Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 10, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:20:50

Episode 593 Scott Adams: Census Controversy, Conspiracy Theories, Social Media Summit at WH

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, come on in here.
	It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of the day.
	Your adrenaline and dopamine hit.
	Maybe a little bit of serotonin today.
	Yep, today's going to be special.
	A whole bunch of good chemistry is going to happen in your body.
	Get that day going right.
	And you know, the best way to do that is with a simultaneous sip.
	It starts with a cup or a glass or a mug.
	It could be a tanker or a cellist or a stein.
	Maybe a thermos, maybe a flask.
	Any kind of vessel that you can fill with a liquid.
	I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of this simultaneous sip.
	Tingly.
	Alright, got a bunch of things to talk about today.
	Let's talk about the census controversy.
	So the question on the census, which I guess we do every ten years or so by constitutional requirement, is the question of whether President Trump's administration can put on the questionnaire, are you a citizen?
	Which apparently is something that we have asked in the past for hundreds of years, but in recent years we haven't.
	And the thought is that if we include that question, bad things will happen.
	Now, I have made the mistake of watching the news on this topic.
	And if you watch the news talking about this topic of whether we should have a citizenship question on the census, you're going to want to put a gun in your mouth.
	Because I don't know what happened to the news that broke it.
	I mean, you're not...
	We're not that surprised that there's fake news.
	It's not a big deal if somebody gets a fact wrong.
	But watching the news talk about the census question, I just want to punch the television.
	Because here's how the conversation goes.
	Hey, if we put that question on there, then maybe people who say they're not citizens will not get properly represented, because the census determines representation in Congress.
	And then somebody else says, no, that has nothing to do with representation, because the Constitution says you count all the people.
	It doesn't say count all the citizens.
	So even if you knew that some were citizens and some were not, it would have no impact on representation, because you would still use the big number for representation.
	And then the next person will act like nobody had ever clarified that.
	In other words, somebody will clarify that that question does not change representation, and the very next person who talks will talk as if it does.
	And say, you can't do that because then they won't be represented.
	And then the other person will say, no, actually, the question has nothing to do with representation.
	It's just information we can use in different ways.
	So, I don't know what's wrong with the news.
	The news is just broken.
	It can't explain to us that that information is not part of representation.
	It might be important for questions...
	Yeah, somebody's naming the name here.
	You know who I'm talking about. But here's a question that I haven't seen anybody ask.
	And there's something missing.
	I guess there's a gap in my knowledge that I don't know the answer to this.
	So maybe you can help me.
	Why do we have to ask that?
	Don't we already know?
	And when I say, don't we already know who's a citizen?
	What I mean is, don't citizens have to have social security numbers?
	Don't we have enough data in the country to know who is a citizen?
	What we don't know is how many people are here who are not citizens.
	Am I right? Am I right?
	We know everybody's social security number You know, that includes people who have fake social security numbers, but those are the people who would also fill out a form and say they were citizens.
	So if you're saying that the people with fake social security numbers matters, I say it doesn't.
	Because if you had a fake social security number, you would fill out a census and say, yeah, I'm a citizen.
	So you get the same result.
	It's inaccurate, but it'd be the same.
	So here's my question.
	Let's say everybody filled out the census, and they do not tell you if they are citizens or not.
	They tell you their name, and they tell you the address they're living at.
	Let's say that's part of the census.
	Do we not have a database of all of the names and addresses of people that we can compare to the people who have social security numbers.
	In other words, if we had a data of all the people, whether they be residents or not, if we knew what that population was, and we also know how many of those exact same people are citizens, does that not tell us who is not a citizen?
	Because they answered the census, But they do not have a social security number that puts them at that address.
	It wouldn't be exact, but neither is the census.
	The census isn't exact.
	It's sort of a reasonable estimate that's good enough.
	So who has asked that question?
	Am I the only one to say, do we even need it?
	We probably have all the information we need if we also have the census information.
	That's the part that's missing.
	Somebody says what database?
	What I'm talking about is the government knows who has a social security number and who doesn't.
	And to have a social security number is pretty close to being a citizen.
	Somebody says permanent residents have social security numbers.
	That's okay. We know that too, right?
	That's in the database.
	That doesn't matter at all because we know that permanent residents That's in the database too.
	So I don't know if we really need to ask.
	But either way, there's going to be an unintended consequence whether we do it or we don't do it.
	If we do it, then maybe non-citizens will get extra power.
	And if we do it, maybe fewer people will fill out the census.
	And illegal or non-residents, they don't have to be illegal, would get less representation.
	Would it matter? Would the country be worse off?
	I don't have a reason to believe that the country would be worse off if some people didn't fill out the census.
	We know it would be different.
	But we don't have any suggestion, hint, evidence that we would be worse off.
	So let's say if California's count was undercounted.
	So? What difference does it really make?
	Now, I get that the Electoral College would make a difference, and that we could get different outcomes, but would the different outcomes, which there would be different outcomes, but would the different outcomes be worse?
	I don't know. How do you know that?
	So we're trying to fix a problem that no one has identified as a problem.
	If we have an inaccurate, let's say it's 10% inaccurate, If your representative government is 10% inaccurate, that would get you a different result than if it were accurate, but would it be worse?
	In other words, would the laws be worse?
	Would you be less free?
	Somebody's saying you would get less money.
	Yeah. I guess those people would get less money, and they would also have an option of filling out the census or not.
	So I guess they could control how much money they got by whether they filled out the census.
	So, I also wonder, what is the penalty for not filling out a census?
	Is there any legal penalty if you decline to fill it out?
	So that's just another gap in my knowledge.
	So I think the government has a legitimate need to know this information, and I would come down on the side of If the government can't ask you if you're a citizen, I'm not sure if you have a government.
	That's sort of the point where you don't really have a government anymore.
	If your government can't even determine if you're a legal citizen, can't even ask the question, I'm not sure that's really a government.
	So I do think there's importance to try to count the actual human beings right here.
	Somebody said it involves money.
	How much money gets apportioned, that probably does make a difference.
	But those are all things that states can also control to some degree because states can stop being sanctuary cities, for example.
	If a state wanted to have fewer illegal or, let's just say, non-citizens, there are things they could do.
	And if they don't do those things and that causes them to get less money or a bad result, well, at least they have the choice.
	So yesterday I spent way too much of my time debunking the fine people, the fine people fake news.
	You know the one.
	It's the one where people say that President Trump called neo-Nazis and white nationalists fine people in Charlottesville.
	But if you read the transcript, he said the opposite.
	So it's the news that's reported as the opposite of the actual news that's easy to prove.
	Because you just look at the transcript, you listen to the video, and he says exactly the opposite of what the news is.
	Easy to demonstrate.
	So I got into it with a pastor.
	Yes, a pastor online.
	What happens when you show somebody that their entire worldview, something that was very important, is fake?
	Do they say to you, well, thank you, Scott.
	I'm glad you cleared that up for me.
	No, they don't do that.
	Even the pastor. I actually caused a pastor to use the F word and said, F me, because he was so angry when his worldview fell apart in public.
	But I also learned three new things that I'm going to share with you on persuasion.
	If you can get the person you're debating with online or somewhere else to say one of these three things, it means you won the debate.
	And I heard this a lot yesterday.
	And when you hear this, it means you won.
	When the other person says, blah, blah, blah, full stop.
	Or blah, blah, blah, period.
	Or blah, blah, blah, end of story.
	If you hear any of those things, full stop.
	Period. End of story.
	It means you already won the debate.
	Because those are direct signals that somebody doesn't want to hear any of the information, that they're actually not dealing with data.
	When somebody says, and I heard this about the Charlottesville, because people would say, it was all Nazis, full stop.
	And I would say, well, actually, I've talked to a number of people who went.
	It was a very diverse group.
	I've talked to them personally.
	They disavow all forms of racism.
	They were there for free speech purposes.
	And I know this because I spoke to them personally.
	Now, if somebody said that, that would seem like a direct proof to the extent that people believed I've actually had those conversations, and I have.
	That would be a direct proof that there were some people there who were not bad people.
	Now, wouldn't somebody say, oh, well, Scott, I didn't know that you actually talked to people who were there.
	It does sound like you've collected information and that maybe most people weren't good people, but there were some good people there.
	I get it. What do people say in response to, I talked to those people and found out you were wrong?
	They were all racist. Full stop.
	End of sentence.
	Period. So declare victory when you hear that.
	A funny one was, somebody said I was trying to revise history.
	I'm trying to rewrite history.
	My response was, I'm literally copying and pasting history.
	I'm copying the transcript that we're talking about, and I'm pasting it, Into Twitter so you can read it.
	I'm not rewriting history.
	I'm literally, literally copying it and pasting it.
	And what does somebody say to that?
	You're rewriting history.
	No, I'm copy-pasting history.
	So here are your tells that you'll see.
	If you were following me yesterday, a few hundred of you were watching me interact with these people and slap them down.
	You saw a lot of them would change the topic.
	So I would show conclusively that the president did not call the racist fine people, because that's the transcript.
	But they would not say, oh man, I was wrong all along.
	Never. They changed the subject.
	To other people were there and they were bad.
	It's just a different topic.
	So I used to chase them down the funnel and argue that, but now I just declare victory.
	And I just say, I accept your surrender.
	You also saw the word salad reply, where somebody's belief is debunked, they get into cognitive dissonance, and instead of just saying, oh yeah, okay, you're right, they start spewing words and sentences that almost sort of look like they could make sense, but they don't. And that's when you know you've won.
	They've gone into the word salad reply.
	And then the other thing is, if they resort to anything that's magic, and in this case, the magic is the secret racist dog whistle.
	So a lot of people, once they had their world debunked on this topic, they would say, yeah, sure.
	Yeah, maybe he technically said the right thing.
	But even though he technically said the right thing, we're pretty sure that he was sending a clear racist dog whistle.
	When you hear that, you can kind of declare victory.
	Did you see that Alyssa Milano...
	Tweeted today that we can't normalize this behavior about the president's tweet, in which he did a humorous poll, a survey, on his website, in which the choices were, you know, things such as, who would you trust with the economy, President Trump or a lousy, lying Democrat?
	Now, it's obvious that the whole thing was just a joke.
	It was nothing but a joke.
	It wasn't a real survey.
	Just a joke. And what does Alyssa Milano say?
	We can't normalize this.
	And you know what I say?
	I'm sure glad we'd normalize this.
	Did anybody get hurt by that?
	Was, I don't know, did your taxes go up?
	Did it affect your healthcare?
	No. Half of the country laugh at the other half.
	I suppose that's maybe good for half the country at least.
	But it certainly didn't hurt anybody.
	And I think that after President Trump's administration, you really don't need to worry about somebody else doing this, do you?
	Do you really think that whoever is the president after Trump, do you think that they would do something like that?
	No. You don't have to worry about it being normalized, because this is very specific to his personality, his brand, the way he interacts with people.
	Nobody's going to do this.
	You couldn't normalize President Trump if you wanted to, because he's a one-of-a-kind.
	There's no such thing as normalizing him.
	So that was pretty funny.
	Apparently the British ambassador...
	Whose email insulted the president.
	It was a private email, but it became public.
	And the president went at him hard and said bad things about him, called him stupid.
	He quit today.
	I don't think anybody's surprised.
	He sort of had to resign, didn't he?
	He didn't really have a choice.
	Let's talk about the border detention centers and the dog that didn't bark.
	Are you ready for this?
	I'd like to talk about the things that have not been reported.
	I'm going to delete the volume, people.
	Everybody who complains about the volume gets deleted.
	We do know that the volume plays okay on playback.
	So all the complaints that we hear are either trolls or people who are disturbing the flow, like it's being disturbed right now.
	So let me stipulate, I do know that some of you hear the sound differently.
	There's nothing I'm doing differently, and when the replay is played, when you see it on YouTube, it will look fine, or good enough anyway.
	So everybody who talks about it will get blocked, okay?
	Everybody good on that? And it's nothing personal.
	It just ruins the show, like it's doing right now.
	It ruins the show.
	So that's the only reason you're getting blocked.
	It's not because you're wrong.
	It's not because you weren't trying to be helpful or anything.
	It's just, I don't want it.
	So it's for the good of the flow.
	Alright, here's something that's missing.
	The dog that didn't bark on these border detention centers.
	Are you frustrated, as I am, That you don't feel like you know the real story of what's going on in there.
	Because I hear the, you know, you hear the AOC version of drinking out of toilets, and you say to yourself, well, that's probably not exactly true.
	But then you hear the official Border Patrol story that says everything's great, we've got lots of supplies, things are humane, people are doing well.
	But can you believe that?
	Not really. And I'm not going to say that this is a problem with the Trump administration per se.
	I'm just going to say that if an entity is being criticized and the entity being criticized says, no, that's not true, I'm doing great, well, that's not really credible.
	It could be true. It might be true, but it's not credible because they have an interest to say that they're doing it well.
	Here's what's missing.
	Why don't we have an independent somebody who's just watching these places?
	Why is there not...
	I'll just throw out an example.
	Why is the Catholic Church not sending volunteers in just to be observers?
	How about FEMA? Why don't we send in some FEMA observers to see if any of these centers are doing so poorly that they're basically a humanitarian disaster so that FEMA can quickly step in with some extra supplies or build some tents or something.
	So somebody says they do.
	I do not believe that.
	If you're saying that there are auditors or there are members of the government who are checking other members of the government I'm not going to call that credible.
	And I've never seen an interview, have you?
	Have you ever seen an interview with anybody whose job it was to be independent, somebody who doesn't work for the government and does not have a job like congressperson, somebody who's not in that line?
	Have you seen anybody say, yeah, we're just observers, and we stop in every day, we talk to people, see how things are going?
	Right? That's the dog that isn't barking.
	I so wanted to trust the administration that they're telling us they're doing a good job and that it's true.
	And it might be. It might be true that we're doing a pretty good job of keeping things humane there.
	I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to spend any time there.
	I know you wouldn't either. But maybe we're doing as well as we could.
	Could be true. But because we don't have any independent voice, Anybody I would trust to be independent and accurate to tell me that they're doing a good job, I don't trust it.
	So I'm going to go on record as saying I do not believe the government is doing a good job in the detention centers.
	I also don't believe they're doing a bad job.
	What I do believe is we don't know and that's unacceptable.
	The fact that this is such a big deal It's such a big deal.
	Now, of course, some of you are going to say, well, but the politicians visit all the time, you know, that people can go there and they visit.
	I will say that's useless.
	If a detention center finds out that AOC is going to visit tomorrow, do you think they act the same as if she's not going to visit?
	Of course not. When the boss visits, you clean up your act.
	Some of you have worked at big companies when the CEO is going to visit your department.
	Do you act the same when the CEO is going to show up?
	No. No.
	Do you act the same when the auditors are going to show up?
	No. No, you don't.
	We, the country...
	Have at least the question being raised as to whether we have something like concentration camps, that's the provocative word used by the critics, on our own border that are filling with thousands and thousands of people.
	Might be true-ish, might be completely false.
	Do you know which one it is?
	Do you know what's happening in those detention centers?
	I don't. I don't because the only information I've had is not credible.
	It's from partisans on both sides.
	That's all I have. Partisan information is not information.
	It's nothing you could trust.
	So, I'm going to come down hard on the administration on this point.
	I'm not going to come down hard on Border Patrol for doing their job or not doing their job, because that's the part I don't know and I can't know.
	I am going to come down hard on the administration for not providing some kind of mechanism that a church group or some kind of independent auditors can check out these facilities at a detailed level, actually talk to people, Show up without an appointment, you know, show up anytime they want, day or night.
	If you don't have that, you have something like a giant concentration camp slash detention slash processing center with no visibility.
	That lack of visibility is a completely unacceptable problem, and I'm going to say that the Trump administration is completely failing.
	On that. The dog that doesn't bark is missing and that's a big, big problem.
	For me, as a citizen of this country and as a, let's say, citizen of the world, it is unacceptable to me that we don't have visibility on this.
	It might be acceptable to be what the conditions are if I knew what they were.
	But absolutely, I am not pleased.
	As a citizen, I have not been served.
	And I am concerned that we don't have visibility on a very important issue to the country.
	Completely unacceptable.
	So those of you who like to say, you support the president no matter what he does, this is a clear exception.
	I do not support the president on this topic.
	Because there's a part missing that's just so obviously missing Nobody could give that a pass.
	You just can't give that a pass.
	If somebody says we might have a concentration camp and it's on your property, do you say, well, I don't need to look?
	No, you can't give that a pass.
	All right. Let's talk about Michael Isikoff's latest story.
	I guess Michael Isikoff is working now for Yahoo News investigative reporter type.
	And his new story says that the Seth Rich conspiracy story, the idea that Seth Rich stole data and gave it to WikiLeaks and was murdered by Clinton for it, he says that conspiracy theory, which as far as we know is not true, was started by the Russians.
	Just let that hang there.
	So Michael Isikoff...
	It says that the whole Seth Rich conspiracy theory that Fox News and Hannity especially hammered on, that that was actually planted by Russia as part of their disinformation efforts.
	And so I read an article about it and I thought, wow, in order to say something like that, I would think that you'd have to have pretty good evidence.
	And when I read that evidence, I'd say, huh, there it is.
	But I did not find pretty good evidence for this claim.
	And so I asked myself, is Michael Isikoff credible?
	And then I said, well, what else has he ever done?
	Well, one of the things he did was he was one of the primary people behind the Steele dossier.
	Now, to be fair, he also said publicly and fairly soon that the dossier had a lot of unverified things and certainly some things that were likely not to be true.
	So he did have his skepticism about it.
	But he also was a primary reporter for that piece of disinformation.
	So Michael Iscoff, we know, is a promoter of Russian disinformation.
	Is that too strong a statement?
	Because I don't want to say something that's libelous or is not obviously true from the facts we all can see.
	Would you not say that the Russian dossier was at least filled out by Russians?
	In other words, the information in there came from Russia.
	We know that it's not true.
	And we know that Russia often gives us untrue information for their own purposes.
	And we know that Isikoff transmitted it, and so he was part of the channel that brought that information to the public and created a lot of what we believe about the story.
	So if the person who is very associated with promoting Russian disinformation tells you without evidence that sounds conclusive to you, tells you that the Russians were really behind the Seth Rich story, is that credible?
	It might be true.
	I'm not going to say it's not true.
	But is it credible?
	It is not. It might be true, but it is not credible.
	We don't live in a world anymore in which this sort of story should be taken seriously.
	To back that point, you know how everybody knows and the Mueller report said that the Russians tried hard to interfere in our election?
	The two pieces of evidence they give are the troll farm that was doing these little crappy ads that had no effect whatsoever.
	That was one piece of information.
	Then the other was that they hacked the Democrats' email and gave that to WikiLeaks.
	So those are the two hard pieces of evidence that Russia interfered.
	So yesterday on Tucker Carlson's show, a writer for The Nation, I think, was talking about how the Mueller report doesn't say that.
	The Mueller report does not connect the dots.
	We know there was a Russian troll farm, and we know what they did.
	We know that it was nowhere near the quality you would expect from a state action.
	It was sort of like looking at a piece of art that your three-year-old made with macaroni in first grade or whatever.
	Let's say that your eight-year-old made in school made of macaroni and crayons and put on your refrigerator.
	And somebody said, I think that's Van Gogh.
	Is that a Van Gogh?
	And you say, no, that's not Van Gogh.
	My eight-year-old made this with macaroni and crayons.
	That's what the Russian troll farm looks like.
	The Russian troll farm's entire effort, which is pretty well understood, was no better than the eight-year-old macaroni and crayon art on your refrigerator.
	And yet the national story is that Putin interfered with our election.
	Well, we must accept, then, that the best job that Putin can do at interfering with an election is equivalent to an eight-year-old's macaroni art on your refrigerator.
	Now, if you think I'm exaggerating about how low effectiveness that troll farm was, take a look at the actual ads, look at what the total ad budget was compared to the elections total budget, And then the reporter for the nation, whose name I can't remember, says the Mueller report doesn't connect the dots.
	It does not show a chain of control from Putin to this troll farm.
	Now everybody just says, well, certainly this wouldn't have been happening without Putin's knowledge, to which I say.
	Anybody who says that has never been involved in any kind of large organization.
	Russia is a large organization.
	How many things is Putin personally involved with versus how many things are being done by people acting independently?
	Maybe they think Putin will like it.
	Maybe if it works out, they'll tell him about it.
	Maybe they think he would like it.
	Maybe somebody that he knows said something and they're trying to make somebody happy who knows Putin.
	Maybe they want to be able to later say at a dinner party, hey, I helped you out.
	Maybe you should give me a favor too.
	Who knows? But if you're telling me that Putin...
	If Putin oversaw, personally, the macaroni and crayon art on the refrigerator, this tiny little troll farm that did nothing, if you're telling me he was personally managing that effort, first of all, it's not demonstrated, and secondly, the facts do not suggest it.
	The facts suggest the opposite, that there's no way the boss, Putin, Could have watched this effort being operational and thought, ha ha ha, this will work.
	No way. Somebody's saying plausible deniability.
	So I do understand that it would make sense if this troll farm were working for Putin, that that would cause some separation so he'd have plausible deniability.
	That's not the part I'm talking about.
	So that part makes sense that it would fit with the theory that he was involved.
	What I'm talking about is that the quality of the work It was so far below government level cyber warfare, it was macaroni art.
	There's no way that Putin authorized macaroni art.
	It just didn't happen.
	That's my personal opinion.
	Secondly, the Mueller report, when it talks about the hacking, Says that it seems, or it appears, I think the word is it appears, or yes, what's the exact word?
	Basically, they say it looks like Russia was behind it.
	In other words, we don't know.
	There was a hacker.
	We think they're associated with the Russian intelligence.
	Appears, yes.
	But it appears that the Russian government was behind it.
	If you knew it was behind it, would you use that word?
	Would you say, appears?
	Probably not. So we don't really know.
	Oh, and then here's the other part that's tied to the Seth Rich thing.
	So I've made some comments in the past, and let me update those, okay?
	So there are two comments that I know I've made, maybe three, about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
	And I'm going to call it a conspiracy theory because the central part of it, or at least a central part of it, is the idea that Hillary Clinton had him knocked off.
	Okay, that part I've never thought was credible, likely, worth considering.
	I don't actually believe Hillary Clinton has a body count of 65 dead people or whatever the story is.
	So that part I've never thought.
	Here are the parts...
	That I have made positive comments about.
	There was one article written by some retired admiral, I don't remember, some right-wing type of guy, who was detailing all of the circumstantial evidence that would support the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was murdered by some political operative for political purposes, as opposed to just a random crime on the street.
	And what I said was, it was hard to read that and not be persuaded.
	But being persuaded, as you know, is not related to being true.
	So I hoped I was careful with my choice of language.
	Because the conspiracy theory has lots and lots of details of, well, how could this happen?
	Why is it that the police don't do more?
	How come we don't know what the...
	How come he still had his wallet, right?
	So there are all these questions about coincidences.
	But coincidences are usually just coincidence.
	And usually that's all they are.
	So... So I have said that the theory itself is persuasive, which is separate from being true.
	So that part I'm still saying, because a lot of people were persuaded it was true, so I think that's a valid statement to make, objectively speaking.
	The other thing I've said, and this might be a revision of something I've said, I'm not sure, but I'll say it the way I believe it to be true now.
	In an interview...
	Julian Assange, some few years ago, when he was offering a reward for Seth Rich's murder, he very clearly signaled in that interview that he wanted us to believe that the Seth Rich thing was important to those emails.
	In other words, Assange very clearly signaled to the audience watching That he wanted you to believe that Seth Rich was murdered because of something involving getting those emails.
	Now, I said, it's very clear that Assange is telling us Seth Rich was part of that process.
	And I also said that WikiLeaks, and Assange being the head person of WikiLeaks, I've said that WikiLeaks has never been proven to be liars.
	In other words, they haven't published anything that wasn't true.
	So that made me think, well, he's clearly telling us something, and it's coming from a group that has a track record of being right or honest or accurate.
	So put those together.
	I'm going to now revise my statement.
	So I think this is different from what I might have originally said.
	I would now add to the mix that Assange is not a credible voice on that, because he was being accused of working with the Russians, and he was suggesting, wink, wink, wink, that there was another explanation for how he got the information, and conveniently, it was somebody who couldn't talk because he was deceased.
	Now, if you're Assange and you're trying to stay out of jail, you're trying not to be killed by the CIA with a drone.
	I mean, remember, Hillary Clinton actually talked about droning him, right?
	So this was life and death for Assange.
	If you put somebody in a life and death situation, and perhaps they did get their information from the Russians, just speculating here, I'm not saying they did.
	If they did... Would you believe somebody who was trying to save his own life by sending you down the wrong trail?
	Not credible.
	Might be true, but it's not credible.
	You cannot believe that even though Julian Assange has a track record of being accurate, you know, at least WikiLeaks does, you cannot believe him on this topic because his own life was at stake.
	You can't believe somebody's telling you the truth if you know that the lie is the way to stay alive.
	And the truth might get you killed.
	Under those conditions, there's no such thing as an honest person.
	Or there shouldn't be.
	Because I would trust all of you to lie to save your lives as well.
	We would all lie to save our lives.
	So, in summary, I'm 100% sure that Assange wanted us to believe That Seth Rich was part of this story.
	And I'm confident of that.
	His actions in that interview were so plain and obvious, and the fact he was offering a reward for Seth Rich's killer, which would have no connection to WikiLeaks unless this theory were true, all of it suggests that Assange is sending the clearest possible message that he wants us to believe Seth Rich was involved.
	And he probably knew that at least the press on the right would take that and run with it, which they did.
	So, I'm not going to say...
	My current thinking is that we can't trust Assange on that question, and that the Seth Rich conspiracy theory is mostly, if not entirely, a conspiracy theory.
	Certainly the killing part.
	I don't believe any part of that.
	All right, um...
	Let's talk about the social media summit that's coming up.
	Have you all heard about the White House's social media summit?
	It's happening on Thursday, tomorrow, I guess.
	And the White House has invited a number of creators who have had issues with...
	No, I'm not going. Somebody's asked me.
	I will not be attending that.
	And did I get invited?
	I'm going to say no comment.
	What?
	So somebody asked me if I got invited to the Wayhouse Summit, and I thought to myself, I don't know if that would be private or personal, if I had.
	So if I had been invited or if I had not been invited, I don't think I would comment on it.
	So it's a no-comment comment.
	But I'm not attending, and I was just watching John Avalon over at CNN doing a little piece talking about it, and here's how he described it.
	He said that the social media summit would be like a star wars bar scene from the right now if you haven't seen the star wars movies with the bar scenes that's where all the different aliens and creatures go to the same bar so the implication was that it's a bunch of freaks so cnn is already trying to prep The world for this summit being a bunch of freaks so that it can't be taken seriously.
	So that's pretty harsh.
	Now to make his point he gave some examples.
	And so he wanted you to think that the following people We're basically Star Wars, alien-like freaks associated with the political right.
	And so he talks about Ben Garrison, cartoonist, and there's a few cartoons that have been accused.
	He's been accused of antisemitic cartoons.
	I haven't heard his response to any of those accusations, so I don't have an opinion on whether he intended anything like that or what he was thinking.
	So I'm going to hold my opinion on that because I've only heard one side.
	Although I will say that the cartoons are certainly alarming.
	As Jake Tapper called out when he tweeted about it, you can't really look at his comics and say, well, I don't see what you're talking about with that anti-Semitism because it looks anti-Semitic to me.
	But I haven't heard the cartoonist's explanation of what he was thinking, whether it was interpreted the way he wanted it to be interpreted.
	And without that, I'm not going to give you a final opinion.
	But keep in mind that the White House Social Media Summit is about free speech on the social platforms.
	The whole point of free speech is that you don't want to invite a bunch of mainstream, down-the-middle people who have never violated anybody's rules.
	What would be the point of of inviting people who had never had a problem with censorship.
	There would be no point of a summit of those people.
	So the whole point of the summit is to get the people who are kind of in that dangerous zone And to see how they were treated.
	Because if the people who are saying dangerous things that maybe you think are inaccurate, maybe you think are a little bit too heaty, that's where you need to figure out where the line is.
	They're the people defining the boundaries.
	So of course they should be invited.
	So whether or not they've done things which you don't like or they haven't, they're the very people who need to be invited.
	They define the edge.
	But the next person he throws into the list is our famous meme maker, Carpe Donctum.
	So CNN mentions that Carpe Donctum is invited in the context of saying it's going to be like a Star Wars bar scene.
	Now, if you don't know Carpe Donctum, he makes these great memes.
	The president has tweeted his memes two or three times so far.
	So he's sort of the...
	Premier meme maker for the political right.
	But he's also the most normal person you'll ever meet.
	Like, there's nothing controversial at all.
	His memes get a lot of attention, but he's the most normal, average guy, except that he's just in the right place at the right time with the right skill set, so he's getting a lot of attention, deservedly so.
	But John Avalon throws him in that list like he's a freak.
	Based on what?
	That he's great at making memes?
	That makes you a Star Wars bar freak?
	Think about the bias that's being put into that presentation.
	And then the funny thing is that CNN says that a lot of the people who are being invited are, quote, conspiracy theorists.
	Now, I'm sure that that's true, meaning that I'm sure that some people who have spread conspiracy theories are probably invited, because they, again, would be exactly the people you would invite, because they're the people who are defining the edge.
	And that doesn't mean that they all get their way, or that the president's going to back every conspiracy theory that this group of folks is promoting.
	Nothing like that.
	But they're simply the people who define the edge.
	And that's the whole point of the summit is to find the edge.
	But anyway, for CNN to say that this group is a bunch of conspiracy theorists sort of begs the question, what was the whole Russia collusion thing?
	What was the whole fine people hoax?
	The primary news on CNN is conspiracy theories.
	It's fake news. So that's sort of the pot calling the kettle black there.
	All right, let's talk about something else.
	Is it my imagination or are Democrats, little by little, making the brand of the United States racism?
	Is it my imagination?
	Because when it happened with the Make America Great Again hats and MAGA, I said to myself, okay, well that's really about Trump.
	You know, people hate Trump, so they're going to say that if you wear a Trump hat, you must be a racist, so it's a racist symbol.
	So I thought to myself, well that's not going too far.
	I don't like it.
	I wish it didn't happen. But it's a standard political process.
	No big deal. And then there was the attack on the Betsy Ross flag.
	To which I said, well, they're not really against the flag.
	They're against this early version of the flag because it reminds them of slavery and a bad time for some people in this country, a lot of people.
	So I thought, well, okay, that's a special case.
	But then you also think you've got Kaepernick and Rapinau and disrespect for standing for the flag.
	And maybe the flag itself.
	A lot of flag burning going on, to which I say, well, it's just, it's sort of in the margins.
	That's, you know, people have always been burning flags, didn't really change much.
	And then, but then I saw a story that apparently in Ilhan Omar's district, there's a local, is it board meetings?
	Where they've decided to not have the Pledge of Allegiance Before the meeting.
	And the reasoning is that they service all of the residents of the area.
	It's the local government, so they service everybody who lives there.
	And there are so many people who live there who are not citizens that starting with a Pledge of Allegiance was not appropriate for their local public because so many of them were not Americans.
	To which I said to myself again, well, sort of a special case.
	You know, most of America will probably still do their Pledge of Allegiance, but there's this one little area where people cared about it, and well, how much difference does it make?
	You know, it's just a local thing.
	But I'm starting to feel that when you start putting it all together, that the Democrats have made USA a racist brand.
	It feels like that. We're not quite there, but it feels like they're ruining brand USA. And you might say to yourself, well, maybe we should.
	Maybe we should ruin that brand because it has a legacy of slavery and bad things do whatever.
	But here's the problem.
	The reason that the United States works as an entity is not the Constitution.
	The Constitution is very important, but it's not the reason everything works.
	It's not just the capitalism.
	Capitalism is great, but it's not the reason, the one reason that the United States works.
	The reason the United States works is a common set of thinking.
	If we don't have that common set of thinking, Then all of the other things are irrelevant.
	If we're not thinking the same way, you know, nothing works.
	And that thinking is built into our young citizens largely through brainwashing.
	Now, I say brainwashing because it's a provocative word, but we do brainwash our youth.
	We brainwash them to put their hands over their heart and pledge allegiance to actually give their life For their country at a time when children can't make decisions.
	If you're telling children to literally stand and pledge allegiance to a flag, children don't have critical thinking.
	They are literally being brainwashed.
	And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it.
	I'm going to come down very strong on the side of we should brainwash our youth.
	Not just for that, but for everything that's good and useful.
	Children have to be brainwashed.
	They need to be trained like dogs with treats because they're not capable of making independent good decisions.
	They're children. So you have to simply give them their programming so that by the time they can make their own decisions, they're operating off of some base that they're already biased toward the country.
	So even people who end up growing up and turning against their country still feel probably some allegiance to it.
	Because it's hard to get all that programming out of your body even if your higher thinking overcomes it.
	So here's the thing. If we accidentally got rid of the Pledge of Allegiance, because let's say we decided that there are so many classrooms that don't have a high percentage of citizens, there are non-citizens there, if we take that thinking and extend it, It will get further and further until if you have just one or two non-citizens in a classroom, perhaps that teacher will say, well, let's not do the Pledge of Allegiance.
	It wouldn't be fair to these two kids.
	If you get to that point, every decision you make along the way will make sense.
	So what I just described actually makes sense, right?
	That teacher, let's say one teacher in one classroom, will say, you know, I like the Pledge of Allegiance, but I can see how it will bother these two students.
	Don't need the trouble.
	Let's just skip it.
	So you can imagine how you would sort of accidentally get to a place where the brainwashing was no longer effective, and that the brand of the United States was racist, and nobody would have planned it.
	It would have been nobody's idea to get there.
	It just would have sort of happened by a whole bunch of decisions.
	I'm seeing in the comments that people are saying, Scott, Scott, you say the slippery slope is not a thing.
	I'm seeing the word slippery slope all over the screen now.
	And I'm going to confirm that I don't think it's a thing.
	Because, here's why.
	Something's a slippery slope When you notice it's happening.
	If you don't notice it's happening, it's just something that's happening that you didn't know about.
	That's not the slippery slope.
	The slippery slope is when we all can see it's happening, and then it just keeps on happening forever.
	I say that doesn't exist in the real world, because in the real world, if you see something that's sliding toward doom, the fact that you know it's sliding toward doom is what causes you to get together and fix it.
	So everything that's sliding toward badness gets fixed in our human history because we rise to the challenge.
	This is different because we don't really see it coming.
	All of these independent decisions, you know, one is about the NFL and kneeling.
	One is about some local administration and the Pledge of Allegiance.
	Another is about colonial flags.
	There's a little bit about taking down George Washington.
	Every one of these things has a pretty good reason.
	I'm in favor of taking down Confederate statues because they're offensive.
	I have a pretty good reason.
	We don't need to talk about that.
	But what I'm suggesting is we should all be aware that the collective effect of all of these small changes, even the census, I would say, is part of this larger picture, that if we're not aware that this would chip away at the brainwashing of our children, we should be.
	And once we understand that brainwashing the children is necessary and good, To maintain something like a coherent country.
	I think we can understand that these little things might be heading us in a direction that's counterproductive.
	We'll get rid of this troll.
	All right. So, I would say we should just be aware of the unintended consequences of making lots of individual decisions which look good individually.
	We have to be aware that we don't want to lose our brainwashing of the children, because that's what makes us an effective country.
	And now here's a question.
	What percentage of non-citizens in the United States would make patriotism disappear?
	Now, you know how these things work.
	You don't have to replace all of the people in the country who are patriotic With, you know, 100% people who are not in order for patriotism to essentially be ineffective.
	But what is the percentage?
	Let's say 20% of the country was not born here, and maybe they're just sort of going along with the patriotism thing because it's asked of all citizens.
	But they're not really buying into it that much.
	They just like their situation here.
	At what point do the number of non-citizens become great enough that patriotism has to go away?
	At what point are there enough people in the classroom that nobody has the Pledge of Allegiance anymore?
	Right? So if the average classroom is...
	I don't know what percentage.
	Over the entire country, the average classroom...
	5% non-citizens, maybe, for the whole country.
	Is it higher than that? 20%, 30%?
	But there's some percentage at which we have to stop doing the normal things that brainwash children, such as the Pledge of Allegiance.
	So we may be creeping toward that, and one way we could know is by a census.
	So the census...
	Might help us understand whether the brainwashing we're doing is gonna work in the long run.
	All right. I think I had at least one other thing I wanted to say.
	Yeah, I think I hit the big points.
	All right. How is this productive?
	How is what productive?
	Yeah, so I'm making a distinction between the slippery slope that you can all see coming versus something that's happening that you don't see coming.
	So the loss of patriotism Falls into the category of things that I don't think we fully understand is happening.
	And if we did, we probably would stop it.
	So there would be a counterforce that would pop up.
	Somebody says, do you think patriotism is bad?
	No, I just said patriotism is essential to keep a country together, whether this country or another country.
	Patriotism is the idea glue that allows you to Work collectively.
	Other smart people have pointed this out, but human beings, we naturally collect into family units, and that it's not much harder to collect into tribes of, I don't know, 150 people.
	But as soon as you get beyond something like 100 or so people, and you become country-sized or state-sized, you need a common set of beliefs and rules That can make you act cooperatively.
	And this brainwashing is a necessary part of that.
	Why does the Pledge of Allegiance equal patriotism?
	Seriously? Somebody's asking me why the Pledge of Allegiance equals patriotism.
	The Pledge of Allegiance is literally the brainwashing.
	If you make people say, and by the way, if you don't know this, maybe there's a part that I should clarify.
	One way to brainwash somebody is to get them to say out loud the thing you want them to believe that they don't already believe.
	So let's say you wanted somebody to believe that the Boston Red Sox were evil.
	I'm just picking something ridiculous.
	So somebody likes the Boston Red Sox, but you want them to believe that they're the worst team in the world.
	Let's use that example. So you would say to the person, hey, I want you to repeat every day, the Boston Red Sox are a bad team.
	And then the person will say, well, I don't believe that.
	I think they're a great team.
	They're my favorite team. Then you say to them, I know.
	I know what you believe. And I'm not even saying they are a bad team.
	But I'm going to pay you $20 a day to say out loud 15 times a day that the Boston Red Sox are a bad team.
	I'll just pay you to do it.
	You don't even have to believe it.
	I'm not even asking you to believe it.
	Just say it. If you came back, you would find that if you paid 100 people to do that, and if they started loving the Red Sox, that out of the 100 people, maybe 10 of them, a few months later, would actually have changed their opinion.
	And the book Influence, Cialdini's work, shows this effect.
	If you can get somebody to write or say something that is not their opinion, and you check back with them in a year...
	There's a high likelihood that it has become their opinion because they said it or because they wrote it.
	Saying and writing things actually changes how you think about them.
	That's a well-known phenomenon.
	So, the Pledge of Allegiance, when people say, I pledge allegiance to the United States, causes them to have a mental state.
	It causes them to be rewired fairly permanently.
	To have an allegiance to the country.
	It's what allows us to have a military.
	If we didn't have allegiance to the country, good luck forming a volunteer military.
	And that's pretty essential.
	So, the Pledge of Allegiance is a necessary part of keeping the country functioning.
	It's the brainwashing that makes a difference.
	And likewise, sporting events.
	When everybody stands up at a sporting event to salute the flag, what happens mentally to the people who are not as respectful to the flag?
	Well, they look around and they're in this giant stadium and they see all the other people stand up and put their hands over their heart and face the flag.
	And the people who are just like, I'll just go along with it.
	I don't want to be the one everybody looks at if I don't stand up.
	There's no law that says I have to stand up.
	But everybody else is standing up.
	I'm just going to go along with it.
	What happens to you if you just keep going along with it?
	Well, you become that.
	Simply pretending you are going along with it will actually make you...
	More respectful of the flags.
	So all of these little customs that we have are not for fun.
	They're not to feel good.
	They have a deeply important, functional, absolutely required purpose.
	And if you miss that and you just think it's a tradition, it's just a ceremony, it's a stupid thing that conservatives do, if you think any of those things, you're missing one of the most important aspects of human existence, that we have to form beliefs that become who we are and then collectively who we are as a country.
	All right. Just looking at your comments.
	Social cohesion, that is correct.
	Team building. Somebody says he likes opening doors for women or standing when they come into a room and those days are over.
	I'd like to ask that question.
	So, there's a generational difference, obviously.
	How many of you Let's say you're on a date or you're just with your spouse or your girlfriend going somewhere.
	How many of you, the guys, will walk around and open the car door for the woman that you're with?
	In the comments, tell me how many of you, if it's just you and your wife or your girlfriend, and you're going somewhere, how many of you will walk around and open the door for the woman?
	So look at the comments.
	For those of you who are watching it in replay, if you don't see the comments, we've got one never, but I'm getting usually yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I do, I do, I do, me, me, me, I do, yes, yes, yes, always.
	Now that's probably because a lot of you are Trump supporters, you're more likely to be conservative if you're watching this periscope.
	Yeah. So there's some customs that...
	that looks sticky.
	Yeah, it looks like most of you do.
	Yeah.
	and You know, I used to appreciate the door opening tradition in part because it created order.
	You know, if I'm walking toward a door at the same time with Christina, I like knowing That it's my job to open the door.
	Not because of any, you know, brainwashing reason.
	It's not just, you know, a show of, you know, affection or respect.
	It's because then we don't have to like, oh, you got the door.
	No, I got the door. It just makes everything easier.
	I just like knowing who's supposed to do what in each situation because it's just one less thing to think about.
	So I generally appreciate having these little rules that make things easier.
	We've got one who is not a Trump supporter, but a persuasion student.
	Well, welcome, Molly.
	Somebody says, do I? I do, but not every time.
	So I tend to make a distinction for opening car doors.
	I open regular doors Anytime that I'm near them.
	But for car doors, it sort of depends on the context.
	So if I went out to a nice dinner and Christine is dressed up and we're leaving a restaurant heading toward the car, I would most likely open that door.
	If we stopped at CVS to pick up a prescription and she walks through the door first and she gets to the car before I do, You know, she doesn't really want to wait for me to catch up to her to open the door.
	So in those cases I don't.
	But I do it when the situation seems to call out for it and not when it doesn't.
	All right.
	Yes, car doors are a different situation than regular building doors.
	Somebody says, I don't understand this car door opening thing for Jenny says that.
	Jenny, I'm guessing that you are a younger person, because I think some of these traditions probably don't make sense at a certain age.
	You should carry an extra jacket just in case the puddles.
	How many of you have had this experience?
	Have you ever gone out on a date, and you check the weather, and you see that it's going to be cold later?
	It's not cold at the moment, but it's going to be pretty cold by the time you're driving home.
	And you're the guy, just talking to the guys now, I want to see how many have had this experience.
	And so you say to your date, hey, you might want to bring a jacket, because it's going to be cold.
	And your date says, I don't need a jacket.
	And you say, well, I just checked the weather.
	It's going to be 60.
	We might be sitting outdoors or something.
	You might want a jacket. And your date says, I don't need a jacket.
	Now, it could be because it doesn't have a jacket that goes with the outfit.
	It could be any reason. And so you say, all right, well, I think I'll be cold, so I'll bring a jacket for myself.
	And I made sure that you knew that it was going to be cold, and you could bring a jacket too.
	Now, you get to the restaurant.
	You sit down, and there's a draft, and it's really cold in the restaurant.
	What happens to your jacket?
	Where's your jacket go?
	Well, you're not going to be sitting there with your warm little jacket while your date is freezing on the other side of the table, right?
	You give up your jacket.
	It's the first thing you do.
	You've all done it, right?
	You give up your jacket. Somebody here says, I'll never give up my jacket.
	I can't tell you how many times I've sat somewhere very cold.
	Because I remembered to bring my jacket, but I gave it up.
	Somebody says, I keep a straight jacket in the back seat.
	Somebody says, bring a spare jacket.
	Throw two in the car.
	I have done that.
	I have brought two jackets and throw one in the back, just as the emergency jacket.
	I'm looking at your comments and I'm laughing because so many of you have had the same experience.
	Somebody is saying, she won't bring a jacket ever.
	I keep a spare in the car.
	I've seen the guys here just laughing because I've never heard anybody talk about this before, but it seems to be a universal experience.
	Somebody says, I stopped giving up my jacket.
	So somebody's using tough love on their wife.
	I teach my wife freezing is awesome, somebody says.
	Oh, somebody's asked about, what about walking on the roadside of the sidewalk?
	How many of the guys...
	Choose the side that you're going to walk on if you're walking somewhere in public so that you're on the defensive side.
	In other words, you're closer to the street or you're closer to wherever the danger is.
	How many of you will change your position to make sure that you're on the protective side?
	How many guys do that?
	Let me see that in the comments.
	Now, I do that when it's obvious to do that.
	But I don't do it everywhere because most places I walk are so completely safe that it doesn't make any difference.
	But I'm always thinking about it.
	And there are some places that I'll walk with Christina where I have to keep changing.
	Like I'll be on this side because we're on this side of the street, but then I've got to change to the other side because we're on the other side of the street.
	So I'm continually changing sides.
	To be on the one that's the more protective side.
	I see somebody in the distance walking down the street, looks a little sketchy, I'll change sides again.
	So I'm continually changing sides.
	It's a big pain in the ass.
	Somebody says they wrote a paper on that subject.
	It looks like most of the guys do.
	Yeah, I have to say that, can you believe that I got to my current age without ever hearing that was even a thing?
	Christina's actually the first person who told me that's even a thing.
	I'd never even heard of it. Instinctively, I of course would always put myself between the woman I'm with and danger.
	So if I saw danger, I would of course position myself so I was between the danger and the person I was protecting.
	I've always done that. That's just automatic.
	You can't even turn that off if you want to.
	It's just automatic. But I've never thought that walking down the street in a safe place It would make any difference.
	And I've been informed that at least from a psychological feeling about whether or not you feel that somebody is there for you, it does make a difference.
	It makes a difference psychologically.
	And so I'm willing to buy into that set of manners, if you will, because if it makes somebody else feel good, that's okay.
	Somebody says, if my husband did those things, I might think he lost his mind.
	Elevators. Somebody says men should enter and exit elevators first, too.
	I don't know anybody who doesn't let women and children and the elderly out of elevators first.
	I think we all do that.
	And I'm worried about the day will come when somebody starts letting me out of the elevator first.
	I think that day...
	I think I'm done when that happens.
	I'll pack it up. Here's another one.
	Have you ever gone for a walk?
	And when you're getting ready for a walk, you don't want to have a lot of things in your pockets.
	You don't want to be carrying anything because you're going to go for a walk.
	The last thing you want to do if you go for a walk is to have something in your hand, right?
	I hate going for a walk if I'm carrying something.
	I want my hands to walk free.
	And so you'll say to your date or your wife, you say, hey, we're going to go for a walk.
	And I'll clear my pockets.
	I'll make sure I don't have a camera with me.
	Back in the days when people had cameras.
	And your date or your wife will walk out and she'll have something in her hand.
	And she'll say, do you have an extra pocket?
	And the next thing you know, you're sort of a pack mule.
	Like all your pockets are filled with phones and chargers and lipsticks and stuff because women don't have pockets.
	Or don't have as many pockets.
	Somebody says not in Japan.
	I wonder if it's different.
	So it's very hard to, if you're a man, it's very hard to plan taking your walk.
	Oh, Larry David has a funny skit on that?
	I'll bet he does. I haven't seen it.
	Cargo shorts. Yeah, I understand there's a...
	There's a controversy about whether men should ever wear cargo shorts.
	Some say no.
	I would extend that controversy to say that beyond a certain age, let's say the age is 30-ish, maybe mid-30s, beyond a certain age, there are no clothes that look good on men, except maybe a suit or a tuxedo or something.
	But in terms of normal everyday clothes, Clothes don't look good on men over 35 or so.
	There's just nothing you could do.
	You could wear cargo shorts on your head.
	You could wear a dress.
	It doesn't matter. There's just nothing you could do.
	Men do not look good in clothes over maybe 35, period.
	Here's a little exercise for you.
	Go to your local mall and go to the men's clothing department.
	Go to the casual section where it's, you know, casual shirts and pants and stuff like that.
	Go to the casual section and then find a man's shirt that you like and you think would look good on you if you're a man over, say, 35.
	Go in the dressing room and try on that shirt.
	And you will say to yourself, what the hell is going on?
	I'm in an entire store full of shirts made for people who are male, and not a single piece of clothing looks good on me.
	What's up with that?
	And then here's the second part.
	Walk out of the changing room and walk around the mall and look at all the men who dressed themselves that day, presumably, to go to the mall.
	What are they wearing? 100% of the men at the mall are wearing t-shirts they got for free.
	They have usually a company name or some kind of organization on them.
	100%. Every man who decided how to dress himself put on a t-shirt he got for free.
	Then look at all the clothing in Macy's or Nordstrom or whatever that's the casual clothing.
	You won't see any of that on a human being.
	You won't see anybody wearing those clothes.
	The entire clothing industry for men, I don't even think they're pretending to make clothes for men anymore.
	I'm starting to think that the men's department in clothing stores is just because they want to make sure they have a men's department.
	I don't even think they're trying.
	I do have some Untuck It shirts, and the Untuck It shirts are the first time That I've seen a company say to themselves, huh, what if, I'm just going to spitball this, what if, and I don't think anybody's tried this, and maybe there's a reason nobody's tried it before, but I'm just going to throw this out here, crazy idea.
	This is the Untucket people having their first meeting.
	Just going to throw this out there.
	What if we made a shirt for men that looked good on a man?
	And the other people in the room said, ah, can you do that?
	Like, it seems like somebody would be doing that.
	You know, if that were a thing, I'm pretty sure somebody would have done it already, right?
	And you see the crazy founder of Untucket saying, no, no, nobody's done it, but I think people would buy it if we made it.
	And so he makes his company, Untucket, and it's one of the huge success stories because they made a shirt that looks good on a man.
	Nobody thought of that before.
	Now, to be fair, as soon as I saw this, I said, I got to have one of those.
	The first day I saw their commercial on TV, I said, I will own that shirt.
	Somebody actually is trying to make a shirt that looks good on a man.
	I've got to own that shirt.
	So I went out and got a few untucked shirts.
	I was like, these are great.
	I'm going to buy like all of their clothes.
	I'll just get everything that's my size.
	And then you find out that the first few shirts fit you perfectly.
	The other ones are weird and they get wrinkly and they have strange material and they look terrible.
	But I will say that I did find within the Untuck It universe pretty much all of the shirts that I wear that are button-up.
	There's nothing else.
	I don't even see another shirt from another company That I would put on my body, really.
	Somebody's saying Tommy Bahama.
	Tommy Bahama makes these big shirts for overweight people.
	Let's just call it what it is.
	Tommy Bahama is a store that makes clothing for overweight people.
	And if you're not overweight, you can't wear any of that stuff.
	And also big people.
	You just got to be big to wear that stuff.
	Anyway, how many V-necks do I own?
	All of my V-necks are from the same company, American Rag.
	And I just bought a bunch of them, and I just wear them until they wear out.
	Then I'll buy some more.
	Yeah, I'm going too long, so I'm going to end now.
	That's all for now. Talk to you later.

▲