I don't quite understand why you spent so much time re-litigating the exact words that came out of Biden's mouth. Let's assume you were right, and he NEVER said that Trump said Nazis were fine people. That doesn't really hurt Scott's argument that Biden ran on the fine people hoax. Because Biden DID say that he ran for President primarily because of Charlottesville, and he and his media allies made it quite clear that they disapproved of Trump's actions that day. Why is your standard of proof so literal, that Biden had to say Trump said neo-Nazis were fine people? It seems quite autistic on your part. Or perhaps you just wanted to run out the clock so you could claim that Scott never answered your questions. Seems like a bad faith argument from my point of view, since everyone knows where Biden and the media stood on the issue (i.e. neo Nazis are bad, Trump is bad, and he's bad because he approves of neo-Nazis).
Thanks for this write-up. For the last few years I had a nagging feeling that maybe Adams’ online persona might be a bit, an in-joke between him and his fans. This goes a long way to dispel that impression and confirm that he actually believes what he’s been spouting.
It was a very frustrating hour and 40 minutes! Love you, Micheal, have seen you live in Brooklyn a bunch of times and I do align strongly with your politics. I used to love Dilbert -- I had several books! -- something like 25-30 years ago, which is fine, I just outgrew it. I knew Scott Adams had become part of the Twitter "Right" but that doesn't often show up on my feed, so I didn't know much specifically about his views--but I eagerly played the YouTube hoping that you might "win" an argument that would somehow make me pleased in some way... this did not happen. You definitely "won" the arguments, but it was so very very disheartening to hear a seemingly intelligent person (Adams) go on and on about what an "expert" he is at "spotting bullshit" as a way to convince you--or "train you", I think was his aim--not to believe the "fake news", science, experts, or to your point in the article anything that didn't agree with his current worldview. Then when you finally had enough and asked him (repeatedly) to talk about the topic at hand (why he thinks all news is fake) you were basically able to sow doubt about all his supposedly ironclad theories but in the end, he just assumed you were woefully under informed about the "truth" (his crazy right wing conspiracy theories) and you were right to assume this was kind of a massive waste of yours (and my) time. And that's what was even more frustrating. I think I learned some truths about "why" Adams and his ilk are stubbornly clinging to conspiracies about the election, Covid, "Fauci" - wow he REALLY hates that guy-- and ignore the overwhelming evidence that Trump (and the right wing media) are actively lying to them all the time ("hyperbole" lolol) but the why they "believe" outright falsehoods and deny scientific evidence and "mainstream media" doesn't really help me think of any way to bridge the massive chasm between the two sources of news that you describe and makes me honestly much less hopeful we will ever get out of this Trump-induced hysteria we've been living under... Not your fault at all, Michael, you did your best, but man that was a disheartening thing to watch :(
Adams, like almost everyone on the modern American right, isn't interested in having serious, good-faith conversations. He exists to use his platform to harass and impugn anyone who disagrees with him, and then to point at well-intentioned guests on his show and make fun of them for being dumb enough to be arguing in good faith.
This is such a struggle for me. When I try to have these conversations with friends who think similarly (though much more reasonably and fact-based) to Adams, as soon as I point out any flaws or inconsistencies in their thinking they immediately shut down and change the subject. They *know* they can’t justify their positions/opinions but are unwilling to even consider anything different. It’s exhausting and disheartening. Good on you.
I have had the same experience with left-leaning friends and family. I think most people don’t reason themselves into their politics, but absorb and repeat a collection of shibboleths which sounded good at the time. Advancing an actual argument from such a position requires a lot of hasty retroactive work, and is very stressful. You can't be too hard on them; one carrot is worth ten sticks.
Agreed, it’s that exact lack of reason that frustrates me. The stick most assuredly doesn’t work but I haven’t had much success with the carrot either. Perhaps a soft pretzel instead.
You're a brave soul. Lol. I honestly don't have your patience. Scott is a misogynistic, racist, bigotted asshole. I'm pretty sure I'd end up punching him. Lol. Best I keep my distance😉
Yes Terrence is a fucking buffoon🤣 I watched another video debunking Terrence about a month ago and wow! Listening to Terrence's ideas about broke my brain🤣 Absolutely no logic to be found anywhere. Terrence had some absolute bonkers ideas with no attachment to objective reality. Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking in way too many in our species, which does not bode well for us😞
I'm only about 30 minutes in but must say you are much more patient than I am and an excellent critical thinker on your feet. At about 10 minutes in, the "reading comprehension" check clarifying that he is "always exaggerating" and "universals are never universals" logically translates to me that he has also exaggerated his ability to detect bullshit and therefore the rest of the portion of the conversation dedicated to him proving that he has some collection of credentials to prove his bullshit detectorist expertise is irrelevant. Followed up by the conversation about how you cant trust research because the "assumption drives the results not the data" while also saying that studies showed that Havana Synd. is not related to a weapon but no comment on who conducted that study and why he trusts the results of that particular study other than the fact that it supported his assumption / assertion.
I would have closed my computer and said my battery died. You are a better person than I am.
You are right that we are living in separate realities. One only needs to scroll the feeds of some of the people who reply to your tweets to see that. It is a quick decent into racism, Christian Nationalism, homophobia, misogynist rants, fear-mongering, and joyously willful ignorance. I truly don’t know what to do to counter that. I’m glad you can tolerate the debates and discussions, because they need to happen.
Sometimes I wonder if the two different worlds have any relation to the presence or absence of inner dialogue thinking. I’ve seen stories over the last few years that some people report having no inner dialogue. As someone with sometimes too much inner dialogue, I could not imagine existing without my inner voice. And I am sure the inverse is true for those trying to imagine suddenly having one.
I would love to see the Venn diagram of people who seem to be convinced of certain truths with little ability to recall their evidence that also report no inner dialogue.
Oh my God, I was THRILLED to have that conversation. I love talking to people who have a totally different worldview from my own. I find it pretty exciting, not only to hear what they have to say but to be forced to reassess my own views.
I don't quite understand why you spent so much time re-litigating the exact words that came out of Biden's mouth. Let's assume you were right, and he NEVER said that Trump said Nazis were fine people. That doesn't really hurt Scott's argument that Biden ran on the fine people hoax. Because Biden DID say that he ran for President primarily because of Charlottesville, and he and his media allies made it quite clear that they disapproved of Trump's actions that day. Why is your standard of proof so literal, that Biden had to say Trump said neo-Nazis were fine people? It seems quite autistic on your part. Or perhaps you just wanted to run out the clock so you could claim that Scott never answered your questions. Seems like a bad faith argument from my point of view, since everyone knows where Biden and the media stood on the issue (i.e. neo Nazis are bad, Trump is bad, and he's bad because he approves of neo-Nazis).
Thanks for this write-up. For the last few years I had a nagging feeling that maybe Adams’ online persona might be a bit, an in-joke between him and his fans. This goes a long way to dispel that impression and confirm that he actually believes what he’s been spouting.
It was a very frustrating hour and 40 minutes! Love you, Micheal, have seen you live in Brooklyn a bunch of times and I do align strongly with your politics. I used to love Dilbert -- I had several books! -- something like 25-30 years ago, which is fine, I just outgrew it. I knew Scott Adams had become part of the Twitter "Right" but that doesn't often show up on my feed, so I didn't know much specifically about his views--but I eagerly played the YouTube hoping that you might "win" an argument that would somehow make me pleased in some way... this did not happen. You definitely "won" the arguments, but it was so very very disheartening to hear a seemingly intelligent person (Adams) go on and on about what an "expert" he is at "spotting bullshit" as a way to convince you--or "train you", I think was his aim--not to believe the "fake news", science, experts, or to your point in the article anything that didn't agree with his current worldview. Then when you finally had enough and asked him (repeatedly) to talk about the topic at hand (why he thinks all news is fake) you were basically able to sow doubt about all his supposedly ironclad theories but in the end, he just assumed you were woefully under informed about the "truth" (his crazy right wing conspiracy theories) and you were right to assume this was kind of a massive waste of yours (and my) time. And that's what was even more frustrating. I think I learned some truths about "why" Adams and his ilk are stubbornly clinging to conspiracies about the election, Covid, "Fauci" - wow he REALLY hates that guy-- and ignore the overwhelming evidence that Trump (and the right wing media) are actively lying to them all the time ("hyperbole" lolol) but the why they "believe" outright falsehoods and deny scientific evidence and "mainstream media" doesn't really help me think of any way to bridge the massive chasm between the two sources of news that you describe and makes me honestly much less hopeful we will ever get out of this Trump-induced hysteria we've been living under... Not your fault at all, Michael, you did your best, but man that was a disheartening thing to watch :(
Not sure if you've seen this yet, but here is Parker Molloy's take -
https://www.readtpa.com/p/trumps-very-fine-people-remark-snopes
"If the Nazis are praising your statement, maybe you’re doing it wrong?"
If DD or RS will praise Tesla cars tomorrow, is EM in cahoots with the nazis?
Adams, like almost everyone on the modern American right, isn't interested in having serious, good-faith conversations. He exists to use his platform to harass and impugn anyone who disagrees with him, and then to point at well-intentioned guests on his show and make fun of them for being dumb enough to be arguing in good faith.
The multiple realities reality is hard to live in.
Exhausting, too.
This is such a struggle for me. When I try to have these conversations with friends who think similarly (though much more reasonably and fact-based) to Adams, as soon as I point out any flaws or inconsistencies in their thinking they immediately shut down and change the subject. They *know* they can’t justify their positions/opinions but are unwilling to even consider anything different. It’s exhausting and disheartening. Good on you.
I have had the same experience with left-leaning friends and family. I think most people don’t reason themselves into their politics, but absorb and repeat a collection of shibboleths which sounded good at the time. Advancing an actual argument from such a position requires a lot of hasty retroactive work, and is very stressful. You can't be too hard on them; one carrot is worth ten sticks.
Agreed, it’s that exact lack of reason that frustrates me. The stick most assuredly doesn’t work but I haven’t had much success with the carrot either. Perhaps a soft pretzel instead.
A family member’s husband was one of the Virginia State Troopers killed in the helicopter crash at Charlottesville. It absolutely was not a “hoax”.
You're a brave soul. Lol. I honestly don't have your patience. Scott is a misogynistic, racist, bigotted asshole. I'm pretty sure I'd end up punching him. Lol. Best I keep my distance😉
Well, it was over Zoom so even if I had wanted to (which I didn't), it would have been very difficult to punch him.
Fair point😁 As I said, you have way more patience than I. Lol.
Yes Terrence is a fucking buffoon🤣 I watched another video debunking Terrence about a month ago and wow! Listening to Terrence's ideas about broke my brain🤣 Absolutely no logic to be found anywhere. Terrence had some absolute bonkers ideas with no attachment to objective reality. Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking in way too many in our species, which does not bode well for us😞
Well done Michael, thank you.
I'm only about 30 minutes in but must say you are much more patient than I am and an excellent critical thinker on your feet. At about 10 minutes in, the "reading comprehension" check clarifying that he is "always exaggerating" and "universals are never universals" logically translates to me that he has also exaggerated his ability to detect bullshit and therefore the rest of the portion of the conversation dedicated to him proving that he has some collection of credentials to prove his bullshit detectorist expertise is irrelevant. Followed up by the conversation about how you cant trust research because the "assumption drives the results not the data" while also saying that studies showed that Havana Synd. is not related to a weapon but no comment on who conducted that study and why he trusts the results of that particular study other than the fact that it supported his assumption / assertion.
Thank you for this. You are a national treasure, and there should be a statue of you in the Stuckeyville town square.
Right next to the General Jeffrey Stuckey statue!
dear michael,
thank you for sharing this! it is fascinating!
here are some phrases you wrote that i like a lot:
"...the white supremacist most famous for getting punched in the face, Richard Spencer"
"If the Nazis are praising your statement, maybe you’re doing it wrong?"
and
"I’m only sorry that we never got a chance to discuss the actual topic of discussion: his assertion that all political news is fake."
i'm also sorry about that!
thanks for doing what you're doing!
love
myq
I would have closed my computer and said my battery died. You are a better person than I am.
You are right that we are living in separate realities. One only needs to scroll the feeds of some of the people who reply to your tweets to see that. It is a quick decent into racism, Christian Nationalism, homophobia, misogynist rants, fear-mongering, and joyously willful ignorance. I truly don’t know what to do to counter that. I’m glad you can tolerate the debates and discussions, because they need to happen.
Sometimes I wonder if the two different worlds have any relation to the presence or absence of inner dialogue thinking. I’ve seen stories over the last few years that some people report having no inner dialogue. As someone with sometimes too much inner dialogue, I could not imagine existing without my inner voice. And I am sure the inverse is true for those trying to imagine suddenly having one.
I hope they figure out how to effectively research this further but I’ll give one link. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240514141317.htm
I would love to see the Venn diagram of people who seem to be convinced of certain truths with little ability to recall their evidence that also report no inner dialogue.
Interesting theory!!
Oh my God, I was THRILLED to have that conversation. I love talking to people who have a totally different worldview from my own. I find it pretty exciting, not only to hear what they have to say but to be forced to reassess my own views.