Episode 1268 Scott Adams: Sunday Coffee and Headlines
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
China boosted US media created HOAXES
Psychology of the Q phenomena
Impeachment defense strategy
The Big Lie
Reciprocity for preferred labels and pronouns
Executive orders bonanza
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Did you get here on time?
Hurry, hurry.
It's time. Go.
Could have been warmer, but still excellent.
Still excellent. So, let me tell you about all the interesting news today.
Okay, there wasn't any interesting news today, because there's this fellow, you may have heard of him, Donald Trump.
He's not in the news as much anymore, and turns out there isn't any news when he's not there.
But we can still talk about him, even though he's not in the news.
Yeah, we still have that.
It's sort of like trying to get off heroin, and you have that, whatever that drug is you take when you're trying to get off heroin.
That's what we got. So let's have a little bit of that.
So a Cardiff University study...
of Chinese social media influence discovered that one of the things that the Chinese were pushing was the claim that Trump had said to drink bleach.
That's right. So now there's a study that shows that China was boosting the hoax that Trump had said drink bleach.
Now, of course, the hoax is started by our own media.
So you can't really blame China for...
So basically, all China needed to do to influence our elections is retweet CNN hoaxes.
And I'm looking at it and I'm saying, Damn you, China?
Wait a minute. Is that really China influencing the elections?
Because all they did was use social media and retweet some stuff they liked, which I'm pretty sure is legal.
You can retweet things you agree with, right?
Now, of course, I don't know how many accounts were involved, but apparently not a lot.
It was like dozens of accounts.
Did it make any difference to our election?
Probably not. But I would just point out that China and CNN were apparently on the same side When it comes to the bleach drinking hoax, which even today people are arguing with me online, but that really happened, Scott. I saw it with my own eyes.
Here's a link to it.
And of course the link doesn't have it, but they think they actually sent a link with something about Trump saying drink bleach, but it's not there.
It's kind of spooky.
Speaking of believing things that don't exist...
The Q phenomenon needs to be understood very differently than the way it's being portrayed.
So I think CNN's take on it is that there are people who believed in Q and they're crazy people.
And then there are people like CNN's hosts who don't believe in the Q stuff and they are reasonable people.
People with good brains that are working really well.
They're seeing the world about the way it is.
Pretty accurate. But those other people, those Q people, according to CNN, they're a crazy bunch.
We don't even know what's going on there.
Let's just laugh at it.
Let's just laugh at it.
But is that a good description of what's happening in the world?
Well, I would have said so before I became a hypnotist.
You hear about this too much from me already, but one of the main things that you learn to learn to be a hypnotist is that everybody is Q. Everybody is a Q believer.
If you don't get that, then you can't be a persuader.
You can't be a hypnotist.
It's a basic understanding of how people are wired.
If you don't understand the basic way a human being, any human being, Normal human being.
If you don't understand the basic way we're wired, you just can't be a hypnotist.
It just doesn't work because you wouldn't have the most fundamental understanding.
And the most fundamental understanding is this.
Every one of you is a Q believer.
Every one of us.
We just believe different stuff.
Maybe you believe the Q stuff.
Maybe I believe a religion that you think is a cult.
Maybe I believe a religion that you think was wrong.
Maybe I believe something I saw in the news on CNN, but it didn't really happen, and it should be obvious it didn't happen, but people believe it.
Here are some of the things that Q believers do not believe.
We've heard the things that Q believers believe, and then those who don't believe that stuff, which is most of us, say, ha ha ha, ha ha ha, the Q believers.
They're crazy people.
Here are some things that the Q believers don't believe.
These are the things they don't believe.
Most of them. It's a generalization.
Mostly they don't believe in the fine people hoax.
They don't believe in the bleach-drinking hoax.
They don't believe the hoax that there was something like a real coup attempt at the Capitol assault.
They don't believe that it's been proven that elections were transparent or that it's been proven that fraud didn't happen.
It is true that it has not been proven that fraud happened at a widespread level.
So while there is no information that it's been proven, There's no information that's been proven to be transparent either, which is a common belief.
The Democrats seem to have that it was a transparent election.
Now, those are things that Q believers don't believe.
How many of the people who watch the CNN special about the Q believers sat there in their little stupid chairs saying, ho ho ho, look at the things those idiots believe.
At the same time, they believed everything CNN told them for years.
That's what's actually happening.
Somebody says, why are you defending Q? Why are you so fucking stupid that you think I'm defending Q? What's wrong with you?
Seriously. How could you fucking listen to this and say, why are you defending Q? That's like the dumbest fucking thing anybody's said in months.
No. The point is, they're not any worse in any way than any of you idiots.
Right? And that includes me.
So we're all idiots. So I don't put you in the idiot class and then not put myself there.
Human beings are fucking idiots.
We're all idiots.
We're just idiots in different ways.
Alright? So, I was playing, we've been playing Trivial Pursuit, Christine and I have, and some of our downtime.
So, not Trivial Pursuit per se, but we've been playing these online trivia games.
And it is fascinating to play online trivia with someone who is also very smart, but the things they know about are different than the things you know about.
And you realize, like for example, I learned I don't know anything about the planets.
Nothing. Turns out the solar system is like this big black box.
I knew there was planets.
I just didn't really care about them too much.
What's the biggest planet?
Let's see how much you know about planets.
What's the biggest planet, without looking it up?
I think it's Jupiter, right?
How many moons do each of the planets have?
Do you know that? Well, here are the planets in order.
I think you got your, what's closest?
You got your Mercury, then your Venus, your Earth, your Mars, your Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune in that order.
Did you know that? I didn't know it until the other day.
Do you know how many moons each of our planets have?
Well, Mercury, closest to the Sun, in terms of how close they are to the Sun.
Mercury, zero. Venus, zero.
Earth, one. Mars, two.
And then I think it's Saturn with like 79 moons.
And then it goes to Uranus with 62 and then 24 and something else, 14, 27, 14.
So look how much I don't know about the solar system I'm in.
Pluto, don't give me your Pluto.
I don't need any Pluto stuff.
Let's not call Pluto a planet.
Let's go with the consensus.
Anyway, my point is that everybody has blind spots.
Everybody has stuff that they think is true that isn't.
Everybody has gigantic gaps in their common understanding of the world.
And I'm no different.
You're no different. So as soon as you tell yourself that the Q people have some kind of weird mental problem, you don't understand anything about the world.
It's the most basic understanding that you need to have about reality is that the Q believers are normal.
They're not right.
They're just normal.
Just like you, they just believe different stuff and you believe other stuff that isn't true.
For the most part, we're all in that category.
COVID hospitalizations have dropped below 100,000 for the first time in nearly two months.
That's not enough to celebrate yet, but Could be the turning point.
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the pandemic still be getting worse?
Because we're right smack dab in the middle of the The winterest time, right?
So I would think, all things being equal, the virus should have continued getting worse through February, unless we were doing things that worked.
So one of the things you should know is that although the vaccinations have only gotten to, what, 5% or 10% of the population, if they get the 5% or 10% that matter the most, First, you should probably guess something like, I'm just going to put a guess on this, but I'll bet that 10 to 20 percent of the public being vaccinated would be something like a 50 percent reduction in deaths.
If you vaccinated the right people, right?
If you get the people most at risk of actually dying from it, the old people, and the most risk of getting it, the frontline workers, let's say, you should be able to take 50% right off the death rate in maybe another month.
The last 50% is going to be tough.
But the first 50% you should get fairly quickly, and I think we might be just a week or two away from seeing a pretty steep drop.
So we'll see. I'm being an optimist.
Maybe the numbers don't quite work that way, but it should make a difference if you get the ones who are going to die.
If you protect them, that should make a big difference.
All right. Apparently five of, I guess all of them, I think, Trump's impeachment defense attorneys all quit a little more than a week before the trial is going to be set.
And somebody who's familiar with the discussion says that the reason that they quit is that Trump wanted the attorneys to argue there was a mass election fraud and that the election was stolen.
Now does that sound familiar?
So that's exactly what I said Trump should do.
Because he's not going to get convicted in the Senate, and he's never made his argument.
His argument has always been made by hyperbole, and it's always the bad claims, and if there are any good claims, we haven't heard them yet, but the bad claims are the ones getting all the attention.
So Trump has never...
Had qualified people stand in front of the whole public and just tell them what he believes to be true.
You know, with whatever is the best information they have without the crazy Venezuelan stuff, etc.
Now, how much would you like to see Trump just make his case for what he was thinking about the election security?
I'd really, really like to see it.
And I think the country would be better off, actually.
I think we actually need to get past it.
Now my guess is...
That if you were going to see some kind of, you know, a kill shot, probably you would have seen it by now, right?
So it could be that all that happens is that Trump makes his case, everybody on both sides looks at it, it gets completely debunked by people who are credible, and then the public says, okay, all those Republicans who thought the election was stolen, you've seen the best case made, you've seen it debunked, can we move on?
That could be a possibility, right?
Would that be bad? Would it be bad for the Republicans, who still harbor some feelings about the election, to just sort of get it out of their system?
Let's just put it all out there.
A little time has gone by, so it's not as red-hot as it was.
Just put it out there.
Let the debunkers debunk.
Let's just see what we know and what we don't, and maybe it tells us how to fix it for next time.
I feel as though the temperature has come down enough That we could talk about it now.
For the first time, really.
Because people are too excited about it might change the outcome if you talk about it.
Somebody says, you lost.
Get over it, loser.
Goodbye. I don't think you quite understand what's going on here, but you're gone.
I think the country needs to hear the argument and also hear the debunk of the argument.
And that really hasn't been done to, let's say, the satisfaction of the public.
Now some will say it's been done to the satisfaction of the courts.
I don't believe that to be true.
I believe the courts sort of had a casual acquaintance with some of the claims that were more ridiculous than the others.
The courts sort of had a brushing, glancing relationship with the claims.
So, I'd like to hear them.
Let's hear the claims.
And by the way, if every claim turned out to be ridiculous, a lot of the claims that we've heard are clearly ridiculous, but if they all turned out to be ridiculous, and every one of them were debunked right in front of you, wouldn't that be better?
Than what we have now.
Because what we have now is people not so confident in the result.
But I'd like to have more confidence.
So why can't we put it out there?
Let the people who want to embarrass Trump and whoever backs his claims, let them do it.
If Trump wants to make the argument in public, I feel like it's a public service.
Because it would be more a referendum on the transparency of our election system in general than it would be about any specific claims.
Because nothing's going to be reversed at this point.
But we still have interest about the next election.
So let's put it out there.
Let's see if the public says, yeah, that's been debunked and we can move on.
Unless he has some complaints that can't be debunked.
Here's what I would expect to come out of it.
I would expect to see some statistical claims that maybe you haven't seen before that would be short of proof.
But certainly strong enough to give you some suspicion that maybe we should look into this a little more.
Probably enough to make you work harder to fix the integrity of the system so that it's more transparent.
If all we get out of it is more transparency for the next election, that's a lot.
That would be a lot to get out of it.
And I wouldn't sneeze at that.
That could be a great public service, actually, if done right.
If done wrong, it's just a good show, which should be okay too.
So Russia has arrested over a thousand people who are protesting in favor of this critic of Putin's, this Navalny guy who was poisoned but lived.
People assume that Putin tried to kill him.
And I guess he's got some popular support because there are protests in Russia, but I wonder if the U.S. is behind any of that.
Do you think the U.S. or, I don't know, Great Britain or anybody, do you think anybody's helping the protesters a little bit?
Wouldn't you assume they are?
Don't you assume that in the Biden administration, Since we know that Hillary Clinton was at least accused of helping the protesters moving against Putin back in Hillary's day, wouldn't you assume that Biden is doing a similar thing?
You know, trying to move against Russia by giving their opposition a little bit of a hand or a little bit of a push, maybe just propaganda-wise, maybe just propaganda-wise.
Yeah, why not? I mean, I assume that everybody's doing it to everybody.
So, I guess we'll never know.
There was one of the claims by the critic is that Putin has this secret mansion that's just super gaudy and it's got a giant aquarium and stuff in it.
And Putin says that's not his and doesn't belong to anybody he's close to.
To which I say...
Does any of that matter?
Is there somebody who thinks that Putin doesn't have a nice house?
If you found out that Putin's house was a little bit nicer than you thought it was, or he found out he had more homes than you thought he had, would that change anything?
Is there somebody who thinks that Putin is living like a monk?
He's probably one of the richest people in the world.
Given that he essentially controls the wealth of Russia.
So I'm not sure that the critic has much on him, given that it's just what everybody would assume.
He's living like a king.
All right, so we'll keep an eye on that.
Here's in propaganda news.
Have you seen the phrase, the big lie?
I think CNN uses it, maybe on MSNBC. The big lie with capital B, capital L. Now, I believe that the origin of that phrase, the big lie, comes from Nazi propaganda, and the idea that the bigger the lie, the more likely you can get people to believe it.
If a lie is so big and outrageous, people are actually more likely to believe it.
You can see the Q phenomenon is one of those examples.
The Q was such a big, crazy claim that the very bigness of it makes it look convincing.
It's small claims that you can doubt.
It's like, hey, did somebody do something?
I don't know. I doubt it. But you make it big enough and people will just sort of buy into it because it's so big.
The bigness actually is part of selling it.
So that's what the Democrats have decided that anybody who's claiming there was a problem with the election are part of the, quote, big lie.
Basically painting them as Nazis.
Right? Basically painting them as Nazis.
And basically painting me by association.
Right? And I'd like to give a shout-out to the propaganda masters who have done this.
The branding of the election claims as being the big lie is really good Nazi propaganda.
Because what they've done is they've projected their own fault on other people, turned it into the big lie, put a brand on it, and actually sold it.
They actually sold it to the people...
Who were complaining about transparency.
They said, your claim of fraud is the big lie, rather than the claim that the election was transparent.
Which one's the big lie?
Is it true that the election was transparent?
I haven't seen any evidence of that.
I've seen evidence that people have not found proof there was widespread fraud.
I agree that that's a completely true statement in terms of the courts.
Yeah. And if I'm going to be objective about pointing out who has good technique as opposed to who is right and wrong, which is a separate question, you can decide who's right and wrong.
But in terms of the propaganda and persuasion technique, this is good Nazi technique.
So the Democrats are using fairly tried-and-true Nazi methods for propaganda, and it's really working well.
I guess that's why Hitler was as successful as he was, and the Democrats are borrowing that technique here, and it works.
Here's what I tweeted this morning, and I don't know if I'm cancelled yet.
I should probably check Twitter and see if I'm still on there.
Let's see if I got cancelled.
Let's see if I still have an account.
Let's see. Does Scott still have an account?
That looks like it. I haven't been cancelled yet.
Alright, what I tweeted this morning, maybe gone by the end of the day, I said, as I often say, and you've heard me say this, right?
I've often said that I'm 100% in favor of referring to people by their preferred pronouns and labels.
I think that's just good manners.
I know some of you are incensed.
Why are they making me use these words when I want to use the other words that I've always used?
Why must I use your pronoun?
Why must I call you this word when the other word used to be fine?
And I hear what you're saying.
It's annoying to you.
You feel like maybe they're taking advantage of you or something like that.
But To me, the biggest factor is just good manners.
If somebody says, this word for me makes me feel uncomfortable, but this other word for me does not, what am I going to do with that?
I'm not going to use the word that makes them uncomfortable because I'm used to it.
Wouldn't good manners?
Just pure good manners should tell you to call people what they would like to be called.
That's it. If you think it's a political thing, If it's Democrat versus Republican, it's not any of that.
It's just good manners.
I'm watching violent disagreement by some of you in the comments.
But I would like to take that theme that mostly people on the left are pushing, that there are preferred pronouns and preferred labels, and agree with it, and say, let's do more of it.
Let's do more of it.
And I would like to add to that That calling anybody a white supremacist, unless they're actually a member of a group that has that in the mission statement, but calling just Republicans and people who are not in any way affiliated with any kind of racist organization, calling them white supremacists, I want to put that out there that that's basically the N-word for white people.
When somebody refers to me that way, as happens about three times a day on social media, the way I receive it would be a way I would imagine somebody would receive the n-word.
It's the way I would imagine somebody would receive being called the wrong pronoun.
It's the way I would imagine people would receive using the insulting word for them instead of the polite word.
I'm not going to say it's a contest, right?
If somebody says, no, the N-word is worse than all the other words, I would say, yeah, you could make a pretty good argument for that.
I'd probably agree with it.
I think the N-word is maybe the worst of all words.
If you were going to list all the words in the English language, you could make a pretty good case.
That the N-word is the worst word.
So, I'll give you that.
But in terms of how it feels when you're on the receiving end of it, I would like to ask for the same consideration that I would like to grant other people.
I grant other people absolute right under...
All rules of social behavior and manners to be called exactly what they want.
Now, of course, if they want to be called King and Lord, I might resist that a little bit.
But if somebody has a proper name for the group that they belong to, I'm happy to use that word.
I would just like to ask the same.
I would like to ask the same, that if anybody uses the white supremacist label, About people who are not directly involved in that kind of behavior, that that should be a firing offense.
I think that you should lose your job for calling somebody a white supremacist.
Unless, like I say, they're actually a member of the Ku Klux Klan, that's fine.
But calling, say, a politician or just a supporter or calling the people in queue or the rally people, calling them white supremacists should be a cause for losing your job.
And if that's not immediately true, well, maybe the Republicans should push a little on that.
Maybe we should make that something that costs you your job.
Because it's only up to the people who are being called the name To decide whether that's inappropriate.
And I think that it's just time to say that the white supremacist label is essentially the N-word for white people.
Again, it's not a contest.
If you want to tell me the N-word's worse than all words, I'd agree with that.
But you see the point, right?
You see the point? So...
When you tell me that we must push back against people trying to push you to act and be a certain way, I say, why not adopt their rule and see if they like it?
So adopting the rule that calling somebody a white supremacist should be a firing offense.
It should be the last time you do business with a company.
If they use that, the last time you vote for somebody.
It should be automatic.
All right. God thinks conservatives have rights.
Well, you only have the rights that you assert, right?
That's one of the weird parts of the law, that you could have a right, but if you don't assert it, you sort of lose it by not using it.
There's some context where that's true.
And this is one of those.
I think you don't have the right to anything if you don't assert it.
So if you assert it, You can create the right.
But if you don't assert it, it doesn't matter if it's in the Constitution.
That's not going to help you.
You've got to assert it to make it real.
Somebody says, fight fire with fire.
And I say, no. Fight sugar with sugar.
You don't have to be unkind.
It doesn't have to be a fight.
You just need to agree.
If you use these words, that's over the line.
If you say, I use these words, that's over the line.
Let's agree. Let's agree there's some words over the line and the affected group gets to say what words are acceptable.
I find that standard completely reasonable.
Completely. Now, yesterday I did a micro-lesson on the locals platform that you haven't seen here, and some people said, but Scott, Why do you agree with the left when they say you use these pronouns or whatever?
Because they never give in to the right.
To which I say, I don't know if that's true.
Are you saying that the left never gives an inch and only the right gives in to whatever they think the topic requires?
I would say, I don't know.
Let's see with the Supreme Court.
If the Democrats do not increase the number of people on the court, then I would say that they accepted a lot.
That would be accepting a lot.
If you were a Democrat, it's got to be pretty tough to accept what happened at the Supreme Court, you know, the nominations that Trump did.
Kind of tough to accept.
But if they don't pack the court, they accepted it.
That's a pretty big deal, right?
Now, and then I heard the argument that if they're forcing you to use, I don't know, pronouns or use certain words about people, that you're losing somehow, and they're winning, because they forced you to do something, but you didn't force them to do anything.
To which I say, I don't know, why is everything framed as a battle?
You don't really have to frame this one as a fight.
You can just say, we always had manners, and We had manners before.
We'll always have good manners.
It's not a new thing.
The fact that some new words are coming into the conversation of what is good manners is no big deal.
That happens all the time. Words come and go.
So I don't think that Republicans would be giving up anything by calling people by the names that they would like to be called.
There's nothing given up.
It's just good manners, and you wanted that.
Who are the Republicans who are arguing in favor of bad manners?
Who? Is that an argument?
I don't think so. So if you think of it as a fight, yeah, I guess you're losing.
So don't think of it as a fight.
Think of it as a continual update of what good manners are.
And if you want to have good manners, be there.
Somebody says they're amazed that they're agreeing with me four times in one periscope.
Let's see. It's tough to remember.
I'm just looking to see if I'm getting much agreement or disagreement.
Somebody says, okay, I'm done.
I'm not going to be giving any good manners.
Who enforces good manners?
Well, society does. I mean, we do it to each other.
That's how it works. Now, I would say also that at the same time you can say people should be called by the words that they prefer.
I think you also have to say that humans are somewhat flawed and they're not going to get it right all the time.
Right? If you accidentally call somebody a he who would prefer to be called a she or vice versa, how about just correcting it when it's pointed out?
And how about just saying, oh, okay, we're normal people who make mistakes or we simply didn't know it's not a mistake if you didn't know.
And just allow that it's an imperfect system.
It's the best you can do. All right.
Enough on that. Have you noticed that there's very little happening in the news?
I'm kind of hoping for Trump to handle the impeachment the way he wants to, which is defending the election integrity, or questioning the integrity of the election.
That would be entertaining, and we'd finally have something to talk about.
But Biden is just pushing through tons of stuff That I don't know how much impact any of it's going to have on me.
I woke up today and it was sort of like yesterday.
It's amazing how many things can change in the government without any of it having any impact on you.
I mean, Biden just set some kind of record for signing executive orders.
I don't know that any of it will affect me.
Have you seen all the executive orders?
Do any of them affect you?
I mean, if you work for the oil industry, you probably get pretty affected.
But beyond that, I'm just not seeing much effect.
Somebody says, you're rich, Scott.
Is that why it's not affecting me?
Okay, yeah, oil field workers are definitely affected, so the oil industry is directly affected for sure.
Somebody says, typical rich guy attitude.
Well, if there's someone here who is directly affected by an executive order, except for the oil industry, that one's obvious, let me know.
What is it that you've been affected by so far?
Somebody says, gas prices going up, but have they?
Have they gone up already?
It seems like they would, right?
But have they? Somebody's saying the price for gas will go up.
You know, I'm not sure that's even predictable anymore.
Because the demand for gas, I think, will be permanently lower because of lack of commuting going forward.
Yeah, I've got a feeling that, at least in the short run, gas doesn't have enough demand to go up, but I could be wrong.
Oh, increased costs of insulin.
Yeah, there's one. Now, when you hear these stories about Trump signing something that would lower insulin costs, but now Biden has reversed it, don't you feel like you're missing a lot of context?
I mean, do you think that Biden got, you know, he was given this executive order to sign, And he said, we're going to raise the price of insulin.
And he looked at it and said, well, that's a good idea.
And then he signed it.
There's got to be more to that story, right?
Or is it exactly what it looks like that the pharmaceutical industry got to Biden and he just gave them a gift?
Was it that? I have a feeling that there was an argument.
He might have had a reason.
Might have been a good one.
Might have been a bad one. But I didn't hear it.
Did you? Did anybody hear it?
D.C. statehood.
Yeah, we'll see where that goes.
We'll see where that goes.
The most reasonable, likely thing that will happen is that the Democrats will overplay their hand and Republicans will surge back eventually.
Somebody says, okay, so Scott is just a naysayer.
Now, I think my new thing is that I'm just going to block...
Anybody who wants to characterize me as always does one thing.
So it doesn't matter what you say I always do.
But if you say I always do that thing, you're always wrong.
Because I don't always agree with Trump.
I don't always criticize everything.
I don't always do anything.
So the worst take about me...
Is, you know, Scott always does this.
So, okay, so Scott is a naysayer, says this person that's blocked forever.
goodbye Mike.
So I like it when you make comments about the content, but when you make global sweeping statements about me that are stupid, I'll go block those.
He doesn't know what he's signing.
Yeah. Who knows?
What's your best...
Scott has blind spots.
What kind of a dumb comment is that?
Scott has blind spots.
Because there's people who don't, right?
I just gave you a whole presentation about how everybody has blind spots, and then your comment is about me, that I have a blind spot.
You know I'm a person, right?
I just went through a whole thing about human beings having different blind spots.
So, you're going to get...
I'm going to hide you.
All right, that's it for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
