Episode 1982 Scott Adams: Lots Of Crazy Stories Today. Get In Here
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
China bans Deep Fakes
Peter Zaihan says China has 10 years left
Gabrielle Union was misinterpreted
Andrew Tate's powerful persuasion
Realization about the Clotberts
Dr. Malone's conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a finer thing.
Till tomorrow. And how many of you would like to see if you could boost not only your attitude, but everything that's good?
Yeah, you would. And all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, or stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go. I'm working on my Joe Biden whisper, whisper talk, where you go real high and get real angry, and then you whisper, because people really pay attention when you do that.
Well, you know, sometimes, do you like it when you see behind the scenes of how things are done?
On locals, don't tell them, don't tell YouTube that I'm setting them up for a joke.
They don't know what's coming.
Just be cool. Don't say anything.
Do you like it when you look behind the scenes?
You can see how things are done behind the scenes?
Yeah. It's called watching how they make the sausage.
And it's a good idea unless it's Jeffrey Toobin.
Because you don't want to see how he makes the sausage.
Am I right? Am I right?
Okay, I just wanted to start with that.
I saw a tweet from internet sensation and musical phenomenon, I don't know what to call him, Zuby?
What do you call Zuby?
Zuby's another one of those talent stack guys, where he's good at so many things, from fitness to social media to His main, I don't know, is his main job singing?
I guess. He does so many things well, it's hard to tell him what he does.
But Zuby tweeted today, I think it's weird that people think it's weird that I don't drink alcohol.
And then he says, poisoning yourself intentionally is a weird flex, in my humble opinion, but I support your right to do so.
Remember I asked yesterday, well, you didn't see it, the YouTubers didn't see it.
But I asked the locals people who subscribe and have followed me for a longer time.
I asked them how many had quit drinking alcohol because of a reframe that I talk about all the time, which is alcohol is poison.
Just that sentence. Alcohol is poison.
Because if you think of alcohol as a beverage, then it's just one of the things to choose when you're having dinner.
But if you think of it as poison...
You put it in a different category, it's just easier to deal with it.
Now, that's like one small example of what my upcoming book will have.
It'll have 130 or 140 of them, I think, or something like that.
So that's how powerful a reframe is.
Just one sentence and sometimes one word.
And I don't know if I've ever adequately explained why a reframe works.
Have I ever done that? Have I ever explained why a simple sentence like alcohol is poison works?
Here's the quick explanation.
There's a longer one in the book.
But the quick explanation is that words carry a program.
And the program of a word is independent of what sentence you put it in.
That's why hypnotists will tell you, don't say you're not ugly.
Because people hear the word ugly, and ugly carries power.
But the word not is sort of just a meaningless connector word, at least the way your brain processes it.
So words, you have to see them as independent programs that's even different from, and could be opposite from, the sentence that they're in.
So this is something the hypnotists understand, that the choice of words Can be as powerful as the sentence you put them in.
And that's why alcohol is poison, just connects the word poison, which is never good in any context.
Would you agree? There's no such thing as good poison.
And don't tell me about Botox.
Okay. Maybe sometimes there is.
But the point is, your brain automatically thinks negative when it thinks of poison.
So you just pair that word poison with anything.
With anything. It doesn't have to be alcohol.
That's just the one I use.
You just pair it with something and there you go.
Now alcohol had a little bit extra kicker in it because it was framed incorrectly as a beverage.
So it's easy to reframe something if its original frame looks sketchy to begin with, right?
So that one was easy.
Alright, did I predict that the headlines would tell you that there's way too much rain in California and we're still in a drought?
Do you remember me telling you that?
Wall Street Journal. One of the wettest two-week periods on record in California brought much-needed water to its reservoirs and snow to its mountains.
But researchers and officials said it would take several more winter storms to make a dent in the drought.
So there you go.
Only California can have massive rainfall and droughts at the same time.
Now, I think it's actually true.
I'm not saying it's untrue.
But you could have predicted it 100 miles away, right?
It's just a pattern that we repeat.
Too much rain and too much drought.
Believe it or not, China is banning deep fakes on social media.
That's right. China is banning deep fakes.
So if somebody creates a character that looks like a real person and acts like a real person, that would be illegal in China.
Now you might say to yourself, huh, China sounds like they are good stewards of their social media.
Sounds like they want to make sure that nobody is influenced in the wrong way.
Is that what's happening?
I don't think so. I think they're afraid of the deepfakes being used against them, obviously.
Since they have an authoritarian government, imagine how much havoc you could create with a fake President Xi deepfake.
Because people are going to do whatever the President Xi says.
They're not going to...
So all you need is one tweet that says, everybody, quickly, turn out the lights, or whatever.
And people would immediately walk over to the light switch and turn off the lights.
I mean, that would be an interesting test, wouldn't it?
Here's how you could test it.
Make a deepfake of President Xi.
I'm not recommending this, really.
This is a mental exercise.
Don't actually do this. Like, literally, don't do this.
Right? This is just a mental exercise.
But you could test the power of a deepfake this way.
You can make a deepfake that looks like President Xi and put it on social media.
Now it's probably too late because he's already made them illegal.
But even if it's illegal, it's going to spread before they catch it, right?
And have them say at, like, midnight in China, everybody turn out their lights for ten minutes or one hour or something.
Everybody turn out your lights for one hour, and then come up with some official-sounding reason.
Like, we're having trouble with our grid.
The energy grid is being taxed.
So turn off your lights for one hour from midnight to one.
And then actually watch China from a satellite.
I'll bet you the lights would go off.
I'll bet they would. Now you wouldn't really hurt any, well, ideally you wouldn't hurt anybody.
I'm trying to think of an experiment where nobody dies, but probably somebody would die if you turned down the lights at the same time.
But that's not the point.
The point is, you could probably test it.
And I'll bet you a deep fake of a dictator would change the whole country immediately.
If it were a bigger ask, it might be a bigger problem.
But I think you'd get half of China to turn off the lights at the same time with a deepfake.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Do you think that could be done?
If they didn't police for the deepfake and it became viral before the government figured out how to turn it off, I think the lights would go off.
Because imagine thinking that if you don't turn off your lights, the government will open your door and drag you to jail.
Because if you're Chinese and you think the government just told you to turn off your lights for an hour, I'll bet you'd do it, because it would be so obvious if you didn't do it.
If you were the only one on your block with the lights on, you tell me you wouldn't be afraid?
You would be afraid. Because it'd be so obvious you were defying the government if you thought the government ordered you to do that.
It'd be an interesting test.
I'll bet somebody will test it someday.
All right. SpaceX.
Somehow I wasn't entirely up to date on this story.
I didn't realize that SpaceX was making a reusable Starship that can carry up to 100 metric tons of cargo.
And crew per launch.
And then it's reusable. And they've got this giant tower that's got these two chopstick-like arms that come out.
And apparently, as the rocket is sort of coming back down, you know, not perfectly stable, it's going to fall right between the chopstick arms.
They grab it and put it back on the ground.
Is that actually going to work?
Is that going to work?
That is so counterintuitive of how you would engineer something.
Well, I'm sure it will. I mean, obviously, SpaceX knows what it's doing.
And to be honest, I didn't think they would ever make a reusable rocket.
I mean, the fact that they can land a reusable rocket upright blows my mind, the fact that they figured out how to do that.
But something tells me this will work, too.
Have you ever noticed that one of the characteristics of Elon Musk's companies, at least his two biggest ones, maybe his three biggest ones, if you can't remember, Starlink, that they all kill people?
Have you ever thought about that?
And I'm going to spin this in a positive way, even though I'm starting with killing people.
There's no question that the Tesla's Because of their unique design, different than regular cars, you know, in terms of electronics, etc., may have killed some people who would not have died if the Tesla didn't exist.
I'm not saying Teslas are dangerous, that I don't have any data to support that.
I'm saying that if you make a car company, it wouldn't matter if you're Ford or anybody else, you're making a product that's going to kill somebody.
Would you agree that just making a car company It means your product is going to kill some people.
Now, it's usually their fault, but sometimes not, right?
So, you know, sometimes Ford will make a Ford Pinto, and they didn't intend anything to go wrong, but it did, right?
Yeah, now do crossing the street, right?
So everything's dangerous.
But here's the thing I respect the most about, well, it's one of the things, about Musk's, you know, big projects.
When talking about going to Mars and settling it, Musk says flat out, people are going to die.
He just says it right out.
Yeah, people are going to die.
Because people always die when you do something that pioneering.
Anything that pioneering is going to be expensive in terms of lives.
But imagine having the stones to build companies that are definitely going to kill some people, but the benefit from them is so much larger than the cost that it's still worth doing.
That takes a lot of stones to actually know that your actions will kill people.
Not guessing. He's not guessing.
The odds of that being true, that people will die going to Mars, it's got to be close to 100%, right?
A few people. We don't know how many.
But, you know, just think about how happy you should be that there are people who are just willing to do the hardest thing you can do.
How would you sleep if something you created killed some people?
And you watched it on the news.
Horrible. Horrible.
Do you think that Elon Musk knows that someday he's going to watch that on the news?
You know, you could argue maybe he's already seen news about Tesla's exploding or something.
So maybe he's already seen it.
But certainly in the rocket, you know, one of these days, one of them is going to go wrong.
And he's going to have to watch that.
He's going to have to watch that on TV. Now, he signed up for that.
Like, he knows, I'm sure he knows, because he said it directly.
He knows what the downside is for him personally.
And the upside, I don't know.
Does he need any more upside than he already has?
Can Elon Musk do better?
I mean, if he's doing better than everybody else on the planet, I mean, he could take his foot off the pedal if he wanted to.
No, I just love the fact that he exists.
I love the fact that he just won't stop for anything.
He won't stop for his own personal risk, and it doesn't look like he's chasing it just for his own personal satisfaction.
I think he's actually in it for exactly the reason he says.
Good for the world, and that makes him feel good.
So, let's be glad that exists.
I was watching Peter Zan on Rogan.
I don't know how recently he was on.
And he was talking about China had 10 years left.
Do you believe that? China has 10 years left before they're in so much trouble they'll never look like China again for a long time.
Now here's the argument.
That China's been lying for years, as much as by 100 million people, what their population is.
So they might already be in population inversion, meaning they have too many old people and not enough young people to support them, and not enough people in the middle to buy the products That young people might make if they do a start-up or something.
So that there's actually no economic way for them to fix it, but the thing that makes it worse, says Peter Sand, is that China is unable to pivot quickly Because that would require President Xi to get good information from his advisors, and we believe, with good reason to believe it, that he's not.
That people are afraid to tell the truth.
Sort of the Putin problem. Now here's my first comment.
I feel like we always say that about every dictator.
Is it always true?
Like, Putin is too insulated.
Kim Jong-un is too insulated.
President Xi is too insulated.
Name some... Who else?
Name another dictator. Name a dictator that we don't say...
Biden. Biden.
Yeah, we actually say it about Biden.
Castro. We used to say it about Castro, right?
I don't know about Trudeau.
That's a stretch. Maybe.
All right. So...
I'm not entirely sure that these dictators are not getting the right information.
I'm not entirely sure.
It's definitely possible.
I would say it's well within the, you know, easily believable, you know, the explanation of why it could be so, make sense, etc.
But I feel like their incentive to have the right answer is so high that they would just force it somehow.
I don't know. So I guess I'm skeptical that Xi isn't getting the right information, but he might not have the flexibility that other people have for a variety of reasons.
Who knows? So we'll see.
I don't know. I've been telling you that China is unsafe for business, but even I didn't know how unsafe.
And apparently they're going to have a technology collapse as well.
Because of the sanctions that we put on their chip business, I guess.
All right, we'll see. I saw a tweet from Machiavelli's Underbelly today, who said, quote, I believe this is a simulation, meaning a reality.
I believe this is a simulation because I experience the world in a way that is not plausible.
Now, I've often read tweets from Machiavelli's Underbelly account, and I can confirm that his life is not plausible.
I mean, even just the stuff I've seen, it's not plausible.
Because one of the implausible things is that he influences me almost every day.
Like, his content almost always influences me.
And I believe there's evidence that I'm influencing other things.
So his life is actually implausible.
And he's had a number of experiences in his private life that he's tweeted about that also look pretty implausible.
Very implausible.
And so I was boosting that thought, because in my case, my life is so implausible.
Everything about my life is completely implausible.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Specifically, the way my life unfolds is like there's only 12 people in the world who matter.
And that's not the case.
There are 8 billion people who matter.
But it seems like every time there's some big story in the world, somehow I'm in the middle of it.
That's not possible.
That's completely implausible.
Like, you can imagine somebody being in the middle of a few stories.
A few, right?
You can imagine that. But it's way beyond that.
And it doesn't make any sense at all.
Alright, and I'll give you more on that later.
But I just want you to keep that to standard in mind, that people like Elon Musk...
Musk is a great example.
Elon Musk's life is completely implausible.
Like, not just one or two things he did, but just all of it.
Like, the whole thing is implausible.
So the people who have implausible lives...
The people with implausible lives probably are more likely to believe that God is guiding them or has chosen them, or they live in a simulation.
It definitely influences your beliefs.
All right, actress Gabrielle Union is getting some trouble on social media because, of course, they misinterpreted something she said.
So, with your permission, I would like to continue my role as public defender Of the people who need some public defending.
Not because I agree with them, because later I'm going to say some things about Andrew Tate, and you know I'm not a fan.
But when people are illegitimately accused of things, be they celebrities or politicians, be they politicians I like or not, be they people I hate or love, in all cases, if there's an obvious defense, I'm going to present it. Because I feel like the world is a little bit better if we, you know, assume innocence until proven guilty and if people get a fair airing of their side.
It's just a better world. So I'm going to, like, try to fill in a little of that as I can.
All right, so here's what Gabrielle Union was getting crap about before I defend her.
Apparently she cheated wildly on her husband.
I don't know if it was her first husband or what her current situation is, but she did wildly on him.
And the comment that is getting her trouble is that Union added that she also felt comfortable with doing what she wanted, meaning cheating, since she, quote, paid all the bills.
So since she was the one who paid the bills, she felt That cheating was a little bit more allowed.
Now, does that story sound true?
Does it sound like anything might be missing from the story?
Yeah. Here's the part that's missing from the story.
Her husband never stopped dating after he got married.
That's a small detail.
Small detail. Yeah, she says so directly, that neither of them, neither of them, neither of them stopped dating after they got married.
And she thinks maybe that wasn't an ideal situation.
But on top of the fact that they both dated...
Now, her argument is that he was doing these things and so she thought she could match him.
So you have to question whether he did it first or not.
I don't know if he did it first.
That's impossible for us to know.
But that's the story.
If you leave out the story that the husband had been dating since he was married...
It looks a little different, doesn't it?
Now imagine the story once you know the context.
Once you know that they're both wildly cheating, and she also was bugged by the fact that she was paying the bills, Not only for herself, but for the guy who was cheating on her, even though she was cheating on him.
Now, I think she probably could have left out the paying the bills part.
You know, that part didn't help her.
But that part got elevated to be the story, and that's not the story.
The story is there are two people who are not monogamous.
That's the end of the story.
Two people who are not monogamous.
You don't need to know anything else.
So I defend Gabrielle Union as just somebody who is in a suboptimal marriage, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the entire story.
Alright, favorite story of the day, the United Kingdom, teachers in the United Kingdom have a problem, apparently.
I have to get ready for this story, because this was just too good.
They're trying to deprogram the young boys in the United Kingdom, the teachers are, because they've been too influenced by Andrew Tate.
Andrew Tate apparently has influenced these young boys.
So they're trying to re-educate the teenage students.
And so they had a group of them, I guess 30 of them, and they were sort of trying to deprogram them and find out what they thought about Andrew Tate.
And apparently the conversation drifted into rape, and the boys were adopting, like 10 of the boys out of 30, which is a lot, were adopting the Andrew Tate Take on it, which I'm not promoting, I'm just saying he says it, that women are sometimes bringing problems on themselves.
Now, you know you're not supposed to say that, but Andrew Tate said it, and 10 out of 30 of the boys that they talked to were on that page.
Maybe the women should take more responsibility for being in the situation.
Now, there are all kinds of reasons why that's not a good standard.
Do you agree? There are all kinds of reasons why the Tate version of things is not the one you want to teach to your kids.
But he's very persuasive.
And here's my take on the story.
Number one, Andrew Tate's persuasion is way more powerful than the education system of the UK. He's just better at it.
Now, I'm no fan, and you all know that, right?
I'm sort of anti-tape, just for my personal reasons, for personal interaction, not from public stuff.
So, just from my own experience, I know him to be a liar, and I know him to be a weasel.
But it is nonetheless true.
He's super talented, meaning that his persuasion game is one of the best I've ever seen.
And part of the reason it's so good is his physicality.
And also the things he's combining with his persuasion.
Because he has, apparently, a great grasp of social media and figured out some system to get lots of clip retweets and postings.
I think that was a big secret to his viral success.
So that was all skill, right?
He knew how to make something viral.
That was skill. That wasn't luck.
He knew how to make a message that would travel.
And he does it over and over again.
That's skill. That's not luck.
And he acted on a new technology, these reels and TikTok.
That's opportunistic.
It's smart. It's not luck.
And on top of that, because his sort of manly message is backed by his persona.
So his physicality and his fighting credentials match really well with his persuasion.
So if you're a young boy, you see somebody who's strong and successful and powerful, and anything he says is just going to sound good to you.
Anything he says. So he has the whole package, and you can see why it was so successful.
Because he checked every box.
For the people he was trying to persuade.
Now, women, of course, are having a different reaction to him, but it wasn't who he was talking to.
Maybe he picks up a few women, but mostly he was talking to these young guys who were emulating his model.
It was mostly a thing for guys.
So the first thing is, I don't think the UK has any idea how powerful that message is.
And if they're going to try to erase it, it just might get more powerful.
Because if they make it banned, oh, there's no teenage boys who want to look at stuff that's inappropriate.
I don't know how in the world they could possibly combat his message.
He just has too much firepower.
They're overwhelmed. They have no idea what they're up against.
Anyway... Here's a question they should be asking themselves instead of reprogramming the boys.
Why is Andrew Tate's message so powerful?
They're asking the wrong question.
The question they're asking themselves is, how can we reprogram these boys?
Wrong question. The right question is, why was this message so easily picked up?
It's because those kids were ready for that message.
They were ready for that message.
Why? Why were they so ready for that message?
What was it in the environment that made them susceptible to the first Andrew Tate who came along?
Because if it had not been him, it could have been somebody else.
Because it was the message that they're grabbing onto.
It's not really the personality.
They should ask themselves that question.
What are they doing wrong for boys?
That's the question. What is the education system doing wrong for boys that Andrew Tate looked like a better option than what they were providing?
If you don't ask that question, you're not much of an academic group, are you?
All right. Now, in the context also of being the public defender for people who can't do it themselves, Andrew Tate is allegedly in some kind of detention in Romania.
Would you agree that he cannot defend himself in public?
True? He has a great disadvantage.
He could maybe do it through third parties in an awkward way.
But really, he's at the mercy of the public.
And in those cases, I provide my public defender services, not because I think he should be free, not because I think he's innocent of all things, I don't know, how would I know, but because he's in a position which no citizen of any country should be in, which is being accused of the worst possible crimes and be unable to speak for himself.
That's the worst.
Would you agree? If you could just put for a moment your feelings about him individually to the side, which is hard, let's give him what every citizen deserves.
I saw today a tweet, which is a smart question, and it showed Andrew Tate seemingly to admit to crimes.
Seemingly. And then we'll talk about whether he actually did.
Seemingly... Well, he said this, but we'll talk about whether it's a crime.
He said that he has these cam girls that he is trained to lie to the guys...
That think they're maybe getting into a relationship with them.
And then they'll say things like, well, I would love to meet up with you in real life, but I don't have a visa, and the flight would be expensive, and I'd need money to get together.
So send me $10,000.
And so they send him $10,000, and then he teaches the girls to the women.
He teaches the women to lie and say, oh, another thing came up.
First, I need a medical procedure, or whatever it is, so that they just keep stringing along and getting money.
Now, illegal or legal?
Go. Crime?
Crime or no crime? You presume it's a crime, right?
You presume it's a crime.
I don't know. I don't know.
But let me give you the counter-argument.
You can make up your own mind, but I'll give you the counter-argument because you've never heard it.
Now, just consider the fact that you've never heard this.
I'll bet. Number one, could you ever make it illegal for women to make romance-related promises to men that they might not intend to keep?
Could it ever be illegal for women to lie to men in the domain of romance for any possible reason, for money, for anything?
Could it ever be illegal for women to lie to men about romance-related stuff?
It's a slippery slope.
You could try.
I mean, you could try, but how would you ever enforce that?
You know, wouldn't everybody take their girlfriend to court?
How many ordinary people had their spouse or girlfriend lie to them about what they would do in return for money?
It's the most common thing in the world.
You couldn't possibly make that illegal, could you?
Like, if you made it illegal, you'd have to look for something like a conspiracy, right?
And then Andrew Tate could just say, well, you know, I trained him how to do this, but I didn't tell her to do that specific thing.
And then what? Is he at fault?
If he trained them on a general technique and said, if you use this technique, you will make more money for yourself, and then I'll share some of it.
Is that illegal? Because he wouldn't be forcing him to do it.
I suppose if he forced him to do it, then it looks different.
But if he just said, this is a method you could make more money, and then I would make more money too.
Because that might be how the girls, the women, I keep saying girls, but that might be how the women feel they're making more money.
Maybe they thought it was a benefit.
Who knows? Now, as far as the guys...
Here's my second argument.
The first argument is there's no practical way to make it illegal for women to lie to men in the context of romance.
Would you agree with that? Would you agree with the basic, that it would be really dicey to make that illegal?
Now, there might be some law that covers this, and I don't know remaining law, so there might be some law.
But just in general, don't assume it's illegal.
We all assume it's illegal the moment we hear it.
But dig down a little.
It might not be. And let me ask you this.
Does Andrew Tate seem dumb to you?
Because what we see is him apparently admitting to a crime in the most visible way you possibly could.
Would he do that? He might.
I mean, anybody, you know, maybe, you know, hubris or something, right?
He might. I wouldn't rule it out.
But you have to ask yourself if that's compatible with everything else he's done.
Because everything else he's done seems, you know, maybe selfish and sketchy, but well thought out.
Do you think he wouldn't think that through?
Maybe. Maybe.
Maybe he's smart in a whole bunch of ways, but dumb in one specific way.
That's the thing. That could happen.
It just seems unlikely.
So if you're just assuming that he knows it's illegal and he admitted it, you know, directly, maybe.
That's possible. I just don't think it's the most likely explanation, but it's definitely possible.
Here's my better defense.
Did you know that in the context of entertainment, it is perfectly legal to lie to your audience?
Did you know that? How many of you knew that?
If what you're selling is entertainment, it's completely legal to lie.
No, I don't mean satire.
I don't mean parody. I mean, if you're a TV game show...
You can pretend that the participants don't already know the answer, even when they do.
That's legal. You could rig a game show as long as it's entertaining.
How about a magic act on television?
A magician can go on television and say, I promise you that this is not a camera trick.
Like, you know, it's not real magic, but I'm doing a magic trick that would look just the same if you were here in person.
But really, it's just a camera trick.
Totally legal. It's a complete lie, but it's in the service of entertainment.
Doesn't matter. The law allows that completely.
How about having a sporting competition that's actually fake?
Would that be legal?
Yeah, pro wrestling.
It pretends to be like it's real, but it's not.
But as long as it's entertainment, it's fine.
That's fine. How about...
Have you ever seen a musician lip-sync?
Go to a concert and somebody's lip-syncing?
But they don't say they're lip-syncing.
They pretend like they're actually singing.
Is that illegal?
No. No.
In the context of entertainment, perfectly legal.
Let's see. How about a reality TV show?
Thanks, Jeremy. How about a reality TV show?
Presented as true, but is largely scripted, right?
The problems they have are largely from the producers.
So, once you understand that, at least in America, it might be different in different countries, I don't know, the law is everywhere, but in America it's perfectly legal to lie to people if your context that you both understand is the context of entertainment.
What is a cam girl business?
It's entertainment.
He runs an entertainment business, which 100% of the people using it would understand as entertainment.
If they see women on camera, they know that that woman is wearing makeup.
The whole thing is like a presentation for effect.
Everybody involved knows that.
So I would like to at least put out the possibility...
Number one, that women lying to men in a romantic content, context, might not be illegal, because it might be too hard to make it illegal.
And secondly, if everybody knows it's an entertainment product, it might be legal to just say anything you want, as long as it's in the context of entertainment.
So, if it turns out that any of this is illegal, don't tell me I'm wrong.
You get that, right? I'm just introducing a reasonable doubt because Andrew Tate cannot speak for himself at the moment.
So you tell me, was this a service?
A service or no?
Was it useful for me to defend him in public even though I hate him?
I genuinely hate him.
This is the way I'd like to see the world work.
And by the way, if this ever happened to me, you know, here's sort of the golden rule thing.
If I ever got put in jail and, you know, accusations were spinning around, I would sure as hell want you defending me.
And I would want Andrew Tate defending me, too.
Although I hate him. I'm not sure he would.
But I'd want Andrew Tate to defend me.
If the situation were reversed, no matter how much he disliked me.
So, all right.
Is your nose blocked?
Yeah, always. All right.
So that was your service for the day.
Now, I'm going to talk about the clot birds for a moment, because I had a...
I had a realization.
Remember I told you I couldn't figure out why people were so mad at me in particular?
Right? It seemed like the anti-vaxxers had sort of targeted me, like more than other people.
Which was weird, because I was never against them.
Can you confirm?
I'd like a confirmation, at least from the people who have watched me the longest.
Can you confirm that not once did I say a negative word about people who refused the vaccination?
Or the masks?
Or the mandates? Or the alleged, what do you call it, the passport?
That I never said anything bad about anybody who was opposed to any of those things.
Confirmed, right? Confirmed.
Now, So you can see why I was confused.
I was confused.
Why is it that the person who does not say bad things about them is getting so much heat?
But I finally squared it.
I'm going to explain it to you.
And I think you'll learn something from this.
I think you will. As you just witnessed with my defense of Andrew Tate, I realize that much of the audience that only dips in and out, you know, maybe they see me only on Twitter, they don't understand that I defend the strongest point on both sides of most of the big issues.
Now, can you confirm to the clopperts that you've seen me over and over defend the strongest argument on both sides of the big thing?
You've seen me defend Biden, Have you not?
You've seen me defend Trump and also criticize both.
You've watched it.
You've seen me say the best reason you should get a vaccination and the worst.
You've seen me argue against masks and for them.
Because I give you the best argument on both sides.
Now, if you dipped in and only saw me arguing the side you didn't like...
Let me put you in the heads of the people that I'm not.
Here's a good experiment for you, or a good practice.
If you don't understand why something's happening, just spend a little time literally imagining what it's like to be the people who are mad at you.
Just imagine what their life is like.
Let me take you through this. Imagine you were an anti-vax person at the beginning of the pandemic.
Like when the vaccinations, let's call them shots or jabs, when the shots first rolled out, what was the mainstream media saying about you if you were anti-vax from day one?
They said you were anti-science.
They said you were a damn moron, right?
They said you were killing grandma, and you probably should not be allowed to participate in...
Oh, I can't do it.
Don't want to swear. They said you couldn't participate in society.
You couldn't even be around good people.
That's what they said about you.
Now imagine, put yourself in the head, because if you got vaccinated, you can't understand this.
Put yourself in the head of the people who took the most radical stand, which is, yes, I know all of science is telling me to do this, but I don't trust you.
Here are the reasons I don't trust you.
And they're pretty good reasons.
Pretty good reasons.
Because big pharma has lied to us.
Lots of money is involved.
Nobody trusts politicians.
All the good reasons to not do it, right?
Now imagine that you had been brutalized by the good people in society.
For a year and a half.
Maybe two years? How long has it been?
How long have the jabs been available?
Like two years? For two years, you've been treated like the shit of society.
Right? You all saw it.
It was brutal. It was brutal.
And then, you recognize that the best, strongest argument against your point of view came from me.
At the same time, the data was starting to turn your way.
Right? Because that's what happened.
The data started to turn their way.
You can't deny that. The data definitely turned in the direction of the anti-vaxxers.
Now, you could argue whether it's turned all the way.
You know, whether... You could still argue whether older people in comorbidities should have got the jab or not.
But the argument of whether young people should have been jabbed, I think it's over.
I think it's over.
Would you agree? Young males...
I feel like that argument is over.
Now, we haven't changed the policy, but I don't think the argument has much life in it, right?
So now, okay, go back, put yourself in the head, put yourself in the head of somebody who got shit on for their opinion for two years.
You know, kept away from society, couldn't fly, didn't have the normal rights of an American citizen.
For two years!
And then they see this asshole, me, and they don't know the full context, but they've seen a tweet in which, you know, they saw me argue one side, but they didn't see me argue the other side.
And they go, this is enemy number one.
Because the thing I didn't understand Because they don't see me arguing the other side.
The thing they don't understand, and maybe the rest of you don't understand, is how would that feel?
How would it feel?
Now, take the next step.
Now imagine if they incorrectly identified me as their enemy, when I'm closer to the opposite.
But having incorrectly identified me as their enemy, how would they feel if they could get revenge?
Meaning dunking on me in public?
How would it feel? Really good, right?
It would feel good.
It would literally be like a relief.
It's like, oh!
You people, because people would incorrectly lump me with the mandate people.
I was anti-mandate from the start.
But to the extent that people could quite reasonably imagine I was on a different side, because they only saw half of my argument, they lumped me with the people that they hate.
And they say, not only are you with the people we hate, but you have the strongest argument against us.
Because I do. I also have the strongest argument on their favor.
But they haven't necessarily seen that.
So, doesn't that make sense?
So, it makes sense that I would generate an unusually rabid response.
But the Klopbert's became a big part of my life.
Cope. Cope.
And here's how I know I live in a simulation.
Are you ready for this? So literally, as I'm walking around thinking about the clot birds, and I was literally having the thoughts I just expressed, were going around in my head, and I'm thinking, wow, why do so many people think that Scott Adams is a clot?
They even call me Clot Adams.
Like, that's the nickname they've been called, Clot Adams.
And as I'm thinking this, this is not a joke, This next thing actually really happened in whatever this is.
All right, this actually happened.
I turned on the television to Fox News, and there was a weather report, and the name of the person doing the weather report was...
I'm not making this up.
This is his actual name.
Adam Klotz.
K-L-O-T-Z. That's a real thing.
As I was thinking about Klot Adams, I turned on the TV, and the weatherman's name was Adam Klotz.
Check it for yourself.
He's a real person.
That really happened.
Okay. I think also that the Klot Burt's make an assumption that I would never make, which is that maybe I see myself as a role model.
Because as they know, when I was forced to make a decision finally, after putting it off as long as possible for international travel, same decision that Dr.
Malone made, that they might think that I saw myself as a role model because I got the jab.
Is there anything I've told you more often than don't see me as a source of medical information?
Is there anything I've said more often than that?
Do not get your medical information from a cartoonist.
Maybe the only thing I've said more often than that is don't get your investment advice.
The two things I say the most, don't get your financial advice or your medical advice from me.
But you could easily imagine, because the other celebrities, correct me if I'm wrong, probably almost every celebrity who got the jab promoted it as they were role models for you.
Am I right? Every celebrity who got the jab promoted themselves as role models.
In other words, they actually gave you medical advice.
Celebrities were massively giving medical advice.
Now let me ask you this.
This is a defense of the Klopperts.
See how I do this?
The Klopperts were my big enemies, and now I'm giving them a public defense.
Imagine if you saw one more celebrity, and I'll put myself in that category for conversation, who got vaccinated and then talked about it, because I talked about it.
Wouldn't you assume I was holding myself out as a role model?
If that's all you saw.
You know, if you didn't see the context of me always saying, don't look at me for that.
Yeah, Jimmy Fallon example.
Right. So it is perfectly reasonable and now finally, finally, I think by putting myself in their mindset, like spending a little time like, okay, what would it be to look through their eyes for a little while?
Totally get it. Totally get it.
How many of you think that I've expressed this situation correctly?
Does it ring true or no?
Okay, I get more yeses.
Mostly yeses.
Now, does this excuse me?
Is this like an excuse?
Have I excused myself from all responsibility for the confusion?
Of course not. This is totally my responsibility.
As the communicator...
This pointed out an obvious problem with what I do.
But at the same time, I don't know how to solve it easily.
Because it becomes tedious if every time I talk, I say, but, you know, I'm also going to talk about the other side, or, you know, remember that yesterday I talked about the other side.
It becomes tedious.
So I don't know exactly how to solve it, but I accept it as my responsibility.
Everybody okay with that?
I consider myself responsible for the misinformation.
I'm doing what I can to correct it, but I also don't know how to fully correct it in the past or the future.
But the fact that I don't know how to fix it doesn't make it not my responsibility.
Can we agree on that? I'll take responsibility without knowing that I can succeed because I don't know a better system, really.
I think the communicator has to be responsible.
All right. And that...
Oh, we got some more stuff.
So there's some new information.
Dr. Malone has...
He's leading...
Looks like he's leading a group of doctors who want to ban the shots or at least ban them for some portion of the public.
And he says there's some new information that says that getting boosted makes you less likely...
Getting boosted makes you more likely to catch the virus.
The more likely the people who are the most boosted also have the highest infection rate.
What is your interpretation of that?
The more boosters you have, the more infections you get.
Which means, how do you interpret it?
Give me your interpretation of that fact.
Well, the way the doctors are interpreting it is that the more boosted you get, the more likely, just from the booster itself, the more likely you're going to catch the virus.
Do you think that's the best interpretation of that data?
Because I have a different one.
Who do you think is most likely to get boosted?
All right. Now, I'm over 65 and I might have a comorbidity if asthma counts and if I really have asthma.
There's some questions there.
But even I didn't get boosted.
Because once it was Omicron and once I had a little natural immunity because I got infected too, I didn't see the benefit of getting boosted.
But if I weighed 300 pounds, would I have gotten boosted?
Let me ask you. If I weighed 300 pounds, everything else is the same?
Probably. Probably.
You don't think that the people who were most likely to get infected, and also they thought they were the weakest, are most likely to get vaccinated?
To me, it looks like the doctors have confused correlation and causation.
Now, I don't know that for sure.
If I said that as a fact, that would be out of line.
I don't know it as a fact.
I just know that the most likely explanation for the data is not mentioned.
That's a dog not barking, right?
Now, if it turns out that my criticism, you know, it's very surface-level criticism, it just looks like correlation and causation were backwards.
Now, if it turns out that I'm wrong, which I easily could be, Shouldn't that be the first thing they mention?
The first thing I would mention if I were communicating this, because remember, I just took responsibility for my own communication problems, and I think that's a good standard for everybody.
When I listen to Dr.
Malone say, here's our correlation, and therefore we are assuming causation, I say to myself, you're going to have to say more about how you rule down correlation, because correlation is the obvious explanation.
Let me say it again in a different way.
If you had a job where you worked at home, are you as likely to get boosted as if you had a job where you're, let's say, around people in close contact and lots of different people all day long?
I feel like I would more likely get boosted if I had more chance of infection.
And the more people you're around, the more chance of infection.
So, And then let me ask you this.
Do you think that fear drives vaccination decisions?
Yes or no? Do you think that fear is why people get vaccinated?
Mostly. Mostly.
Yes. Who's the most afraid?
Somebody who is in perfect health or somebody who knows they have some comorbidities.
Who would be more afraid?
I assume the people with comorbidities.
So who would you expect Do you have the highest death rate?
The people with the comorbidities, even vaccinated, versus people who are perfectly healthy and didn't get vaccinated.
Whether vaccinations have any protective value or not, in all of those situations, I would expect the most vaccinated people to be the ones who are most afraid...
And the reasons they were most afraid is that they knew themselves, and they knew their comorbidities.
So, shouldn't this be exactly what we'd hoped to see?
Given that we know that the vaccinations, so-called, don't stop the spread, that part we know.
But wouldn't you logically expect more deaths among the people who are the most vaccinated?
That's the most reasonable thing you'd expect.
Right? So when Dr.
Malone doesn't explain away the most reasonable explanation for the data, and he goes directly and strong to the second most reasonable explanation, because it's a reasonable possibility that the vaccination is making you weaker in some way.
Totally possible.
Just because it's an unknown new thing, there's some spike proteins floating around, and God knows that sounds bad.
Well, the social contagion is part of the fear, yes.
Now, those who say they're bored with the subject, I understand the point.
But do you understand that none of this is about the pandemic or the vaccination or masks?
It's only about decision-making.
Is that coming through?
Am I being clear that I'm never talking about your decision?
Because I'm actually not interested in I'm deeply and aggressively uninterested in your vaccination status.
There's nothing that could interest me less than that.
Your personal health decisions, keep me out of that.
Keep me out of that shit.
I have no interest in that.
But it turns out that the vaccination and the whole pandemic situation is just a goldmine Of examples of good and bad thinking.
So given that my sweet spot for everything is where people are thinking about it wrong, that's my territory, this is the most target-rich environment.
So I totally get it.
If you feel like I'm trying to influence you to make some different decision, I'm not.
I never have.
I'm trying to influence you to see that correlation does not equal causation, and maybe we should care about that.
Well, did I beat it to death?
Because this is a new story.
I haven't talked about this before.
And the more examples you see, I think the better case.
Anyway, so I leave that to the end.
So those of you who are done with that...
All right, here, let me give you one more example.
This is something that a Twitter user named Blake said.
So they've studied the outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
And Blake says this, and this is going to make you mad that it wasn't obvious.
Watch how you feel when I read you Blake's comment.
One thing these studies fail to mention or take into account is that many of the unvaccinated cohort are no longer with us, especially the elderly in that group.
So what you're left with is an unvaccinated group of survivors with natural immunity.
So yeah, there's a little problem with the data.
Did you ever think how do you get data on dead people?
All right, let me ask you something else.
Imagine you're an anti-vaxxer, and then over here there's a pro-vax person.
The pro-vax person gets the vaccination, and the system knows that because they keep track of who's vaccinated.
Then that person gets COVID, And the medical system records that.
So now the medical system knows this person's name.
Got COVID. Got vaccinated.
Boom. Connect them. Now let's say you're anti-vax.
And you get some symptoms at home.
So you get yourself a test kit.
You know, if you're smart, you have somebody else get it for you.
You test yourself and you're positive.
And you say, ah, no problem.
I'll get a little time off from work.
So you stay home. Nobody knows you're positive.
Nobody knows you're unvaccinated.
So how did Dr.
Malone's data capture that person?
Nobody ever talked to that person.
Then you say to yourself, Scott, it's easy.
They just do a poll. They're not looking for every person.
They just call you and they say, are you vaccinated or are you not?
Did you get an infection?
Did you not? It's easy, right?
How do they interview the dead people?
Can you get a good interview with a dead person?
The dead people are the biggest part of the data, and nobody's talking to them.
All right, now let me say this.
The phone rings at home.
It's a landline.
You answer the phone?
And says, hi, I want to take a poll of your vaccination status.
Do you mind answering a few questions about whether you're vaccinated and whether you got infected?
You're pro-vaccination.
What do you do? Yes, yes, in fact, I did get vaccinated.
Yes, yes, I did.
I also got infected.
All right, thank you.
Yes, good. Have a great day.
Click. Now let's say, same thing, but you're unvaccinated.
Hello? Hi.
I'd like to ask you a poll about...
Click. Am I wrong?
You couldn't possibly poll this.
It's un-pollable.
Because all the anti-vaxxers are just going to hang up on you.
I'm not wrong.
So, without even looking at the data, what should it show?
The only way you could collect the data, and given what kinds of people are more likely to be vaccinated, the only way this data could have gone is to show that the vaccinated people are also the most infected.
There's no other way it could have gone.
And it doesn't mean anything about causation.
There's just no other way it could have gone.
Am I wrong? Cope.
So to the Klopp birds, they have a couple of key slogans that I like to emphasize.
One is, you are wrong.
And it works best without reasons.
You are wrong. And also, cope.
Cope. Cope.
I like cope as a rally cry.
Cope. Something we can all identify with.
Cope. Alright, the great white cope.
Stop it. I already gave them the name Claw Adams and they haven't stopped about it yet.
Alright, I'm going to say this for all the cope-verts.
If you would also like to call me the great white cope, that is acceptable.
That is acceptable.
Under the rule, which I tell you often, If it's not funny, if a topic is not funny, I prefer you to understand my actual opinion, or what I've actually done in real life.
However, if it's really funny, I do not encourage you to seek the truth.
Because, you know, funny is good.
So, great white cope, thumbs up.
You should use it a lot.
Yeah, that's copaseptic.
I can't say that word suddenly.
All right. YouTube blocked you?
Well, I wonder why.
I wonder why.
Somebody thinks anti-vaxxers should go to jail?
Scott's not up on corporations and how people have to get vaccinations to keep their jobs, Lisa B says.
Now, Lisa B, Do you know what I do for a living?
Have you heard of my day job?
Because there are quite a few people who think that I don't understand how corporations work.
Good insightful comment, Lisa.
I'm not sure I would have said that one in person.
Do you know how many people have accused me of not understanding that businesses don't make efficient decisions?
And I just listen.
I go, you know what I do for a job, right?
I'm literally the most skeptical person on the planet when it comes to corporate behavior.
You can't always skepticize me on that.
Of course I knew what the businesses were doing.
The reason I got vaccinated is because one business, the airlines, didn't let you even ride.
Yeah, of course I do that.
Yeah, Dr. Scott Atlas, as an expert, that people kept confusing with me, Yeah, that didn't work out for me.
Alright, have I covered everything?
Yeah.
Story about the lemmings, okay.
Scat Atlas. Oh, the TikTok influence story.
Didn't I talk about that yesterday?
Forbes had a big story about TikTok influencing people.
I talked about that already.
The user, what?
Is my book already showing up on Amazon?
Oh, my God. I didn't realize my book already shows up on Amazon.
It's just a placeholder.
That's not the real cover or anything.
Watch Dr. Drew in a few with Dr.
Zlinko. All right.
Book, yeah, my book will be out in September, I think.
Adam Schiff Twitter blocking?
What's that about? All right, I think I covered everything.
All books are on Amazon, yeah.
Yeah, you know, all these governments banning TikTok only on government devices...
That's so weak.
That's weak sauce.
Who leaked the Dobbs decision I guess we don't know. Starseed says, Scott's greatest exaggeration is his self-proclaimed skepticism.
Well, Starseed, I don't know if you've noticed, I actually doubt you exist.
Like, actually, literally.
Like, I don't even think you exist as a thinking human.
To me, you exist as an NPC. At the same time, you're telling me I'm not skeptical enough.
I don't believe experts.
I don't believe the government.
I don't believe the critics who criticize them.
I don't believe the old data.
I don't believe the new data.
And I don't even believe you exist as a real person other than in my subjective experience.
So your point is I'm not skeptical enough, right?
Mm-hmm. Good.
Good. What's this?
Scott's what? Yeah.
All right. You're blind to your own biases.
Does anybody think I'm blind to my own biases?
What would you say?
Let's get an opinion here.
Am I blind to my own biases?
Yes, by definition.
Of course. That's just what those words mean.
Yeah, yeah.
If there's anything I tell you often, it's that cognitive dissonance doesn't have favorites.
Do you think cognitive dissonance taps out at some IQ level?
It's like, oh, I didn't know this guy's 120.
I'd better not give him any cognitive dissonance.
No, it's completely independent.
Yeah, of course. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance.
I've told you the only defense you have against confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, the only defense you have is to expose yourself to as many other opinions, especially from smart people.
To doubt your own ability to perceive as hard as you can, so to not trust yourself.
I did a tweet where I said that no matter what you did during the pandemic, you had to depend on something, you had to trust something you shouldn't have trusted.
And then a bunch of people said, oh no, no, I didn't trust anything I shouldn't have trusted.
Totally the opposite.
I trusted my gut instinct, and I trusted myself.
I didn't trust that stuff I shouldn't trust, like your data and your experts.
No, I didn't do that. You trusted yourself.
Is that how you do all science?
Do you make all your decisions that way?
You talk to your lawyer and say, you know, I'm going to take my own course on this.
Do you trust yourself every time you talk to the doctor, or do you call your shots?
Every time? You never say to yourself, you know, have you ever audited how right you were about everything in the past?
The lowest standard of credibility is yourself.
We just said that no matter how smart you are, you can be under cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
We're all under that.
If you're trusting yourself over the body of information that at least has some chance of triangulating toward the truth, that is the worst standard for decision making you could ever have.
Now I don't think you should distrust your instincts or what you feel is your common sense.
Those are magical thinking.
But you shouldn't distrust anything that sends a signal.
Now, if you said, whoa, there were all kinds of signals that things were sketchy, you were right.
There were all kinds of signals.
You read those correctly.
But it's not the whole story.
But the signals, you saw them correctly, yes.
We all did. Oh, and then I said that no one regrets their decision.
And then people gave me examples of the opposite.
So some people said, no, Scott, I did not take the shot, and boy, am I happy.
Boy, am I happy.
So that's a case of people who are not regretting.
And then the people who took the shots, some of them were saying, oh, I did regret it.
Because there's some people who had some apparent side effects that they think were Vax-related.
They say, yes, I did regret it.
But if you compared the people who got vaccinated and then regretted it, would that be bigger or smaller than the number of people we saw drawing their last breath in the hospital unvaccinated and then dying?
I don't know. But I withdraw my statement that nobody regretted their choice.
Because there were, you know, probably 5 or 10%.
But it's definitely not nobody.
Yeah.
Oh, so I released people on Locals You don't know this yet.
So if you're not on Locals, I do a comic called Robots Read News, in which I do things that generally could not be published in normal places.
So usually I just publish them within the subscription site Locals.
But I often ask them, If they would be willing to let me share them.
So I made those shareable, but I'm not going to tweet them, because I think I'll let the people on Locals decide if they want to share it or they want to keep it to themselves.
But they're some of my best work.
Maybe you'll see it, maybe you won't.
So I changed the sharing on those two most recent Robot Reads news.
So you can share them with your friends or anybody else you want on social media.
A few people asked.
If it turns out you don't like me sharing those, because you like having your special environment there, I'll be happy to do that, because you're subscribers.
Just let me know. I'll probably just take the majority on that.
All right. You may also know, the locals people know this, but I just forward to Dr.
Jordan Peterson, and I also pinned on my site, the first draft of a comic in which I'll be mocking the Ontario College of Psychologists, who are apparently requiring Dr.
Jordan Peterson to come back in to get re-educated on how to use social media.
This is also one of my favorite stories.
Have you noticed something about the trend in the stories?
There's definitely some kind of a peak wokeness situation going on.
Is it just my confirmation bias?
It looks like The stories about wokeness have left the domain of politics, and they've entered the domain of pure humor.
I'm not imagining that, right?
So the story about the Ecuadorian man who identifies as a woman so he has a better chance of custody over his kids than a divorce, that's just funny, right?
That's not even a political argument.
That's just funny. And when the Ontario College of Psychologists decided they needed to re-educate the most effective and best, the best brand ambassador for Canadian psychologists there could ever be in the world,
ever! The most productive, useful, beneficial to ordinary people, highest credibility, You know, genuinely high-character person, the best ambassador they could ever have for Canadian psychologists, well, they decided they'd better re-educate his ass.
That's just funny, right?
If I can make a Dilbert comic about it without even trying, like I basically just transcribed the situation as a joke, I think we've hit peak wokeness.
Remember the story of the individual who was wearing the gigantic prosthetic breasts, I think, also in Canada?
And there was some question about whether that was serious or not serious.
But whatever that situation is, can you admit it's funny?
Like, it might not be funny to him, it might be serious, we don't know what's going on in his head, but to the observers, the wokeness thing just became funny.
That is the last gasp.
The last gasp of wokeness is where we get a good laugh out of it.
Now remember, I've been through this cycle before.
In the corporate world, do you remember, there was things called re-engineering and some other trends, and I would just dilbert crap all over them until they became laughing stocks and then nobody wanted to admit they actually liked it in the first place.
Yeah, that's where the wokeness has gone.
It has now entered pure humor territory.
If you see a libs of TikTok video, are you going to, like, get all political about it, or are you going to have a laugh?
You're going to laugh every time.
It literally is an account that does nothing but show you what's actually happened with no commentary.
No commentary. It just shows you the actual video, and then it's comedy.
That's where we are. I think the clopperts have turned into a different kind of troll for some reason.
Alright. Call them Scotch debris.
That's funny. Alright, that's all for now and I will talk to you Later.
