Episode 1239 Scott Adams: I Show You Some Shocking Media Manipulation, Election Dogs Not Barking, Whiteboard Too
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Media techniques they use to brainwash the public
Techniques for suppressing people who might speak up
George Conway's mocking as suppressive fire
Do weed smokers contribute to society?
Pairing strategy
Whiteboard: Coronavirus Infections
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Hey! And if you'd like to make 2021 an unbroken string of incredible mornings, I can't speak for your afternoon.
But your mornings, I'm in control.
And they're gonna go well.
So it looks like yet another day in 2021 where the morning is incredible.
Good morning, Omar.
And let me make it even better.
With one little tweak.
Just one little thing that you need to make this special.
I think you know what it is.
It's a cup or mug or glass.
A tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
Duh. Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day.
Yeah? The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go! Excuse me while I savor it.
Savor it. Savor it.
All right. The most mysterious story in the news...
...mysterious...
...is that President Trump skipped out on his own New Year's Eve celebration at Mar-a-Lago.
A lot of people paid $1,000 a ticket to attend, but the President was not there.
So the thinking is, the speculation...
Oh, we'll get to the whiteboard.
I'm going to make you wait for that.
It's going to be worth it. But the speculation is that there might be something brewing with Iran in terms of an attack.
And it's because it's the one-year anniversary of Soleimani.
And apparently Iranian officials are just saying directly that there will be revenge.
And it will be pretty big.
And I ask you this.
Number one, would Iran be able to, even with our ambiguous presidential transition situation going on, the worst possible situation, do you think Iran would find it in their interest to do some kind of an attack where it was obvious it was that it actually killed Americans?
Do you think they could do that right now?
I would like to send a message to the Iranian elite, and it goes like this.
Dear Iranian elite, before you make the decision to attack the United States, something you need to know, and I don't know if there's a cultural difference, so maybe it's not obvious to you, Or something like that?
But let me explain it in the clearest possible terms.
If you kick us when we're down, it's not going to be pretty.
Let me tell you, this would be maybe the worst time in the history of human civilization to attack the United States.
Because if you heard of this president we still have for a few more days, President Trump, rumor has it he's not in a good mood lately.
Something about the election not going his way?
You don't want to do the attack while he's still got his finger on the military.
So here's my prediction.
I don't think there's any chance Iranians are so dumb that they would attack a lame duck President Trump.
There wouldn't be anything more dangerous than that.
Now, waiting for Biden to take office...
But then why would you attack?
Right? Because Biden would have been opposed to the attack.
If Biden had been in charge, he would have said, no, don't kill Soleimani.
So why would Iran...
Want to do an attack while Biden is still, if Biden is in office, wouldn't that be the time that they would want to not attack?
Because that's where they would think maybe we could work on a deal and still get our nukes and still get everything we want, right?
So it seems to me that if Iran has some need to attack for, I don't know, national pride or whatever the reason is, that don't they have to do it while Trump is still in office?
Right? Right? Because first of all, it lines up with the anniversary, and second of all, it was Trump who made the decision.
Why would they attack Biden, who will be closer to something like on their side?
It wouldn't make any sense strategically, right?
Attacking Biden would turn Biden into Trump.
And what they want is less Trump.
So what the heck is Iran going to do?
Now the talk, the chatter is it might be drone attacks in Iraq against American forces or quadcopter attacks.
So we're seeing now the beginning of the era of the small drone.
A quadcopter is like those four propeller little drones that you can pick up with your, you know, sort of a consumer-sized drone, but bigger, a little bit bigger.
And if those things are the new attack vector, It's a whole new world.
Yeah, it could be a drone war.
But the problem with any kind of drone attacks is that we would know where they came from, wouldn't we?
I mean, even if you didn't know where they came from, you'd still know where they came from.
So I think the Iranians don't have any options.
Don't you? I feel like there's no options for them to do anything.
But they may have just wanted to ruin everybody's holiday, the president's holiday, by threatening Iran.
So my live stream yesterday, in which my title was that I said it looks like Trump won based on the news out of Georgia with a forensic expert who looked at the hackability of the system, and it's pushing a quarter million views today.
What exactly happened?
Why would that video get a quarter million views?
Is it because there was nothing else going on?
Most of the other content yesterday was a repeat or something because it was a holiday-ish.
I don't know why that got a quarter million views and it's still screaming.
Maybe it's just because it said Trump won in the title.
So here's the most, let's say, obvious and grotesque media manipulation that I've seen in a while.
Now, if you've been watching this for a while, this Periscope, or my live streams for a while, you know that I talk about the technique that the media uses to brainwash the public.
And I use brainwash not in any exaggerated way.
I mean actual, literal brainwashing.
And I would call propaganda brainwashing.
You know, I would use those interchangeably, but propaganda usually means in a political sense.
So let's say propaganda. And here's an example that if you did not know the techniques of persuasion, you wouldn't even notice this.
But you do know the techniques of persuasion.
So let me read this bit from the New York Times, and then you tell me what manipulation that they put into it.
It says, here's an exact sentence from the New York Times.
Trump continues his assault on election integrity.
Baselessly claiming the presidential results, and now the Senate runoffs in Georgia were both invalid.
And it said that no courts have ruled that there's any fraud.
Now, what is the...
Yeah, thinking beyond the sale, thank you.
Right. Whenever you see a major media entity make you think past the sale, that's just propaganda.
Now, they can disguise their news as opinion, but it's in the New York Times.
And if you're reading the New York Times and something they decided was good enough to publish, even as an opinion, says that Trump is making an assault on election integrity, what do you have to assume to understand this sentence?
Well, you would have to assume that whatever he's doing is illegitimate and that the election was perfectly good.
That's not in evidence.
I will agree that it has not been proven that the election was tainted to the point where it changed the result.
Of course that has not been proven.
Of course. But there is massive circumstantial evidence that has not been fully, you know, fully debunked and or even analyzed by any kind of court.
Now, most of you know that, but at least half of the public believes that courts have looked at the evidence 50 times or 60 times and rejected them all.
So I just tweeted this morning, an actual consumer of news in the United States believes that this is a true statement, that 59 out of 60 courts or court cases were thrown out Because the evidence of fraud was non-existent.
Nothing like that's ever happened in this country.
Didn't happen this year, last year.
Never happened. It's just a completely imaginary story, which now has become truth.
It is completely imaginary that courts have looked at the evidence.
Nobody has. Now, courts have looked at the case and decided that they couldn't rule on it for a variety of tactical reasons, but no court has looked at the evidence, right?
So let me give you an idea how the news, or even an opinion within a news vehicle, would look if they were trying to be honest.
If they were even trying to be honest.
What would this same kind of story look like?
Here's what it would look like.
Instead of saying Trump continues his assault on election integrity, you might say something more objective, such as Trump continues to push every legal means to challenge a result that evidence he believes looks solid says that it was fraudulent.
But, courts have not looked at any evidence, and so there's no ruling one way or the other about whether the election was fraudulent.
Now, did I say anything that was inaccurate?
Did you hear any inaccuracies in what I said?
Trump is using his legal challenges.
True. Trump believes the election was fraudulent.
True. He bases his opinion on a massive amount of circumstantial Evidence?
True. No court has ruled on the evidence?
True. Isn't that good context?
Don't you think that that context is sort of important to the story?
And if you see that kind of context left out, but instead they do a making you think past the sale, that's just brainwashing.
Now, if you did not recognize this thinking past the sale technique, you would read this as news.
And so all of those consumers who are not as well-armed as my viewers who know this technique, if you don't see it so clearly and say, oh, that's one of those techniques, that's a brainwashing technique making you think past the sale.
If you didn't recognize it, you wouldn't know.
You would just think you saw the news.
Think about that. At least 95% of all consumers would not recognize this big glaring signal that this is not real news.
They wouldn't see it.
Because you're sort of used to people talking this way.
You don't understand it as technique.
Here's another thing that they could have added for context.
Tell me if any of this is untrue.
I'll call it the Adams rule of fraud.
That whenever there's a situation where fraud can happen...
And there's a very high upside, and lots of people are involved, so you know that somebody's going to take that chance, even if some of them are honest.
Under those conditions, fraud happens every time.
Did I just say anything that you find even provocative?
Much less untrue.
Is it even controversial?
Can you find anything wrong with that statement?
That if it's possible, and there's a high payoff, And lots of people involved, so you know that some of them will be criminals, that fraud happens basically every time?
How is that not a fair statement?
Now, isn't that pretty valuable context?
Because they're treating the election as if it's a thing which is usually or should be assumed by its nature is probably fair.
Nothing like that is true.
It is observably obviously true that That it is almost certainly fraudulent this election and all of our other ones.
Now, I'm not saying that no Republican ever won because of fraud in an election.
I assume it's happened.
I just think that the smarter, fairer, more rational context would be, of course there was major fraud in the election.
Of course there was. There had to be.
And if I had to guess that wherever Republicans could get a little advantage, almost certainly there was Republican fraud.
If you think I'm the one who's going to say just the Democrats do fraud, nope.
Nope. There's no part of me that thinks Democrats are the only ones who do election fraud.
It is nonetheless true that in those swing states and in the big cities in the swing states, they're under Democrat control, and so the Democrats have more options for fraud.
And so it wouldn't matter if Republicans and Democrats were equally willing to do fraud.
It would only matter that the Democrats were willing, because they have the levers that the Republicans didn't have.
Now, you could argue...
If you wanted to be consistent, you could say, well, Scott, you know, Trump won Florida, and maybe there was some Republican fraud.
I don't know. I don't know.
If you told me there was Republican fraud that gave Trump Florida, I wouldn't push back on that.
I'd say, I don't know. But it's certainly within the category of things that you would expect to happen.
The only reason I wouldn't expect fraud in Florida is if the Republicans were confident they were going to win the regular way.
And then maybe not. But wherever you can have it, it's going to be.
Wherever there can be.
Now, I think that would be perfectly good context to say there hasn't been proven that there's fraud, but we are talking about a situation where it's guaranteed.
Let me give you another example.
I have no statistics of crime in New York City, let's just say.
For whatever reason, I don't have statistics for that.
Could I still know that there was crime in New York City?
Pretty reliably, right?
Because it's a city, and it's full of lots of people, and within that big, complicated city, you know there are going to be people who want to do crime, have a high upside, and the capability of doing it.
You don't need to see it to know it's happening.
Same with the election.
You don't need to see the fraud.
It can't not happen.
It's the setup that makes it happen.
All right, so that's the New York Times, and that is pure brainwashing and manipulation.
That's the world you live in.
They're not even trying to be news.
And let me say that again. This isn't even trying.
To be news. If you think this is some kind of an accident, where this was just not a good job, somebody wasn't a good writer, no, no, nothing like that's happening.
This is just brainwashing.
There's another piece of brainwashing going on, and I'm at least partly the subject of it.
Meaning that people like me, simply talking about the topic, and let me say this as clearly as possible, I am personally not aware Of any proof of election fraud.
Period. Personally, I'm not aware of any proof.
I'm aware of lots of allegations.
Some look credible, some look less credible.
But I'm not personally aware of any fraud.
How could I be? I mean, unless I saw it myself, I probably wouldn't believe it if it were reported.
So, I'm speaking completely objectively about what we all see.
And in fact, I don't think I'm adding anything That we don't all see.
So even when I retweet something that's some claim, I don't retweet it like it's a fact.
If you've seen my tweets lately, I say, is this true?
Or has it been debunked?
So am I allowed, ask yourself, am I allowed to speak this subjectively on just the topic?
I'm not telling you, you know, I'm not adding information that's not obvious to everybody.
Can I talk about it? Well, I've had people come at me on social media lately and say that I'm the election denier and that now I'm the brand of Crazy people who think the election was faked.
Do you notice what's happening?
By making me a character of ridicule, they want to hold me up as somebody they're ridiculing so that you don't do it.
Let me ask you this.
If you saw me getting savaged in social media because somebody else claims that I'm saying the election was stolen, are you as likely to go public?
No. The whole point of it is it's suppressing fire.
So they'll go after somebody like me, and I'm not even one of the crazy people with crazy claims.
I'm pretty sure I haven't made any crazy claims.
Like zero. But if they can paint me as one of the crazy ones, then it will discourage you from even talking about it in public.
Because what they need to do is set up a situation where if you even brought up the topic, even at work, You'd be at work and you brought up the topic.
You want the other people at the table to just go...
Whoa!
I guess you're one of those deniers.
What's next? Holocaust denial?
See? So it's suppressive work.
Now, there's something they didn't count on.
Me. They didn't count on the fact that I have no shame and no sense of embarrassment...
And I'm largely immune to this sort of thing.
So all it does is make me want to talk about it more.
So today I wasn't going to talk about it, but because people told me that I'm a bad person for talking about it, oh, now I'm going to talk about it.
That's just red meat.
As soon as you tell me I can't talk about it, I don't want to talk about anything else.
So you might hear a lot of it.
All right. Do you know George Conway?
I'll bet you have. I'll bet you do.
George Conway. You know Kellyanne Conway, of course, had been a top advisor to the president, helped him get elected the first time.
And her husband, George Conway, who I call the lesser Conway, he's like the Conway that, you know, if you were going to do a startup, have you ever heard of an MVP startup?
Sometimes when you do a startup, you do something called an MVP version, or a minimum viable product.
So you slap together some software or a product just to see if somebody would use it, but it's really poorly done.
It's just slapped together.
I feel like when God was making Conways, he's like, let's try to make a Conway.
And he made George, and he's like, fine.
I feel like version 1.0 needs a little upgrade.
And then he did Kellyanne and their child.
And they got it right eventually.
But anyway, I asked this question, which George Conway responded to, which is why I'm mentioning him.
I said, question for experts.
Hypothetically. Now, hypothetically is important to what I'm going to say next.
Hypothetically. I said, hypothetically, what would happen if Biden is inaugurated And a month later, it's proven, and I put this in capitals, beyond any reasonable doubt.
So just hypothetically, what would happen?
Biden takes office, gets inaugurated as his administration gets down to work, and then later, some evidence is beyond dispute.
Let's say an eyewitness plus computer logs, whatever.
Just something that nobody would doubt.
Just literally, no Democrat would doubt that the election was stolen.
Now, I don't think that can happen.
That's why I'm saying hypothetically.
It's very unlikely.
But, you know, in the wildest possibility, it could happen.
Anything's possible. Here's what George Conway said to that.
He mocked me.
Now, remember how the mocking is important, right?
The mocking is suppressive fire.
Do you think George Conway had any real reason to tweet at me?
Why would he? What would be the motivation?
Suppressing fire. It has nothing to do with whether my point is good or bad.
It has everything to do with whether I should be able to talk or should I be mocked for my opinion.
So in order to mock me, he rewords my hypothetical question to show how ridiculous it is.
And remember, he's a professional lawyer, and professional lawyers can debate really well.
So you're going to see a top lawyer at the top of his form debating in public and making me look silly with this great, great mocking point that he makes.
He rewrites my tweet to say, hypothetically, I'll do it in a mocking voice so you can get the whole feel of it, Hypothetically, what would happen if Biden is inaugurated and a month later it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Martians have the real Constitution and it says Trump is president for life?
Unlikely scenario, sure.
But who would be president then?
Says George Conway.
Now, I've got a book for George.
It's behind my head.
It's called Loser Think.
In my book, LoserThink, I have a large section talking about how only idiots use analogies as arguments.
Now, his argument that Martians having a constitution would be a similar likelihood to fraud being proven in the election.
Now, let me put this in context.
The odds that there was massive election fraud is close to 100%.
Again, it's because the setup of the situation guarantees it, not because of any specific evidence that I'm looking at.
Just the setup guarantees it.
So you have a situation that guarantees something will happen, and he's comparing that in an analogy to something that could never happen.
So his argument is an analogy of something that could never happen to something that pretty much is guaranteed did happen.
We just don't know if we'll ever know.
So it's the part where you don't know if you'll ever know that's the uncertainty, not whether it happened.
Now, let me ask you this.
Do you think that that was a good lawyer point?
He's got the logic and the data on his side, using a rational argument.
No. No.
This point, because let me give George Conway a compliment, if I might, because it's important to the story.
He is a professional, high-end lawyer.
I don't think Kellyanne Conway married a dummy, do you?
This is a smart guy.
Smart guy who knows the law and therefore knows how to debate things.
Do you think when he chose the strategy of mocking me as a person, do you think he chose the strategy of mocking me while he had a different strategy, a go-to strategy, of showing me data and an argument that was more solid than mine?
Do you think if he had an argument that was better than mine, or let's say a point with data, etc., do you believe that he would have used the good argument if he had one?
Of course. Nobody uses the bad argument if they have a good one.
If he had any kind of a pushback that would make sense and would be persuasive, he would use it.
But instead he goes for the mocking analogy, which tells you their strategy is to go after the person, which he did.
Now, here's the other tell for a fake news industry that's manipulating you.
If you see the media going after the people instead of the argument, That's all you need.
That's all you need to know.
If they're going after the people instead of the argument, you are in a massive brainwashing scenario, which you are.
Let's see, what else we got here?
So, the Louis, Representative Louis Gohmert, I don't know how to pronounce his name, of Texas, he had this suit where he wanted Pence to be able to throw out the electoral whatever.
But that got tossed on a court, so we don't have to worry about that.
So on social media, on Twitter, a user said that he doesn't know anybody who smokes weed who adds to society.
So somebody said that in public.
I don't know anybody who smokes weed who adds to society.
So I tweeted back, for context, it would be important to know how many people do you know?
Because if you only know three people, okay.
I can certainly believe if you only know three people, you probably don't know anybody who smokes weed and Or you might not know anybody who smokes weed and is also successful.
I have a feeling, just speculation, that somebody who has an opinion like this, maybe their friends lie to them?
Just put it out there?
Maybe, just maybe, this is a person who has, possibly, Several friends who smoke weed and are very productive, but maybe they don't share that fact with Mr.
Judgy, Mr.
Judgmental. Maybe they don't share that.
But this sparked me to make a larger statement about drugs.
Do not smoke marijuana.
Can I say that as clearly as possible?
Can we start with that?
Don't smoke marijuana.
Don't be like me.
Don't do drugs.
Now, having said that, children, did you all hear that, children?
Don't do drugs, children.
Now, that's the child message.
Can you put the children away, if there are any children listening quite seriously?
This part I'm not kidding.
No joke here.
Don't let the kids hear this next part.
This is for adults, and I think you adults would all understand that there are things adults will and will not say in public because kids will hear it, right?
There are things you would say to other adults, but you might not say it in public because your kids will hear it.
And this is going to be that conversation.
It goes like this.
I have access to, because of my Dilbert career, access to an unusual number of highly successful people and have for years.
Because people who are successful like to talk to other people who have done something.
So it's very natural you end up meeting a whole bunch of Billionaires.
So for whatever reason, I probably have met and had meaningful conversations with more billionaires than most people, and hugely successful entrepreneurs, etc.
And I'll tell you there is one correlation that looks pretty strong, which is drug use.
But a really, really big difference Between successful people who use any kind of drug and unsuccessful people who use any kind of drug and maybe become addicted and their life is ruined.
And here's the difference.
You don't know which one of those people you are, unfortunately.
You might say to yourself, you know, let's say you're 19, pick an age, you say to yourself, I think I'm the kind of person who can do some drugs and I think it'll just help me.
It might relax me, expand my mind, whatever.
I think I am that kind of person who can do a bunch of drugs, and I'll be fine.
Turns out, you didn't know you're an addict, meaning that biologically you're more likely to be addicted to substances, and the same thing that might not have killed someone else Ends your life.
And I don't mean you just die.
I mean you become addicted and then the addiction becomes your life.
So your old life is over.
You have this new thing.
You could call it a life, but the addiction becomes your personality at that point.
The old you is dead.
Still alive, but dead in a sense.
So here's the thing you just have to know.
It is not true that drugs are bad.
It is not true that drugs are good.
It's very not true that drugs are good.
Here's what's true.
If you could match the right drug with the right person and the right situation, you get magic.
Sorry, children.
Now, the trick is, you don't know if you're that person.
And chances are, you're not.
If you're going to play the odds, you're not that person, right?
But sometimes there is that person.
I'm going to throw out some names, and these are not...
I'm not going to...
I don't want to incriminate anybody.
I'll just put out some names that maybe would be obvious to you.
But let's take a Steve Jobs, who famously did some LSD and probably marijuana and some other stuff.
Take your Bill Gates, young Bill Gates.
I think he admits some marijuana usage.
I believe that's part of the public record.
If it's not, I take it back.
So I don't want to cast aspersions on people.
Now, why did I pick Steve Jobs?
Because he's deceased, right?
So I can talk about him because he's deceased.
I want to mention some other billionaires.
I want to.
But I'm not, right?
Because they're so alive. Wouldn't be fair.
I can tell you that among the most successful people, one of the defining characteristics doesn't look like a correlation.
It does look like causation.
But without a randomized controlled trial, you don't really know for sure.
But it sure looks like causation.
And certainly personal experience would suggest it is.
And that is that a very smart person who is lucky enough, and it has to be luck, to not have the addiction genes, if you will, that person can, on some occasions, find the right combination of legal or illegal drugs to boost their performance A lot.
In fact, I would go so far as to say the success of Silicon Valley is largely based on drugs.
And it's largely based on drugs in the sense that those few people who found the right drugs that just got lucky, they weren't addicts.
And in some cases they probably were actually and still did good things despite their lives being suboptimal.
So here's the point.
There's no such thing as drugs being good or bad.
You just have to be lucky enough that the mixture of the drug, the person, and the situation are right.
People who do, and again, this is the adult conversation, right?
Nothing I say today should suggest to you to do drugs.
I'm telling you as clearly as possible that if you just wander into it and say, I think I'll try some drugs, your odds are bad.
They're bad because there are so many people who are addicts.
It's just a bad bet. It is nonetheless true that people do it.
It's a free country.
People analyze their risks.
They take chances. Maybe I think they shouldn't, but they do.
We live in the real world, they do.
Some of them are going to work.
Now, one of my lucky coincidences is that my chosen drug, marijuana, finally is legal, so at least I don't have to break the law.
But I can tell you in my personal situation, again, this is a coincidental, perfect situation where the exact drug, the exact person, and the situation were perfect.
I'm a creative person by nature.
Marijuana makes me more creative, and it's not even close.
If you're saying to yourself, I think you just imagine you're being creative.
Nope. It's pretty easy to demonstrate.
I mean, I can't demonstrate it to you, but I can tell you over the course of my career, I've got a whiteboard next to where my bong is, and I can tell you that the whiteboard gets filled With ideas that do become part of my content, they do make money, the next day they're just as good.
You know, it's not like I wake up the next day and go, what the hell was I thinking last night?
It doesn't work that way.
I look at the board and I go, shoot, I never would have thought of that if I hadn't been high.
And it's like my best ideas.
My best jokes, my best books, my best concepts, my best weird ideas, pretty much all of them come out of marijuana.
Now, that's not why I do smoke.
It's just luck.
The reason I do it is for health reasons.
I don't do it recreationally.
I do it completely as a medicinal.
It solves a whole list of problems.
Everything from it makes me sleep better, good for my allergies, fixes my attitude.
So those are the reasons I'm doing it.
I can exercise better.
I mean, just everything works better with marijuana for me.
Don't do marijuana, right?
I got lucky.
Pure luck.
Pure luck that that drug and my personality and my job, which is creativity, just happened to match perfectly.
The odds of you finding that combination, don't even look for it.
Because your chances of ruining your life looking for it are pretty high.
I'm just saying it happens.
Some of us get lucky.
Now, is it really luck?
Is it really? Well, let me tell you some things.
I'll give you my experience, and that might give you a little insight.
In college, I did try some form of speed.
Now, I think it was Ritalin, some illegal Ritalin or something I had.
And some other illegal stimulant.
I wrote my entire senior thesis in, I think, four days over Thanksgiving break.
I wrote my entire senior thesis in economics in four days.
You are allocated an entire term, right?
So you've got the whole term to write this thing.
I did it in four days because I didn't want to go home right away.
That's it. And I did that on one pill.
Now, I got like a B +, I think.
It was fine. And do I recommend that you take a stimulant?
No. No, I do not.
Do you know how easily that one experience could have ruined my life?
Oh, I take it back.
It was more than one experience.
Well, I did have several experiences with I think it was Ritalin at the time.
And that was a stimulant.
And when I did that, I could do all my homework.
I could smoke weed as much as I wanted, and it would sort of cancel each other out.
And I could exercise all day long.
And when I was done, the outcome was a lot of good work, a lot of exercise, and And that's it.
And I walked away, I was like, okay, I just won, and I didn't give up anything.
So now you say to yourself, hey, I guess I'll go do those drugs because it worked out for Scott.
No, no, don't do that.
Do you know how lucky I was to have that experience and not become addicted?
Probably the only thing that kept me from being addicted was supply.
Because it wasn't easy to get those stimulants in those days.
At the moment it's easy.
I believe it's easy at the moment.
I don't try to get them, so I don't know.
But I feel as if the only thing that kept me alive was a lack of supply.
Because the experience was so good that I feel like, especially at that age where your brain isn't quite developed, you don't have the experience or the ability to avoid things that are tempting, I feel as if it might have killed me.
I could have been a meth addict, could have taken up the chain to something worse.
So I would say that everything about my experience is really luck, plus the fact that I don't seem to have an addictive personality.
I don't like alcohol.
I just don't like the experience of alcohol.
And I did mushrooms once, only one hallucinogen.
Changed my whole life.
I've told this story many times.
Once you've done a hallucinogen, you can see that life is subjective.
And once you understand that your experience of life is subjective, even if there's an underlying objective truth, that once you realize that, it changes the whole way you live.
Because you say, well, if I don't like my subjective reality, can I change it?
And the answer is, yup, you can.
It takes technique.
But you can completely change how you frame your reality and hallucinogens.
Prove that to you in a way that just thinking and researching and reading and experimenting will never prove it to you.
But you want proof?
Spend a few hours on mushrooms.
Again, don't do drugs.
I'm not saying you should do that.
I'm aggressively telling you not to do it.
But if you did, and you're an adult, you would have an experience if you didn't die, if you didn't get a bad batch of mushrooms or something.
So there's some risk involved.
But if you did it, it would change forever your...
And here's why it's important.
It's not just this weird new knowledge that reality is subjective.
It's understanding that you can change that subjective reality to optimize your life gigantically.
This is not trivial stuff.
I'm talking about something that will make your life five to ten times better.
We're not talking about a 20% improvement because you did mushrooms once.
We're talking about like a 500% improvement over the course of your life, simply by understanding that you can shape your reality to have a subjective experience That's different than the one that's the default.
So that's what that will do to you.
Now, there are other drugs I've never done, such as molly or...
What's the other name for molly?
Ecstasy. So I've never done that because I hear that they're too good.
There are some drugs that I won't take because they're too good.
Heroin, cocaine, and MDMA. So there's some things that that's the reason I don't take them.
They're too good. And I know that if I let myself get into that stuff, I don't know if I'm strong enough not to do heroin twice.
Do you? I'd like to think I'm strong enough.
That if I took some heroin and I really liked it, I'd be like, you know, I did that once.
Guess I don't need that.
I'd love to know that's me.
But you don't know that about yourself.
If there's anything that experience teaches you better than anything, the best thing that experience teaches you is you don't know yourself.
Once you realize that you think you know yourself, but even you don't know yourself, then you're a little safer.
Because you'll treat yourself like an unknown, and then you'll do better risk management.
Because you'll say, I don't know, it feels like I wouldn't get hooked on heroin, but I don't know, so I'd better stay away.
So that's my point.
I personally don't know...
I'm not going to say I don't know anybody.
But I personally don't know anybody who is hugely successful, I'll say almost anybody, who is hugely successful who did not get there with drugs as an assist.
Sorry. That's why the children had to leave the room.
In the real world, this is well known, by the way.
Among the successful people who also know other successful people, this is common knowledge, what I'm telling you.
There are some people through luck, but also some skill.
The luck is that they're not addicts by nature.
The skill is that they then put a little thinking on what to do and what not to do.
And some of them craft their drug use specifically for productivity.
So when somebody says, I don't know anybody who smokes weed and has been successful, that may be, you know, you may have some friends that fit that category.
It makes sense. But also, most people are not terribly successful.
If I said to you, I don't know anybody who's...
Okay, I'll say this.
I don't know any redheads that are really successful.
And I'm thinking if I can think of an exception.
And the answer is...
I'm sure I probably know some redheads that are super successful.
I mean, I know lots of redheads who have good jobs.
But I don't know any redhead like Steve Jobs...
I don't know, a redheaded billionaire, right?
But, you know, solid jobs and good citizens and stuff.
And so should I conclude that nobody with red hair could ever be really, really successful?
No. This is bad statistics.
Because most people do not become billionaires.
Most people do not become Steve Jobs.
So it wouldn't matter what category you picked, People with big noses, people who, whatever, you would find that most of them are not successful.
So would you say, well, I think that red hair must be correlated with a lack of success because the people I know personally with red hair are not billionaires.
Okay, that's just bad thinking about statistics, right?
All right. Way more than you wanted.
I saw something on CNN about how to make your habits last, and so I'll recommend you to CNN, but I'm not going to use exactly their list.
I'm going to modify it a little bit, and it goes like this.
So here are some ways to lock in habits.
One way, and so inspired by CNN, so go to CNN.com if you want to see their take on it.
One way is to put the new habit...
It's associated with an existing habit.
So the way that one-a-day vitamins were marketed is as one-a-day.
And the one-a-day told you, oh, I'll do it when I brush my teeth because I'm doing that other stuff that gets you ready for the morning.
So if you pair your one-a-day vitamin, and the reason it's one-a-day is just for marketing.
There's no reason that vitamins should be one-a-day versus smaller doses throughout the day or any other dose.
It's purely marketing and not science that it's once a day.
That's well understood, by the way.
I'm not making that up. But by pairing it with something you're definitely going to do every day, which is brush your teeth, you pretty much guarantee that you're going to take your one-a-day vitamin.
But there are other ways to do it.
You can pair other habits.
For example, the CNN example was...
Well, actually, this is the second example.
You can pair something pleasurable...
with the thing that you want to make a habit.
So their example was to make it a habit to listen to an audiobook while you exercise.
So you're pairing a thing you enjoy anyway with the thing you want to make your habit, and so you pair them.
Good technique. So that's slightly different than just pairing habits where one habit exists.
This would be a second thing.
Another one is to get a partner who's in on it with you to keep you on track.
Let's say you're both trying to lose weight, you're both trying to walk every day, whatever it is.
If you've got one other person who's going to keep you honest, that can help.
Because maybe they can talk you into walking the day you don't.
You can talk them into it, etc.
Here's another one. Create an incentive, reward, or penalty for each time you do or don't do the habit.
Now, I've talked about this with I love to be tired after working out and have a nice protein shake that's delicious while looking at what happened on Twitter on my phone.
That little moment where you've worked out and you're just enjoying your beverage and the protein feels like it's helping you and you're just thinking of whatever you want to think is my reward.
So I would put that after exercise.
But there's another way to do it which is to penalize yourself.
To penalize yourself.
So the CNN example was that your spouse would donate a small amount of money to a charity that you don't like every time you didn't do your habit.
So it would be like a little penalty, but not really a penalty for not doing anything.
Here's how I did this with myself.
I could never remember to put on my sunscreen, at least on my face, the exposed parts, before I went out for the day, if it's just a regular day.
I would always remember my sunscreen if I were going swimming or I'm going to be outside all day, but I couldn't get the habit of putting on sunscreen just every day, you know, in California especially.
And so here's what I lit on.
I decided to punish myself every time I forgot.
And the punishment would be, I'd be sitting in my car, and I'm ready to go wherever it is I want to go.
And if I realized then that I didn't have my sunscreen on, I would have to get out of the car, put everything down like I'd never been in the car, take off my jacket, walk upstairs, put on the sunscreen, and then redo it.
Now, do you know how annoying that is?
If you're like in the car and you're ready to start it and you want to go somewhere, you hate that.
You hate that you've got to redo everything and just start again.
And so that was my punishment.
Do you know how many times I had to do that to myself?
I don't know the exact number, but if I had to guess over the summer and let's say since the last six months I've been trying it, probably...
40 times?
Think about that.
40 times.
I'm ready to go.
I put it all down and walked upstairs.
As a result of punishing myself regularly for six months, I'm much closer to remembering it every time now.
I'm not there yet. But that's my technique.
Alright, so that's how to do that.
Here's a little question.
That is also for the adults.
In this case, I don't mean just the adults by age, but people who can understand nuanced points.
What I'm about to talk about, I should not talk about, because I'm not a doctor.
I'm no scientist.
Damn it. I shouldn't be talking about stuff like this.
But there is an interesting category in the world, which is one of my favorite categories, and it is this.
Things which cannot be communicated for different reasons.
For example, here's a thing that could not be communicated.
Let's say you were known as the biggest liar in your town.
You just had a reputation for making up stories that were crazy.
And then one day, you're actually abducted by actual aliens.
Like in real life, it's the only time it's ever happened, hypothetically.
And you're abducted by actual aliens.
Could you communicate to anybody else after that that it really happened?
And the answer is no. Because your reputation as the most famous liar would make it literally impossible for you to communicate a true thing, that you were abducted by aliens.
Couldn't be done. And there are a whole bunch of other weird situations in which you can't communicate.
Like, I could be right in front of you, and it can't happen.
It's just impossible. I'll give you another example of one of those.
There are all kinds of weird examples of this.
One is, there was something that happened to me a long time ago.
And I once tried to tell somebody about it that I'd never told anybody about it.
And it would be the first time anybody ever heard this traumatic story.
And I actually had this weird experience where my mouth wouldn't do it.
I had made the decision to say it.
Like the mind was all on board.
There was no ambiguity in my brain.
And my brain ordered my mouth to talk.
And it wouldn't do it. I've never had that experience before.
And it just wouldn't do it.
I mean, it literally wouldn't do it.
And it was because it was so traumatic that my brain just said, nope.
This is not going to ever come out of your mouth.
And it never has.
Never in its fullness.
I've suggested it before.
But never in its fullness.
And I don't know if I ever could.
Actually, I think my mouth actually wouldn't work.
Now, you know, I don't want to get into some sad example, because I'm well over it, so you don't have to worry about me.
But there are these categories.
Here's another one. What I'm going to talk to you about now should only be talked about by experts and doctors.
But they can't.
They can't. And here's the reason.
Because it would be unethical for them to tell you what I'm going to tell you.
Now, I can do it because I'm not a doctor.
And I will trust you to be adults and to understand that if someone who is a professional cartoonist says something that you believe has a medical implication, and then you follow that advice, well, that's your own damn fault.
Because let me tell you, you should not be getting medical advice from cartoonists.
Now, if I told you something that you thought was interesting and you asked your doctor, that's different.
But make sure it's a doctor that gives you medical advice, okay?
Don't take it from me. So I'm going to wade in some dangerous territory, and this is just for fun.
Okay? Nothing here is supposed to suggest a policy change, just for fun.
It goes like this.
I believe we know that coronavirus infections, let me get myself out of the way, will be worse if the initial exposure is higher.
In other words, if you were locked in a phone booth with three infected people and you stayed there for six hours, You would get so much virus in that little phone booth that your sickness would probably be more extreme.
Now, this is what the experts told us early on in the pandemic.
I don't think it's changed, right?
Has anybody seen anything to counter that?
So I think it's an established fact that the greater the viral load, let's say in closed spaces especially, The greater the fatalities.
And then, therefore, it follows that if you were to be exposed in a passing manner, let's say you were shopping and you walked past a few people who had it and it was just sort of in the air, but it was just you were in and out, it follows that these people would be more likely to be infected with a lower viral load and therefore fewer fatalities.
I'll ask now if there are any doctors watching this.
Give me a fact check on that.
That's still true, right?
Somebody says...
Okay, so people seem to be confirming it in the comments.
So here's the part I want to add to this.
Suppose you had a policy that said that you would do the same amount of mitigation, whether it were in closed spaces or in open spaces.
And then you would get a result, which is a number of fatalities.
So the number of fatalities would be the result of your national policy about what you did in both of these places.
It's sort of a blended average, right?
But suppose, and again, this is the unethical part.
This is the part that can't be tested because it wouldn't be ethical to infect people intentionally.
There's no way you can do that ethically.
So you can talk about it, but only if you're not a doctor.
So that's why I can do it, because you won't take me too seriously, and that's the right mindset for this.
Don't take me too seriously. Suppose, and I'm just going to put this out here because I can't...
My brain can't quite get the answer itself, so I'm going to ask you to help me out.
And it goes like this.
Suppose you said, don't wear masks in places where your contact would be casual.
Just for example, let's say that the guideline came out that says, if you're in a closed space, wear your mask.
If you're in an open space, even, let's say, a Trump rally, you're outdoors, You don't have to wear a mask.
Now, would there be a lot more infections if people didn't wear masks in, let's say, shopping centers and stores and rallies?
The answer is yes. There would be tons more, right?
We all agree with that.
There would be tons more infections.
But they would be this kind.
And these people would go through the system and have fewer fatalities.
So here's the question.
I don't think it makes sense to go for herd immunity, right?
I think the experts have, at least the experts in this country, have said that going for herd immunity through infection is a really bad idea, especially because of the lingering health problems that you could have even if you recover.
So even if you don't die, you might have some lingering problems which seem pretty nasty.
So there's no ethical way that anybody should suggest taking your mask off in, say, a shopping center, right?
So do we agree with that?
Nobody ethical in the medical community would ever suggest you take your mask off in a public place to give yourself an infection, or on average, more people get it, Just because it has fewer fatalities.
You can't ethically recommend that.
But, here's the math question.
Forget about the ethical part, I just want to understand the math.
If you did more of these infections, it would be at the expense of more of these, wouldn't it?
Now this assumes also something about how quickly the vaccinations are rolled down.
If the vaccinations could be rolled down instantly, Then wear your masks everywhere.
Do you agree? If you knew that the vaccinations would be here in one week, and everybody would be vaccinated in one week, it can't happen, but if you knew that, you'd say, all right, I'm just going to stay home for a week, because this is worth it.
I'm not going to take any chance for one week.
But because we don't know how long it's going to take, could be six months, etc., we know that there's going to be massive extra infections.
Would we be better off, again, it's unethical to ask the question, but math-wise, just in the math, would the fatalities go down if people stopped wearing masks in outdoor public places?
The infections would go way up, But would they be lower viral load and therefore the fatalities would go down?
Now, if it's not obvious to you why this is not ethical, it's because the day you said don't wear your mask in public, you'd be killing people that didn't need to be killed.
You would kill extra people.
But you also might get to the end of the pandemic faster and save more of these kinds.
So, forget...
Forget my credibility.
You should assume none.
So for this conversation, assume I have no credibility, I'm not good at math, and I don't know anything about science.
I'm just curious.
I'm just curious if we're being ethical at the expense of being successful.
I don't know, but I think it's a good question.
All right. Let's see if there's anything I haven't mentioned that you just have to hear.
Oh, here's another point.
If you're trying to build a habit and keep it, you'll see some people give you this advice, that you should have cheat days.
Let's say you're on a diet and you'll have, okay, every two weeks or whatever is your schedule, I'll have a cheat day.
I think that's the worst advice I've ever heard.
It does make sense to allow yourself to have days when it doesn't work.
In other words, if you say to yourself, you know, I'm going to try to exercise seven days a week, but I'm also living in the real world and sometimes things come up.
That's okay. That's just living in the real world.
But the moment you allow yourself that there's a cheat day, let's take food as the best example.
I think that having a cheat day for food is the number one worst way to diet.
Literally, there would be nothing less effective than having a cheat day.
And the reason is this. That if you're dieting successfully, you're not just eating less or eating healthier or exercising more.
Those are all good. But you're also getting rid of your cravings.
If you lose 20 pounds, but you don't lose your cravings, Did you really lose 20 pounds?
Because they're coming back.
So if you think about weight loss as weight, you've already lost.
You might as well not even bother.
Because if you think what you're trying to do is lose weight, you'll never succeed.
If you're trying to lose your cravings, well then your chances are very good.
So I teach you in my book, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, that is behind this whiteboard.
I teach you to work on your cravings, and then the weight loss works on itself.
And an example of that would be, I used to be addicted to Snickers candy bars.
Like, I would almost drool when I woke up in the morning.
I couldn't wait to get my first one.
And eventually it would progress to, like, I'd be eating four of the big-sized Snickers a day.
And I'd be like, every bite of it would actually make me feel alive.
And I'd be like, oh! I mean, I would actually shudder.
With craving for this particular food.
But the technique I would use is, I'd say, how about I could eat anything I want, except that?
So every time I wanted that, I would eat something else that I also liked, and I wouldn't limit myself to the other stuff.
And then, if I didn't eat that Snickers for, I found out, it was about eight weeks.
So you might differ a little bit.
But after eight weeks of not eating it, It didn't even taste good.
So right now, if I put one in my mouth, I'd be like, I don't know why I like these in the first place.
Now, my natural biological preferences didn't change at all in eight weeks.
What changed is my addiction.
I had an addiction to this certain Fat, sugar, salt combination.
And by the way, do you know that's how they addict you?
There's a book called, I may have the words reversed, but it's like fat, sugar, salt.
Or those words might be in different order.
And it teaches you how the scientists found out that if you get the right combination of those three materials, it's addictive.
Like it actually activates the addiction part of your brain.
So when I was eating the Snickers, I thought I was overeating in the old days.
But when I got smarter, I realized I wasn't overeating.
I was addicted to certain foods that had a bad outcome for me.
So I would break each addiction individually, get rid of the craving, and then it's easy.
Once the cravings are gone, You don't even think about it.
It's just what you eat. So at this point, I can eat a yam with some soy sauce on it after cooking it, you know, getting it nice and soft.
And just eating a yam with some pepper and soy sauce is like a delightful meal.
But only because I trained myself to get rid of the addiction food, which I don't even miss.
Now, if you told me, how much do you miss your favorite food?
I'd say zero. Zero.
There's not even 1% of me That wants to eat that.
It's not like giving up cigarettes, as I understand it.
I've never given up cigarettes.
I don't smoke. But what I hear is that even if you give up cigarettes and you're successful, you sort of always crave it.
But you can actually get rid of a craving for certain foods.
It's just gone. It never comes back.
All right. You're lying to yourself that a Snickers bar is greater than soy on a yam?
I don't know what that means. Somebody says, the latest Dr.
Pepper commercials cured my Dr.
Pepper addiction. Yeah, I had to cure my Diet Coke addiction, which was probably 12 Diet Cokes a day.
So I guess I do have an addictive personality in some of the food sense, but I've managed to work around it.
Alright, these are your tips for the day.
Did you learn anything today? Any of this helpful?
We'll see. Alright, and here's my last question.
Is it ethical to travel during the pandemic to places that are open?
Since you know that traveling during a pandemic increases the rate of risk for not just yourself but for other people, Is it ethical to travel to places that are open?
Just looking at your comments.
See, mostly yeses.
Yeah, and here's my take on it.
I would say yes, it is ethical to do things which are open.
Which is also why I've defended Governor Newsom, California's Governor Newsom, for eating at the expensive French Laundry restaurant.
Because if it was open...
He can eat there. Right?
That's it. If for whatever reason it's open, I feel as if you should use it.
And here's the ethical trade-off.
Those people who are selling those services, they need to live too.
There's a reason they're open.
And the reason is that their government has decided that keeping them open and having customers is better than closing them, all things considered.
So I think it is ethical to travel during a pandemic.
If you're traveling to places that are open and they're open for a reason.
So I'd say yes. All right.
I'm tripping right now, somebody says.
What if you've already had COVID? Well, yeah, then you're fine.
We think. If we know our immunity levels, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, it was not open.
So somebody's saying that the French laundry was not open.
Here's what I have not heard.
I have not heard anybody say that the French Laundry was in trouble for opening illegally.
So I don't believe the wasn't legal to be opened part.
There was something going on there, but I don't think the French Laundry was opening illegally and inviting the governor.
I don't think that happened.
So there might be some details we don't know about that.
Somebody says, how is a full airplane allowed in the same city where all the stores are closed?
I guess that's the difference between travel being necessary and your trinket store maybe not being as necessary.
What's my take on Neuralink?
You're talking about Elon Musk's invention or his startup that will somehow put a chip in your brain.
Or I think they drill into your skull and implant something that can communicate with your brain and then you can directly control your environment through your brain.
Well, we're not there yet, so I think it's the implementation that matters.
I assume we'll get there, where you will be part machine and part person.
We're already chemical cyborgs because most of us are enhanced by some kind of chemical at this point.
So you know a chemical enhances me.
Other people might have a prescription drug that is their chemical enhancement.
But at this point, pretty much all of us are at least chemical cyborgs.
You know, we don't operate the way we were born and built based on our DNA. We're DNA plus a chemical that was designed.
Now because that chemical is not a machine like a microchip, we don't think you're a cyborg.
But if you put a chemical machine into you, which is basically a drug, you're a cyborg.
You're just a chemical kind.
So we'll be real cyborgs whenever this neural link gets going.
And I don't think it's a question of should we be merging with machines or should we not?
We're going to merge with machines.
So don't even worry about should we or should we not, because we're going to merge with machines.
And those who do not will be at such a disadvantage.
They're going to want to merge with the machine pretty soon too.
So we may have a problem where there's a time where the rich or whatever, the well-off, can merge with machines and have effectively superpowers.
Just imagine this.
Imagine if you're in a conversation and you could just think a Google search.
And the Google search would come to your brain...
I don't know if any of that's possible, by the way.
I don't know if that's contemplated or possible.
I'm just saying, imagine a world.
It seems like you could do it someday.
Maybe not soon. But just imagine doing a Google search without talking, without using your fingers, while you're in the middle of a conversation.
Imagine looking at somebody and being able to tell their identity by looking at them.
Is that possible? Well, we already have facial recognition apps.
You've heard of Clearview, right?
Law enforcement uses Clearview.
They can take a picture of anybody and their identity will pop up if that person has ever been on social media.
So what if you had the chip in your head, your eyes see a person, the chip takes what you see with your eyes, turns it into an algorithm, checks faces, and reads back and says to you, You're talking to Bill Jones.
He's an engineer at Intel.
Do you think that's possible?
Well, I don't know that Neuralink would necessarily have the technology to do that anytime soon, but my guess, if I just had to guess?
Yup. Yeah, I'll bet it's possible.
You've seen the experiments, and this was years ago, so it's been a while, where they could actually, a computer can create a picture...
Of what you're thinking?
You know that's a thing, right?
They've already done that.
You can have the computer draw a picture based on sensors on your head of what you were imagining.
Now it's a grainy kind of approximate picture, but it's definitely what you were thinking.
That already exists.
Now imagine that got better.
Suppose they found out how to get closer to wherever your optical nerve meets your brain.
Is there a clearer picture somewhere in your brain?
Because if the picture is clear, you can use facial recognition through the chip in your head.
You just look at somebody and say in your mind, who is this?
And your chip will Google it, and it'll say, Bob Jones.
You say, hey, Bob. Good to meet you.
How's the kids? I think that's where we're going.
Maybe in your lifetime, not mine.
We'll see. All right. That's all for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
You know, it's so hard for me to turn off these live streams.
I'm talking to you, YouTube.
I've already turned off Periscope.
The reason it's so hard to end these is that I'm getting probably more out of it than you are.
There's something about this that I've never quite understood.
And I think it has to do with the live comments.
Because if I were doing this just by myself, just recording it so you could see it later, I wouldn't be that interested.
It's only this live interaction that makes this a two-way thing.
And I should tell you that even if I'm not reading every comment, because sometimes I'm in my own head when I'm presenting here, I see them.
I see the life.
You can detect emotion.
You can tell if what you're doing is going over well or if you need to move on.
It's really addicting.
Really addicting. I don't know if you've noticed, but I use this medium differently than other people.
And I do a lot of A-B testing, so sometimes you get lucky and you try something and it works.
And the one thing that I tried that I think makes all the difference with this medium is that I talk to you like I'm talking to one person.
Now, I mentioned the audience, so you know I'm talking to everybody.
But in terms of style, it's like I'm talking to one person.
Now, I do that intentionally, and that's something you can do because of this two-way nature.
The moment you put me on, say, a satellite, and it's a recorded thing, and I'm just talking to the audience, I go into presenter mode.
Do you know what presenter mode looks like?
It'd be like, and the next item here is item number one.
I just wanted to mention, you know, you go into presenter mode.
But I found that with this medium, it's uniquely resistant to that.
I feel like I'm talking to you Like three people sitting around the dinner table.
It doesn't feel like any kind of presentation.
And that's also dangerous because I've said things in this context that I really probably shouldn't have said in public.
But it's that I feel like I'm talking one-on-one that, you know, I let my guard down.
All right, somebody said, oh, let me see this, this comment.
Bella Bella says, move away from Trump, Scott.
He's finished. Just be interesting and be interactive.
When you tell me to not do something, you know I just want to do more of it, right?
So when you tell me to move away from Trump because it's bad for me, you know I'm just going to do more of it.
