All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
43:06
Episode 140 - Trump’s UK visit, Russian Hackers and the Republican Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
It's the weekend, and not only is it the weekend, but it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Today is a very special coffee with Scott Adams.
I didn't mention it on my title, but there will be a whiteboard talk.
Oh yes, there will be.
I changed your life.
You're welcome. I'm glad I could help.
Grab your coffee.
Grab your beverage.
Okay? And get ready for the simultaneous sip.
Go. So I'd like to summarize the president's trip to the UK. And it goes like this.
Who cares? Once again, the world got all worked up about nothing except a good show.
And I would say that nothing really happened in Great Britain of any importance.
We talked about how he may have said some things that Theresa May didn't like, but then he complimented her in public.
They seemed like they were getting along.
Special relationship stays intact.
Let's talk about Russia.
We saw the details finally.
Of Mueller's indictment of the X number of Russians.
And if you didn't read the actual indictment, is that what it's called?
The document that describes all of their alleged bad deeds?
It's actually good reading.
I thought it would be all legalese, but it's not.
It's written in pretty plain English.
And it was fascinating to get a look at that.
Now, there are a few issues with that.
Number one issue...
Is that I don't see any evidence.
There's an indictment that says, Russian guy number one did XYZ. But we can't see, you know, we the public can't see the evidence.
And presumably there's some secret means that they have of deducing who exactly was behind what.
Now it could be That is not direct evidence so much as, well, we know the people who were behind their cyber operations, and we saw some stuff that looked definitely Russian, so it must have been those guys, and so they connect the dots.
But we're in a world where you really can't take that stuff as credible.
Now I think Mueller and whoever wrote the report are probably serious professionals who know what they're doing, but we're just not in a world where anything like that is believable anymore.
So it's not really a comment on the people who put together that document and the allegations against the Russians.
I've got nothing to say about those specific people.
But we're just in a world where you can't freaking believe anything.
You just can't believe anything.
You can't believe a picture.
You can't believe a document.
You can't believe a professional.
You just can't believe anything.
That said, it was still very persuasive because of the details and the official-looking nature of it.
It looked very professional.
Now, if you can think back, you may remember me saying some things about the alleged hacker back, I don't know how many months ago, when it was Guccifer, I think that's how you pronounce it, Guccifer 2.0.
And the news was that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian agent and he had been discovered as the hacker.
And I said, well that doesn't sound right.
There was just something about that story that sounded wrong.
It's like, really?
Guccifer? He's such a good hacker, and he's part of these Russians who are so good at hacking, and then he leaves a path.
He leaves an actual trail right to himself, and then he's hanging around the house when he gets arrested.
And I thought, this doesn't quite add up.
There must be something I don't know.
And In the document I was talking about, I guess it's the indictment, I think that's the right name for it, it says that Goosefur was a fake.
But he was Russia's fake.
So apparently, according to the allegations, when we were on to Russia, and in other words, when our intelligence people figured out that Russia was behind the hacking, allegedly, That Russia allegedly framed this Guccifer character to make it look like it was a lone actor working out of Romania.
So I'll give myself partial credit.
Partial credit that Guccifer wasn't real.
So I sniffed that out on day one.
It's like, Cucifer, that doesn't sound real.
But he was probably not real for a different reason than I imagined.
So he wasn't real, but he might have been a Russian invention and not so much a U.S. invention, if you will.
But again, at this point, you can't rule out anything.
There's just nothing you can rule out.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the allegations about the Russian hacking are correct, doesn't that mean that Seth Rich was not involved?
I get so confused with which Russians and which hacking and which server, but that's the case, right?
The Seth Rich story is completely debunked, correct me if I'm wrong, if it's true that these allegations are accurate.
Is that right? And I could be totally wrong about that because I get so twisted up with all of the, somebody said wrong.
Possibly, possibly.
Now I'm saying if, hypothetically, the allegations about the Russians are completely accurate, that would take Seth Rich out of the story.
Now, somebody else is saying, Seth Rich was definitely involved.
I don't believe there's any evidence of that.
Assange disagrees.
Well, let's see what Assange says.
Is Assange cut off from the world at this point?
Now it's entirely possible that WikiLeaks might have just wanted to hide the source of their information.
So he may have created a false path there.
I was looking at my Twitter followers the other day, and I noticed that Kim.com follows me on Twitter.
So, I tell you, the world got really small for me.
I never looked at my Twitter feed to see which verified users are following me.
Just two days ago, I guess, I did it for the first time.
And I'm looking through the list, I'm like, Roseanne follows me.
My God. And Kim.com follows me.
The weirdest one was Alicia Keys follows me on Twitter.
And at first it said, you know, 30 and I thought it was 30,000 users.
And I thought, oh, that's not, that's not the actual Alicia Keys, the, you know, hugely talented singer, superstar, because a superstar is going to have more than 30,000 followers.
And I think I mentioned it to Christina, and she goes, that's 30M? 30 million followers?
So Alicia Keys has 30 million followers, and one of the people she follows, apparently, is me.
But I still think it must have been a mistake.
I can't imagine anybody in the music business following me.
Don't get a big head. Yeah, I'm not because I don't think it feels like a mistake.
But that's... All I want to talk about on those two topics.
Now, let me talk about the fun topic that I saved for the end, the people who really know.
Kanye does not follow me.
Let's talk about, so Hawk Newsome, I'm sorry, yeah, Hawk, leader of Black Lives Matter Greater New York.
Tweeted at me and at the world the other day and said, essentially, I'm paraphrasing, that some things need to be said.
That's the important thing.
Some things need to be said.
So there's some things that it's not good enough just to think.
Some things need to be said.
For example, if you are in a relationship, you might love your partner.
But it's important to say it.
The saying it is a very important part.
It's not enough that just in your head, yeah, I totally love my partner.
Why do I need to say it?
You know, she knows, or he knows, right?
Don't need to say it. So Hawke starts out with the premise, some things need to be said.
I'm on board. So far, so far, so far I'm on board.
And then he said, you know, if, essentially, if Trump supporters or Republicans are not racist, they should say so.
They should actually, in an affirmative way, say, we're not racist.
And I thought, okay...
I'm in. So I retweeted and said in unambiguous terms that I oppose racism in all its forms.
And although I acknowledge in the tweet, I acknowledge that we might disagree on how to get There.
You know, the policies might be a disagreement.
But I, you know, I buy into the theory.
I reject racism in all its form.
And that would include racism against every group, you know, not just specific groups.
And I, in my tweet, I asked people to retweet it if they agreed.
Now, it seemed to me, and this was my blind spot.
I had a little blind spot here.
It seemed to me that Republicans would see that and say, oh, For the high cost of hitting a couple of keys to retweet it, I mean literally you could hit one key and retweet it, for the tiny, tiny, small cost of just retweeting, you could actually help reshape the brand of Republicans.
What do you think happened?
Yeah, you're already seeing some of the pushback that I'm going to talk about.
So it turns out that the blind spot I had goes to a very distinct character, personality, preference that seems to live mostly on the right.
The people who are, let's say, Republicans, conservative, Trump supporters, you know, I'm lumping them all together for now.
There's a very specific character trait that I probably should have seen coming, but I had a blind spot for it, and it goes like this.
And fact check me on this, see if I'm wrong.
If something's in the Constitution, Republicans say, okay, it's in the Constitution.
If it's in the Bible, okay.
If it's a law, Okay.
It's a law or it fits my religion or fits the Constitution.
I'm in. I'll do all those things.
But if it's not, if it's not whatever you're talking about, whatever the topic is, if it's not in one of those three things, Stay out of my business.
Don't ask me to say something.
Don't ask me to do something.
Don't ask me to do anything.
You don't rule what I do.
You got three shots.
It's in my religion, my constitution, or my law.
If it's not one of those three things, get out of my business.
So when I quite innocently said, hey, just retweet this and you can help your brand, Quite a few people, you know, lots of people retweeted, but quite a few people pushed back hard.
And they said essentially, look, if I have to defend why I'm not a racist, I've already sort of accepted the frame that maybe I am.
And I reject that.
So I reject your premise that I need to explain it.
I reject your premise that there's any question about it.
I reject your premise that you even asked this question.
So get out of here with your retweets.
Right? So I'm seeing a lot of people agreeing with me.
So I feel like I have characterized that point of view accurately.
That, you know, don't make me do something that puts me in this defensive mode of saying I'm not a racist because it just makes you sound like you are one.
And by the way, what business is it of mine to ask you to say anything?
It's not in the law. It's not the Constitution.
It's not your religion. Stay out of my business.
All right. So if I've characterized that correctly, I would like to go to my next point, and then I'm going to take you to the whiteboard.
The people who had that point of view, I believe I understand it because I've just, you know, fed it back to you.
It is part of what I call a loser philosophy, or a loser strategy would be a better way to do it.
Now, at the same time, I'm going to agree...
That that pushback is perfectly acceptable.
Perfectly acceptable. The reasons for it are well thought out.
And they fit a philosophy.
They fit a way of life.
They're consistent with things.
So I say, that's pretty good.
But let me give you a different look at it.
I ask people...
There's a lot of stuff on my board here.
So I'll get to all of it.
I ask people...
To think about the brand.
Think about the Republican brand.
Let me spell correctly.
Publican Brand.
Alright, a brand is a powerful thing.
Everybody who is a member of a group has a brand.
People have a brand. And the power of your brand can have a lot of impact on your life.
So, a lot of conservatives say something like this.
As long as everybody's playing by the same rules, I'm done.
We all have the same constitution, the same laws, same God, most people would think.
So their inner dialogue, the thing that's inside their head, is perfect.
It's like, yeah, I want everything to be even.
I want a world where everybody has the same opportunity.
I want everybody to be able to do well.
I want good things to happen for the world.
But that's just inside my head.
The outer dialogue, the thing that you present to other people, in many cases is some version of, don't tell me what I need to say.
Don't tell me what I need to defend.
Just stay out of my business. I'm not even going to address your tweet.
You can't make me do something.
I'm not going to be... I'm not going to be signaling my awesomeness.
I'm not going to act like a liberal where I have to signal how virtuous I am by saying things that somebody wants me to say.
I'm not going to be that guy.
So your inner dialogue is perfect.
It's virtuous. It's useful.
It has utility.
It's perfect. But the outer dialogue, which says, don't tell me what to say, has this flaw.
It's a liar pattern.
Do you know what a liar pattern is?
It goes like this. If I say, Bob, did you rob that convenience store?
And Bob says, what evidence do you have?
That's a liar pattern.
Because innocent people say, what the hell are you talking about?
I did not rob a store.
What are you talking about?
Okay, that's what an honest person says.
A liar pattern is, did you rob the store?
I don't need to talk to you.
I don't need to talk to you.
No, I'm asking you, did you rob the store?
Look, if you have to ask me if I robbed the store, forget it.
I'm not even going to talk to you.
I'm insulted by the question.
You could be completely honest.
You could be completely innocent.
But you're talking in a liar pattern.
You're talking the way liars talk.
Now that's not intentional.
All you're doing is telling your real feelings.
Your real feelings are, leave me alone.
I don't need to answer your question.
I don't need to signal my virtue.
I don't need to be part of this.
Don't tell me what to do. So as long as you do that, you can be...
I would say that that opinion...
It's fine. I don't have any problem with that opinion.
But be aware that that's your external face.
And if your external face is a liar pattern, then you have pissed all over your brand.
So if your brand is Republican, your brand is conservative, Trump supporter, whatever, and you're not willing to just say, of course I'm opposed to racism.
If you're not willing to do that small thing, And act like an honest person.
And again, I'm saying act like.
Conservatives tend to be very honest people in my experience.
So I'm saying that you need to, it's not good enough in the real world to be honest.
It's not good enough in the real world to not be a racist.
In the same way that it's not good enough to be in love with your spouse and refuse to say it.
Why won't you say you're in love?
I don't have to say that every day.
If you say to your spouse, do you love me?
And your spouse says, you know the answer.
Does that sound like love?
That sounds like someone who doesn't want to say that they love.
Because it's a liar pattern.
If somebody says, do you love me?
You say, yes, I love you with all my heart, more than ever.
That sounds honest, even if it isn't.
It might be dishonest, but it sounds honest.
So if you're going to manage your brand, you have to act in a way that's good for the brand.
Alright, let me extend this point.
There is a pattern in life that Hawke understands.
And a lot of leaders understand that many of the people who are pushing back on this idea of retweeting your disavowal of racism, a lot of people maybe don't understand this concept.
And it goes like this.
That if you want to get to the greater good, there might be some persuasion involved.
Because people don't just go to the greater good on their own.
Somebody needs to be persuading in the right direction.
In order to be persuasive, you have to have an open channel of communication, an unfettered communication.
Have you noticed that Hawk and I have that?
You see him tweeting to me.
I tweet to him. We've talked on the phone a number of times.
We DM now and then.
So, Hawk and I have an open channel.
So, so far, we both want a greater good, which would be fairly similar.
I think you would disagree, but I think you'd find out they're actually pretty similar.
We'd both like to persuade to it, and we've opened a channel.
But you can't get a channel open and there's no such thing as communication unless there's trust.
The only way to build trust is through actions.
Because people don't really develop much trust based on words.
You have to actually do something.
So if you get this line right, you're in a good place.
If you do some actions, let's say a favor for somebody, let's say you just offer a favor to somebody.
You just do something for them that has nothing, there's no direct benefit to you.
If you do somebody a favor, they say, oh, this person actually has my interests in mind.
I trust them. At that point, anything you say to that person will sound more believable and more credible because you'll say, oh, this is a person who does favors for me and asks nothing in return.
I trust them. If they say something, I'm going to trust that too.
Now you're trusted.
You can persuade toward a greater good.
Who uses this technique?
Let's take Japan, for example.
Japan, after World War II, Surrendered and then said, okay, we're going to play nice and we're going to work with you, the United States.
Now, did anybody ever surrender better than Japan in terms of keeping their word?
When Japan surrendered, they totally surrendered.
And they actually worked in Germany too.
They worked with the United States and the allies.
And what is the result of Japan actually acting in a way that was good for them, good for us?
The result was their actions caused us to trust them.
They become tremendous allies.
We communicate with them very well and together we've reached a better place, right?
St. Martin Luther King.
Why is it that people trusted him whether they were black or white?
It wasn't because of his good speeches.
It was because of what he did.
He was so committed to the non-violent approach And the non-violent approach is action.
It's like, don't fight back, take a punch.
If you need to, the only way we're going to get to this better world is if we can do something that's good for both sides.
What was good for white America at the time?
Non-violence. So Martin Luther King delivered something that white people wanted.
Which was non-violence.
It allowed trust to be built.
It opened a channel. He became very persuasive.
Things are much better because he lived and because he had that message.
Who else did that? Jesus.
Jesus didn't just say you should be good.
He literally, according to the Bible stories, died for your sins.
He didn't just...
He didn't just say be good.
He died for it.
That's an action. Action makes you trust.
Now, open channel is a little different in the God version, but you get the point.
Who else uses this technique?
And no, I'm not saying that Trump is Jesus or Japan or Martin Luther King.
I'm not saying he is those things or to compare.
I'm only talking about the technique.
So he's similar to them in that they breathe oxygen, he breathes oxygen.
Don't make too much of the comparison.
But Trump does things for his base, like keeping his promises.
He tries to keep his promises, and he's working pretty hard at it, for the people who elected him, the people who voted for him.
They consider that an important thing and then they trust him.
And then there's this open channel.
He can say things that his base accepts because they trust him and then he can persuade.
So here's the thing.
Getting back to the tweet from Hawk.
Hawk offered an opportunity.
For conservatives who have, at the moment, a terrible brand, what's the worst your brand could be?
Ask Papa John.
What's the worst thing that could happen to your brand?
You would be called a racist.
Papa John is having that problem because their founder, John, actually said the N-word on a call, apparently.
I have trouble wrapping my head around that, how that ever happened.
But apparently something like that happened.
So if your brand is racist, that's as bad as it gets.
Republicans have that brand problem.
Hawke offered up the simplest way to help, not in a fix-it way, but at least moving in the right direction.
He offered a way, just say in public, on Twitter, it'll take you as long as it takes to hit retweet, just say you disavow racism.
Because, just like talking to your spouse when you say I love you, the saying makes a difference.
Now, no, you don't have to say, you don't have to do anything the hawk wants you to do.
You don't have to do anything anybody wants you to do.
It's not in the Constitution.
It's not in the law. It's not in your religion.
But if you want to keep a racist brand and be part of that, then just keep doing what you're doing, because that's how you get that.
Nobody's telling you to do anything different.
I'm just saying that if the outcome you want Is to be seen as a racist.
Just keep doing what you're doing.
Because that's what got us here.
And that's how you would stay there.
Hawk said, look, it's easy.
Just retweet this. Say you're not one.
And that will be one step toward a better brand.
In essence, he's saying that.
Because that would be action.
Action would build trust.
It would open up the communication channel.
And then there's a chance to persuade toward a common good.
Now, so those of you who said...
I would rather keep true to my internal dialogue within myself.
I don't want to be told what to do.
I don't want to even be part of the conversation that somebody would say.
I would even maybe be a racist.
That's great. You have great internal integrity.
But Your internal integrity will get you what you already have, which is to be labeled a racist.
If you want to live in a world where half the world thinks you're a racist, that would be the way to do it.
So, in summary, I will not tell anybody or suggest that they should I will not suggest that anybody should do what I suggest.
I'm just telling you what happens if you do A and what happens if you do B. Then you can choose.
Choose A or B. You can choose to act in a way that others will see as racist, even if they're wrong.
And you may have some internal integrity for that.
You might feel more freedom for that.
You might feel you're not part of the social justice warriors and the virtue signalers, and that may be so important to you.
That you want to be true to that.
But if you want a very easy way to improve your brand, Hawk was nice enough to offer it, but most people did not take it.
Look at the number of people who are just saying, this is so wrong.
But you'll notice, let me challenge you now.
To put in one sentence, because most objections can be put in one sentence even if you don't have any details.
Say in one sentence why you would disagree about anything I just said.
Somebody's saying, so far all I see is people agree with me.
Thank you.
Yeah, so all of you who believe you're disagreeing, all I see is agreement.
The analogies are used to explain a concept.
In this case, the concept was there are some situations where saying it is important.
I'm not saying that racism is like being married.
I'm saying that there are some situations, and racism is one of them, and being married is another one of them.
In both cases it's important to say it.
Asking if this applies to non-white Republicans.
Yes, because in this context, racism is against anybody.
So it would help your brand to say it.
Too defensive.
Yeah, so a lot of folks are saying that it's too defensive.
So let me bring this back to another topic.
Do you remember when I talked about ego?
If you believe that ego is who you are, you're in a loser strategy.
If you believe that ego is a tool that can be manipulated up or down, you can raise your ego to, let's say, play a competition because it's good to be confident, and you can lower your ego in any situation where it might get you in trouble.
If you're using it that way, you're using it as a tool.
So if you say to yourself, I will not be manipulated, you know, I will not be thought of this way, that is coming from ego.
And you're sort of defining yourself as a certain person and I'm not going to give up that freedom and I'm not going to admit what somebody else wants me to say, even though it's true.
So if you're acting out of ego, You'll end up being branded a racist, but your ego might feel great.
If you see your ego as something that's a tool, you can say to yourself, and this is essentially what I said, I don't work for Hawk.
He's not my boss.
I don't need to say anything that's virtue signaling.
I have no need for that.
But It's a perfectly functional thing to do to improve the brand.
So if you put your ego aside, you can just say, huh, do I want to have a better brand or a worse brand?
Oh, okay, I'll just retweet this.
Boop. It has nothing to do with me.
None of this has to do with something about me.
I'm just helping the brand.
So those of you who disagree with this, Somebody saying, now I'm a racist because I didn't retweet.
No. How many times have you seen somebody have to make up a whole opinion that I don't have just to disagree with it?
So you're seeing it now. When I trigger somebody into cognitive dissonance, the first thing they'll do is imagine I said something completely different and then argue against it.
So you saw that happen right here in real time.
So somebody said, saying to me, just in the comments, they said, oh, so now you're saying if I don't retweet, I'm a racist.
No, I didn't say that.
In fact, I said pretty much the opposite of that.
I said, you're probably not a racist, but you might look like one if you do this, and you will not look like one if you do this.
And it's your choice.
You could do either the one that makes you look like a racist, or the one that makes you not look like a racist.
So if you said, my gosh, I'm a racist because I don't tweet that, no.
Nobody said anything like that.
We're only talking about how you're presenting yourself to the world.
And I would say that not retweeting doesn't really say anything about you.
But if, let's say, a million people had retweeted this, bear with me here for a moment.
So I think several hundred people retweeted my tweet disavowing racism.
Suppose it had been a million.
Just a little mental experiment here.
Suppose a million people Retweeted that, and they were Republicans saying, I'm not a racist.
And then Black Lives Matter looks at that and sees a million retweets.
A million! What would they think?
Well, it wouldn't completely change their minds, but it would be one point against...
Their preconceived notion that Republicans are racist.
It would be hard to see a million retweets and say, oh, well, it seems that there are an awful lot of Republicans who are willing to say in public, I'm not a racist.
I didn't see that coming.
What happened instead?
I have a quarter of a million followers and 400 people retweeted it.
Now, people have their own reasons.
They don't all see every tweet and everything else.
But I would say, if you were Hawk and you were looking at this, what would be your interpretation?
If you're Hawk and you look at how many people retweeted, 400 or so, and of a quarter million, mostly Republicans following my Twitter feed, what would be your impression of that?
Your impression would be, well, it looks like my assumption was correct.
Now, a lot of you, the ones who are still angry, are still getting caught up on the issue of whether you need to do what other people tell you to do.
You don't need to do anything.
I am 100% on your side if you just want to say, screw that, I'm not virtue signaling.
I am on your side.
It's just that what you get will be a bad brand.
Alright. Um...
But a liar could easily retweet.
Yeah, you know, there's an interesting study by Cialdini.
He did this study that is so revealing, where he had people randomly write a paragraph, or he wrote about this study, and they asked people to write a paragraph supporting the opposite of their actual opinion.
So it would be a political opinion, let's say, but they'd be asked, okay, write the opposite of your opinion.
Then they checked back with him in a year, and the people who had written the opposite of their actual opinion Many of them, and a shocking number, had actually changed to the opposite of their opinion.
So stating things in public makes you become that thing.
Not everybody, not every time, but it's a very pronounced effect.
So the fact is, if a million Republicans had said in public, no, I'm not a racist, it would actually make them operate differently, even if they were lying.
So even if they were lying, the very fact that they proclaimed not being racist in public would make them less racist.
So there's a huge functional, useful element to this that may not be obvious on the surface.
I'm actually a Trump-supporting Democrat.
that.
Somebody said, slippery slope theory.
They'll just keep asking for more.
You know, same thing in a relationship.
Do you know that if you tell your spouse you love them, they might ask again?
Because it's the first thing Hawk said.
Some things need to be said.
So if you put the If you put your verbal affirmations of where you stand in a slippery slope category, you're completely missing the value of saying things.
How many times have you heard people say, you know, let's be nice or let's do the right thing?
You can't say that stuff too many times.
There is no such thing as saying I'm not a racist too many times.
Did I say that right? You can't say it too many times.
You can't say I love you too many times.
You can't say I like to be fair too many times.
You can't say I want what's right too many times.
You can't say I like capitalism too many times.
You can't say, you know, democracy is better than dictatorships too many times.
You can't say socialism, pure socialism doesn't work Too many times.
There are a lot of things you can't say too many times.
So when you say, slippery slope, I'm worried about the slippery slope.
That would be like saying to your spouse, sure, I'll say I love you, but don't ask me to dig a hole to China because it's a slippery slope.
It doesn't really work that way.
There's some things that need to be said, and they need to be said often.
And that's how you get to a better place.
All right. Too much about that?
Nobody likes my analogy of the marriage to racism.
But let me tell you, analogies are not meant to be persuasive.
Because they don't have that quality.
So you shouldn't say it because you say it in a marriage.
I'm simply making the very independent point, which you can evaluate as the point, that some things are better said.
And said often.
Let me just ask you this question.
Do you agree with the general point That there's some things which must be said to make them real.
In other words, would you agree that saying it, in some cases, no matter what the cases are, do you agree that saying it matters?
Politics isn't marriage, right?
But that's why I isolated the point.
The point is, there are some things that are better if you said.
I've said that there are many examples of that.
I gave you many examples.
Marriage was just one of them. But is it better to positively affirm that you're not a racist?
Alright. Somebody says, I think your love for Hawk blinds you.
Um... Well, I would say that there is a level of affection there that is both useful and I think something of value.
What's the word that's the opposite of racist?
Yeah, unfortunately, there's no good word that's the opposite.
If there were, I would be suggesting that you use that, of course.
But when there is no word, it's like there's no word that's the opposite of collusion.
Sometimes you can't get under the trap of the word is problematic.
Yeah, actions matter.
And actions in this case mean tweeting or saying it out loud.
Alright, that's enough for now.
I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.
I'm just telling you what you get if you take the path you're on.
That's all. And then you can choose.
▲
Export Selection