Quantcast

Episode 674 Scott Adams: PART2 Impeachment, Defamation, the Panopticon


My new book LOSERTHINK goes on sale 11/5. Pre-order: https://bit.ly/2NRammu

Content:

  • Nancy Pelosi’s solution: impeachment that isn’t impeachment
    • The government has weaponized impeachment for political gain
    • Donations to Trump have increased…coincidence?
  • Intelligence agencies have blackmail on leaders
    • Are the intelligence agencies running/controlling US?
    • President might be our last legitimate President
  • CVS update, my rant yesterday about their receipt policies
  • John Cook, former Executive Editor of Gawker Media
    • Former Editor-in-Chief of The Intercept
    • Now Investigations Editor for Business insider & Insider.com
    • John Cook’s legally actionable accusation
  • Should I also sue Jezebel for the things they said about me?
  • Update on losing my hearing, sense of smell, sense of taste, wicked allergies, asthma

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time.

Several Interesting Things

Check out my long-form conversation with Stefan Molyneux, about lots of things, including Trump. People seem to like it. 

Univision announced its plans to buy Gawker (my nemesis) and flush its most turdish parts down the toilet. (No word on Jezebel.com. That one is still a floater.)

In political news, Trump has discredited his opponents by persuading them to become violent, cop-killing apologists for gay-haters. And now he turned them into body-shamers. (Any comment, Jezebel.com?)

Gawker Goes Bankrupt

Gawker recently decided to declare bankruptcy, thanks to the good works of Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan, among others. But don’t celebrate the death of Gawker yet. Bankruptcy is a rescue plan, not a funeral. Gawker is looking for a buyer to keep it in business. Ziff Davis has already shown interest.

That’s the part that makes me curious.

At some point recently, an underling at Ziff Davis had to pitch the Gawker acquisition idea to CEO Vivek Shah. As you know, underlings travel in small packs, so let me describe the way I see that meeting going down.

Underling 1: I think we should buy Gawker’s business. It’s a perfect fit with our company.

CEO: In what way?

Underling 1: Well, Ziff Davis is a digital media company that specializes in websites for consumers making important buying decisions.

CEO: Go on.

Underling 1: And Gawker is like a rapist eating his own vomit.

CEO: Wait, what?

Underling 2: That’s not all. When you think of Gawker, you automatically think of Hulk Hogan’s penis. That’s like a celebrity endorsement without the licensing fees. 

CEO: Why in the world would we want that in our portfolio?

Underling 3: They get a lot of clicks.

CEO: But reputation-wise…

Underling 1: Gawker isn’t the only property we’d be buying. It comes with Jezebell.

CEO: Tell me about Jezebel.

Underling 2: Well, Jezebel is what you’d get if a Zika virus took the wrong prescription meds, burrowed into a day-old turd, and called itself a publication.

CEO: What would the whole thing cost?

Underling 3: Probably only $100 million or so.

CEO: And what exactly would we be buying?

Underling 1: Well, we’d mostly be buying their talent.

CEO: Such as?

Underling 2: We’d get their writers, who apparently can’t get jobs at credible publications. And we’d get an executive team that is filled with sociopaths who chose one of the rare employment situations in which you can destroy the lives of strangers from a distance.

CEO: Hypothetically, would buying this company change our baseline in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to know how I’m performing on the job, while at the same time creating the appearance of bold action?

Underling 1: I suppose so.

CEO: You should have mentioned that first.

If you hate dog turds that are full of Zika virus, you might like my book because it is almost the opposite of that.

Billionaire Branding Mistakes

Peter Thiel recently became one of my favorite billionaires by bankrolling the legal destruction of Gawker who – as most of you already know – totally deserves it. Gawker’s business model is built around destroying the lives of innocent people to attract clicks. Hulk Hogan found that out. Peter Thiel found that out. I found that out. So did a lot of other people. 

How awful is Gawker? Imagine if revenge porn and cancer decided to get married and have an ugly baby with fangs. That would be Gawker. Pure evil.

So when Peter Thiel put his reputation on the line to destroy Gawker, I believe his brand became more valuable. Now Thiel has the Robin Hood vibe going for him because he is fighting on the side of the victims who could not afford to take on Gawker in court. I see Thiel’s campaign against Gawker as a public service, and a valuable one. 

But not everyone agrees with Thiel. For example, the founder of eBay, Pierre Omidyar, decided to go the other direction and join sides with the cancer not the doctor. Omidyar is putting his reputation on the line to help Gawker’s odds of injuring in court the innocent people they have already injured in real life. Sort of a double-tap situation – one in the chest, one in the head. 

In the case of publishing Hulk Hogan’s private sex tape – which featured a woman who didn’t know she was being filmed – Gawker is literally a sexual abuser. That’s the association that Omidyar has decided to attach to his brand.

Omidyar is making a branding mistake on the level of Carly Fiorina’s debate performance in which she associated in our minds the image of an aborted baby with her presidential campaign. As I predicted immediately after the debate, that day was the end of her impressive run-up in the polls. It was all downhill after that image got into people’s heads.

Omidyar has decided to merge his brand with images of Hulk Hogan’s penis, sexual abuse, clickbait, porn, and the lowest standard of ethical behavior the media has ever known. Why? Well, I don’t know. But it sure isn’t to make the world a better place. The cover story is that Omidyar is trying to prevent some sort of slippery slope situation in which billionaires start using Thiel’s strategy to target the legitimate media next. But that’s like saying a doctor shouldn’t be allowed to remove a cancerous tumor because that’s a slippery slope to cutting off the patient’s head for no reason.

Meanwhile, other billionaires are trying to eradicate malaria, building children’s hospitals, and fighting for social justice. Omidyar, in stark contrast, decided to back Nick Denton’s Gawker. I’ll be fascinated to see how many people he can get to join his branding suicide mission.