videos that say things that support Trump or challenge his opponents:

There is a topic that I can’t mention that is removed from YouTube whenever an individual is mentioned in the positive. I can’t even say the name of the person because these videos will be removed from the internet. Now I don’t have much interest in that actual topic, I don’t even have an opinion on it and I’m not really informed, but it is true that we now live in the world in which a major platform can completely stop a topic and it’s okay. . . it’s okay. It’s legal apparently you can make an entire topic leave the news and it’s okay. Now in what world can you ever expect a fair election where the social media people do not put their finger on the thumb? Well, I would say that’s pretty unusual, we see people like Dave Rubin being demonetized . . . I’d say a hundred of my videos were demonetized, if I ask the reasons for it — and I haven’t — I’m sure there would be some reason that didn’t sound very convincing to me, but the things demonetized coincidentally are the same things that would be the most damaging to the Democrats. Might be a coincidence but I don’t know.

Adams explained that the shield behind which the social media giants operate is so impenetrable that even he, with his fame, wealth, and connections, cannot prove if he’s being deliberately censored. All he can do is suspect that something’s going on.

As an example of the way in which YouTube puts its thumb on the scale, Adams discussed what was then a hot topic: The video of Pelosi slurring her words, and therefore appearing drunk or demented, which YouTube removed because it was “doctored.” Adams pointed out the innumerable other doctored videos that stay on the platform. Also, there there are readily available examples of the original video so that people can draw their own conclusions about whether Pelosi was actually slurring or not. YouTube’s/Google’s problem with the video, obviously, wasn’t the doctoring; it was that it made Nancy Pelosi look bad.

To step away from Adams’s 2019 discussion for a moment, think back just a few days. Carpe Donktum created a funny little video pointing out CNN’s massive bias. The starting point was an adorable viral video showing a black toddler and a white toddler hugging each other on the street, at which point, as part of their play, the black child ran down the street with the white child in happy pursuit. Carpe Donktum clipped just the running portion and imagined a fake CNN chyron that would claim a racist toddler was terrorizing a terrified black toddler. The Carpe Donktum video then resets to reveals the original video. Only a moron, or a Twitter content controller, would be incapable of understanding that this is a satirical political commentary.

President Trump retweeted the video — and Twitter responded by pulling the video on the ground that it was “manipulated.” This power to pull manipulated videos is ideally intended to protect the public from true, Stalin-esque propaganda that erases true images to replace them with skillful and indistinguishable fakes. (A good example of Deep Fake, Stalin-esque propaganda is the way the mainstream media promulgated the “fine people” hoax to make it appear that Trump was praising white supremacists.) Twitter’s attack on Carpe Donktum’s obvious political satire has nothing to do with protecting the public from deep fakes. It’s pure political censorship.

It was only thanks to serious pushback resulting from Trump’s and Carpe Donktum’s high profiles that Twitter reinstated the video:

But back to Adams’s 2019 disquisition about the social media giants and the upcoming election. After explaining that he routinely finds himself shadowbanned or demonetized, Adams got to the point about Big Tech’s ultimate goal, which is to prevent Trump’s re-election (starting at 12:39 in the above video; emphasis mine):

So, if you go back to pre-2016 the social media companies didn’t see what was happening. In other words, they may have been trying to you know put their finger on the scale a little bit. But the thing that these social media companies didn’t see coming is what I call the “Island of Misfit Toys” Trump supporters. All over were this weird collection of . . . I’ve just weirdos yeah and oddballs, and I would put myself squarely in the center of that population because nobody really saw me coming, right? No, nobody really saw that a cartoonist would start spending all this time talking about Trump’s persuasion abilities which would probably change thousands of votes.

[snip]

Now, multiply me by all of the other misfits — and I say this with love because I’m putting myself in this category — there was this weird spontaneous outgrowth of misfits who were unusually effective. The thing about all the misfits — and, again, I’m including myself in this group — is that many of the misfits were super influential.

[snip]

I think it caught everybody by surprise. Everybody thought Hillary would, you know, just waltz into the office. But that surprise factor doesn’t exist for this next election. Consider, if you will, Silicon Valley. They’re all about a/b testing, and releasing the new version, and continuous improvement. Do you think that they’re gonna get caught off guard again? There isn’t any way that the platform owners will be caught off guard again. They won’t be caught off guard again this time. They’re going to be prepared and they’ve had a lot of time to prepare. Four years of the smartest people in the world trying to figure out how to hide behavior. Then, nobody can find you. Keep in mind it’s not too hard to hide because there’s no access. Even I, with a tremendous amount of pull and resources — I have no visibility on whether my social media traffic is real or manipulated.

[snip]

So, here’s the bottom line: I’ve moved the Slaughtermeter to zero because the current situation is that the social media platforms do absolutely have enough influence to change an election. Is there anybody who doesn’t think that’s true? Is there anybody who doesn’t think social media can determine the election if they were determined to do so? I don’t think anybody believes that, right? It’s clear what they want to happen, which is Trump losing. It’s clear they’ve had four years to fix their systems so that there are less obvious, more subtle, more effective. . . . Four years of technical development, the smartest people in the world. Do you think they’re gonna lose this time? Maybe. I mean, anything’s possible.

Well, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I think you give the smartest people in the world, who are super motivated. . . . How motivated are the social media platforms? Not a little bit motivated. Super, super motivated. Smartest people in the world, [they] know exactly the problem, they know exactly the levers to move. Four years to figure it out.

You think you’re gonna beat that? You’re not, so the current situation is the social media has the levers. We can’t see them. They can push them. It’s clear which way they’re going to pull the lever.

No chance of the president winning this election under the current conditions. So, a lot of things would have to change for him to have be really any shot because the whole democratic process is broken down.

When Scott Adams made the above statements, he was assuming, based upon what little evidence he had available, that things were happening behind the scenes at social media outlets to game the election.

Today, Project Veritas released a whistleblower video showing that, at least within Facebook, Adams’s suspicions were correct. Between biased algorithms and fanatic anti-Trump employees (all of whom quite obviously graduated within the last decade or so from America’s entirely Marxist colleges and universities), Facebook is deliberately and systematically censoring pro-Trump, anti-Democrat content, while promoting anti-Trump, pro-Democrat content:

(And yes, it’s ironic that I’m using YouTube’s platform to link the video. I was unable to find an embed code for the video on Project Veritas’s website. However, if YouTube yanks this video, you can find it here.)

The Department of Justice recently announced that it intends to interpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to allow the social media giants (which were little babies, not big monsters, when the act was passed) to be sued for anti-trust violations. The DOJ is also opening the way to suits for defamation and libel. Currently, tech giants cannot be subject to civil actions because, in 1996, Congress assumed these sites were bulletin boards, and therefore not responsible for content. Twenty-four years later, though, to the extent they’re controlling almost all conversation in America, they’ve become publishers and should not be able to hide behind the Communications Decency Act.

I’m worried that the DOJ’s action is too little, too late. Unless Attorney General Barr has antitrust cases already in the pipeline, this is just a future threat. My sense is that a future threat is meaningless to the Big Tech/Social Medica companies. Indeed, if anything, it will cause them to double down on getting Biden elected because that will protect them completely. And if their gamble fails . . . well, they’ve already committed past antitrust violations, so future conduct won’t change their risk.

We are at a very dangerous time in American history, with the threat of a totalitarian technocracy working to support a fascist American government. And I use the word “fascist” deliberate. The leftists who’ve been spat out of academia for the last 50 years don’t intend to give up their money and do not want a communist-style takeover of the means of production. Instead, they want a purely fascist situation, which envisions government and big business working together to control the American population — and to make sure that Americans buy products from those crony businesses. Obamacare, which forced Americans to buy insurance from private companies, was a trial run, and Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court gave that kind of unconstitutional government force a complete pass.

In November, vote as if your life and freedom depend on it because they do. This election isn’t about “a little bit left of center versus a little bit right of center.” This election is truly about a constitutional, small government/individual liberty America versus true fascism.

As an added incentive for taking the election seriously consider that, while the current batch of American fascists aren’t interested in world domination, as Hitler was, they’re certainly race-obsessed. That should frighten us too. And any minorities who think, “Well, serves those white people right,” should think again. World War II ended almost as badly for the race persecutors as it did for the persecuted races.

Scott Adams errs badly about Antifa

Scott Adams errs badly in excusing Antifa on the grounds that it’s just risk-craving young men having fun committing non-lethal violence against bad guys.

When Scott Adams first heard about the way Antifa brutally attacked gay Vietnamese-American journalist Andy Ngo, he was as outraged as any decent person would be. (Leftists, by celebrating the attack or, in Jim Acosta’s case, ignoring it despite an entire book about journalists — i.e., Jim Acosta — being under siege, have shown themselves to be indecent people.) A problem arose, though, when Adams, who rightly prides himself on being logical and thinking out of the box, watched a video that made him do a 180: suddenly, he has no problem with Antifa. All I can say is that this bright man had a short in his logic circuit.

Adams watched a video in which an Antifa member claimed that it wasn’t really a political group at all. It was just young men finding an outlet for their natural craving for risk and a way to prove their manhood. Pounding on neo-Nazis in non-fatal ways, he explained, is a fun proving ground.

Adams found that argument so compelling that he says we should ignore Antifa and just let its members and the neo-Nazi groups pound away at each other. He didn’t say so, but I think his theory is a combination of “boys will be boys” and “it would be great if both sides lost this war.” If we view Antifa this way, says Adams, its political powers goes away and it just becomes a gangster group. (I think he’s envisioning a kind of Wanderers versus Ducky Boys fight scene.)

By taking this position, Adams proves that, while he isn’t often wrong (indeed, I think he’s mostly right about things or at least thinking about them creatively), when he does go wrong, he’s really wrong.

First, regarding a young man’s urge to engage in risky activity, I agree that both Adams and the Antifa guy he listened to have a point. Many young men do feel the need to prove themselves through dangerous displays. As a mother, I worry every time my son goes off skiing or doing some other activity in which, through showing off, he can really hurt himself. I never have that worry with my daughter. However, the biological push to prove oneself through dangerous activity is not a justification for crime.

If young men want to prove themselves let them walk down to a military recruiting station and enlist. They’ll find more than enough in the military to challenge themselves. Or they could do extreme sports. Or they could travel to dangerous parts of the world to help poor people or face down dictators. What a civilized society forbids them to do is commit violent assault against those they perceive as their enemies or against anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the cross fire. If young men are allowed to run in packs violently assaulting citizens, you have turned your back on thousands of years of Western civilization

At the bottom of this linked article, you’ll see graphic photos of a man caught in the crossfire while attempting to help a gay man in a dress who also found himself in Antifa’s way. What happened to him wasn’t young men sowing their risk-taking wild oats; it was thuggery, pure and simple.

If these young men were really sowing their wild oats, they’d be doing it Fight Club style. Or maybe they’d be having high risk car races a la Grease. But that’s not what they’re doing. Instead, they’re taking over public streets, intimidating ordinary people (e.g., redirecting traffic), and moving as a single masked pack. Remember that it wasn’t some strutting mano a mano fight that took Ngo out. Instead, it was a pack of armed, masked predators who violently, and with intent to do serious harm, attacked a single, small, unarmed man:

What you’re seeing there isn’t cute male proving. It is, instead, a violent, politically motivated mob deliberately targeting a person who threatened because he exposed their activities to a wider audience. How could Adams miss that fact?

Second, it’s no defense to say that the activity isn’t political; it’s just fun. If the fact that the attackers are having fun makes the violence socially acceptable, we need to go back in time and reverse Damian Williams’ conviction.

If the name doesn’t sound familiar to you, you’re probably too young to remember the Los Angeles riots. Those took place after a jury acquitted the cops accused of beating Rodney King. Reginald Denny was an ordinary man — a construction worker — delivering a truck load of sand to a plant in L.A. What he didn’t realize was that his route would take him through a brewing riot in L.A. When his truck was at the Florence and Normandie intersection in L.A., rioters surrounded him, pulled him from the truck’s cab, and beat the living daylights out of him — which was all caught on camera. Denny sustained serious, permanent brain damage and required years of rehabilitation.

The police captured the men responsible for the Denny beating, which was accomplished by feet, fists, and hitting him with hard and heavy objections. No guns or knives were involved (which is a point I’ll get to in a minute).

The reason I bring up the attack on Reginald Denny is because I’ve never forgotten the defense Damian Williams’ offered for himself at the time (emphasis mine):

In an interview with the Wave Newspaper Group, a newspaper chain that mainly serves a black readership, Mr. Williams said of the riots, “People were just out of control like a pack of rats running after cheese.” He added, “I was just caught up in the rapture.”

Speaking in 2017, Williams, who was later sentenced to 46 years in prison for a drug-related murder, said that he felt no remorse because, while Denny wasn’t necessarily guilty of doing wrong, he was white and that really, kind of, sort of, pretty much had it coming in a larger race war:

Q: So how do you feel about Reginald Denny. Do you feel remorse about your participation in what happened with him?

A: I wouldn’t believe remorse is the appropriate word. … Do I feel what occurred to Mr. Denny was justified? No.

Q: Can you say more?

A: It’s really not more to say and that’s just my humble opinion on that topic. Because if I was to say more, than we would go into a different part of this conversation — talking about going back into my history. It’s a lot of things that happened to my people by the hands of Mr. Denny’s nationality. But can I blame Mr. Denny for what happened to my people? No. Will I look to them and ask them for remorse, no. How can we heal from this process? How can we heal from that situation?

Q: So he was like a casualty of war?

A: There were many people that were a casualty. Mr. Denny just stands out. It was many people hurt and died in that 1992 situation. But those people are not spoken about. Only things that’s spoken about is Florence and Normandie [the intersection in which Denny was beaten]. But people died, people were killed in the ’92 riots. Why are their names not being mentioned? Why is nobody not speaking about them? Because don’t nobody care about that. Because in the world that we live in, if it bleeds it sells.

If Antifa members are vibrant young men having fun and proving themselves by attacking societal enemies, then Damian Williams shouldn’t have been convicted. But if Damian Williams was a dangerous predator who enjoyed beating up someone merely for existing in a way that offended him, and was properly convicted on those grounds, every Antifa member who committed an act of violence needs to be convicted as well. You can’t have it both ways — and Adams’ argument doesn’t convince me otherwise.

For other examples of young men having fun spontaneously beating up victims they believe have committed societal wrongs, be sure to check out stories and photographs of Hitler Youth and Hitler’s Brownshirts. Those were two groups that fully enjoyed beating up Jews and whomever else they deemed an enemy of their pal Adolf.

Third, my reference to Hitler Youth and Brownshirts takes me to my next point, which is Adams’ contention that there’s nothing political about Antifa.

For starters, why is Adams disbelieving what these people say of themselves? If someone says he’s marching under a political banner, I believe him. I believe him when he’s a Hitler Youth in that natty faux Alpine uniform; I believe him when he’s a Brownshirt in that eponymous brown uniform; I believe him when he’s an Islamist with a kuffiyah and a Koran; and I believe him when he’s Antifa, clad entirely in black, masked, and carrying jury-rigged weapons.

The fact that all these young men in their different times and places choose or once chose to express their ideology through violence that they personally enjoy doesn’t mean the ideology doesn’t exist. Some people, such as Martin Luther King and Gandhi espoused non-violence to expose their enemies; these young men have chosen the opposite.

Moreover, Antifa’s lineage is a politically violent one. True, the original Antifa was arrayed against the Nazis, which makes them sound like the good guys. They were not.

When fascism started rising up, its biggest enemy was communism. This was not because they were antithetical ideologies. It was because they were sister totalitarian ideologies, both arising out of socialism, and both appealing for the same mass market. The Antifa of the 1920s and 1930s in Germany, therefore, wasn’t a peaceful democratic movement seeking to stand against all forms of totalitarian socialism; it was, instead, a violent communist group engaged in bloody internecine warfare with Hitler’s fascists.

Here’s original Antifa logo:

And here’s the American Antifa logo, which claims direct lineage from its violent communist forebearers:

Antifa Logo

You can’t dress up like an early era of violent communist thugs, claim to be attacking the same people (i.e., “fascists”) as the prior communist thugs, and use the logo of the violent communist thugs . . . and then insist you have nothing to do with the ideology of those same thugs. That’s a bird that won’t fly.

Fourth, Adams seems to excuse Antifa because its members are attacking “neo-Nazis,” such as the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer. There are lots of problems with this assumption.

To begin with, despite the assertions that the Proud Boys are far-right white supremacists, both groups seem to have fallen down badly on the white supremacist part because they have a lot of minority members. There’s also the problem that the group attaching the “far-right white supremacists” label on Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer is . . . the Southern Poverty Law Center. It’s become clear over the years that SPLC will label as “white supremacist” any group that opposes the Progressive’s political agenda. That’s how conservative Jews end up as so-called “white supremacists.”

The other problem is that it’s not just the SPLC that affixes dishonest labels. Antifa does too and for the same reason. If you’re not with them, you’re a fascist.

Using that standard, Antifa has created a broad universe of people it can justify attacking. Remember that it was only in 2017 that Antifa went marauding down the streets of Berkeley because Milo Yiannopoulos, a half Jewish gay man with a black partner, came to speak on the UC Berkeley campus to pro-Trump people. The same thing happened when conservative Jewish Ben Shapiro came to speak.

“They had it coming” is not a justification for mob rule at the best of times. It’s especially not a justification when the group engaged in mob rule labels everyone who’s not exactly like them as a societal danger justifying violence.

Fifth, what Adams is proposing is an extreme version of the heckler’s veto. Thus, now that he’s accepted that they’re just young men having fun while proving their manhood, he says we should ignore them. Except, as I think I’ve demonstrated above, they’re not just young men having fun while proving their manhood. They’re violent political actors.

Instead, there’s something even more sinister going on here. As events in Berkeley show, Antifa’s goal is to silence all political speech with which it disagrees. Its members aren’t just looking for a rumble with the proud boys; they’re using extreme violence to shut down free speech. But here’s the real kicker:

Antifa is careful to operate only in hard Left cities such as Berkeley and Portland. In those cities, the mayors have explicitly told their police forces to stand down. This means that the mayors are treating treat Antifa as a Progressive paramilitary organization that uses violence to suspend citizens’ First Amendment rights to free speech. Is this really what Adams wants?

Sixth, Adams points out that Antifa members avoid using “dangerous weapons,” by which I assume he means knives and guns. Instead, as I noted in connection with Damian Williams, who also eschewed knives or guns during the attack on Denny, they use feet, fists, clubs, bicycle locks in socks, toxic chemicals in milkshakes, etc.

Adams must have led a very sheltered life if he doesn’t realize that all of those things are also dangerous weapons. Ngo is having cognitive problems from the brain bleed he sustained, but he got off lightly. Lots of people die from brain bleeds. My Mom almost did, twice. Both times, she came within thirty minutes of dying but for timely surgical intervention.

According to the FBI, in 2017 alone 2,556 people were murdered with weapons other than knives or guns, including being beaten or kicked to death. We all make jokes about the fact that Navy SEALS can take out an enemy squadron with a Bic pen, but the reality is that large numbers of objects, when wielded with intent, can cause fatal injuries.

As I look around my hotel room, I can count six things in my immediate line of sight that I could conceivably use to murder someone — make that seven if you include strangling them with the power cord to my computer. It’s therefore no defense of Antifa to say that their instincts aren’t murderous because they eschew knives and guns in favor of cruder, blunt force objects.

In summary, Antifa is not just a collection of boys having a little bit of violent fun against deserving objects. It is a violent communist mob that uses dangerous weapons to intimidate and attack anybody who stands in its way.

Moreover, to the extent that Leftist mayors authorize Antifa’s activities by telling police to stand down, it is functioning as a paramilitary wing of Progressive government in America. In other words, Antifa is to today’s Progressives precisely what the KKK was to the Jim Crow South — and I refuse to believe that Scott Adams would ever countenance the KKK, even if he were told that it was just young men having violent fun against those they deem to be bad actors.

The post Scott Adams errs badly about Antifa appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.