Episode 2036 Scott Adams: More Outrage By Me In Case You Need Extra, Best Republican Strategy & more
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Save the Kids
Functional alcoholics
Violence videos
Whiteboard1: Racism to Correct Racism
Whiteboard2: Summary
Victimized by the narrative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 most cancelled content in all of America.
And I know you're here for some of that.
We'll talk about the news first, and then we'll get to more outrageous.
Do you think I can say something that's even more problem-making and provocative than what I've already done?
Oh, I probably can.
I probably can.
I've got one in the chamber.
So you want to wait around for that one.
Just wait for the one that's in the chamber, okay?
So, if you'd like your experience to be maximized, then I know, well, let me look at you.
Yes, yes, you're that kind of person.
You are the kind of person who does not settle.
For a below-par livestream like you see so often other places.
No, you want a good experience.
A maximum experience.
And for that, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, you know, the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and today it comes turbocharged with two whiteboards.
Two.
Go.
All right, well, some people told me this week, there are many opinions about me, and some people said to me, Scott, you just did the dumbest and some people said to me, Scott, you just did the dumbest thing you could ever do.
Do not talk like that in public.
You cannot say those things in public.
Now, I thought for a while, That might be the dumbest thing anybody said in public.
And then I saw, I don't know if this is fake news, and I'm sorry, I'm just gonna have some fun with this, so no bad feelings, but can somebody tell me if this really happened?
Did Tim Pool go on Fox News and say that the woke agenda ended his sex life?
Did that actually happen?
Can somebody confirm that that's a real story?
Because I looked at it, I can't tell.
It's fake, right?
Is it fake?
Does anybody know?
Is this not perfect?
It's perfect because you can't tell.
Let's go private here.
Yeah, I have no idea.
I have no idea if that's real.
I saw there was some little hashtag.
Now, if he said it, I'm sure there's some context there that ties it all together.
But I love the fact that that got taken, probably out of context.
I assume it's out of context.
I just love that story.
I'm not making fun of Tim Poole.
I just love the fact that allegedly, and I don't know if it's real, let me be very clear, I don't know that that's real.
But it was trending today.
If somebody knows, tell me.
Tell me if that really happened.
But I love that I can't tell the difference.
That's what's fun about it.
I don't know.
I don't know.
That might be real.
But it might not be.
I'm going to say that's a 50-50.
And by the way, I like Tim.
I recommend his show, by the way.
His show is very good.
All right.
Well, I was looking for you to confirm or deny, but I don't think you know either.
All right.
I'm going to suggest, based on anecdotal vibes, and this idea comes not directly from me, but it feels right, but somebody who's real tapped into the Republican world is telling me this, and I want to see if you're getting the same feel, if any of you are Republicans.
So this is sort of a question for Republicans.
The biggest issue, by far, for Republican women You say it's not private?
Let me check.
There we go.
It's weird that that doesn't work the first try.
I have to do it twice.
Thank you.
But at least one smart person is reading the room and saying that the most important issue by far, at a human level, when you're talking to real people, not when you're on Twitter, but when you're talking to real people, what do you think the biggest issue is just by far?
Just throw it out there.
For Republicans, what's the main thing?
I want to see if you're all on the same page.
Okay, your answers are all over the place, from economy to inflation.
Now, certainly all those things are important, but anecdotally, and I'd love to see a poll on this, but anecdotally, the moms are protecting their children.
And that's the primary energy at the individual level.
That might be the primary energy.
Because that's what people ask about.
If you say, hey, let's go talk to a bunch of Republicans, you see what comes out of their mouths, it's not necessarily inflation, even though that's a huge issue.
Even fentanyl, all these issues, if you just ask them to say what's on your mind, it's not going to be fentanyl, unless they had a direct experience as I did.
But I think it's the children.
And I don't know how you could program against that.
So if Republicans ran on Save the Kids, who beats that?
Who beats Save the Kids when people are primed to understand that that's the real problem?
Because Save the Kids handles a whole bunch of stuff.
It handles fentanyl, right?
Fentanyl is part of Save the Kids.
Some of them are older kids, but they're still somebody's children.
It goes to fixing schools.
And fixing schools would fix what?
Systemic racism.
It would be the biggest lever you could push to fix racism.
So when you say save the kids, if you do it in any kind of sensible way, there are a whole bunch of topics that get fixed at the same time.
Have you heard Professor Scott Galloway talking about the lost generation of young men?
The current situation with dating is, you know, women are going for the top 10% of men and the rest are, you know, left to, I guess, porn and masturbation and, you know, empty lives.
But, as Scott Galloway correctly points out, a lot of that is because the young men are not growing up to be worthy partners.
They're just not developed In a way that some woman's going to want to say, give me some of that.
And I think there's something to that.
It's not the whole story, but there's a lot to that.
So this whole save the children just bubbles up into almost everything.
How would you save the economy?
Well, you've got your short run stuff, which probably we do roughly correctly.
But your long run is just education.
Am I right?
Well, just the kids.
In the long run, your economy is dead unless you educate kids better and get rid of the fentanyl.
So it's basically you have to solve the kid problems to solve the economy.
So Save the Kids ends up being a really save us all.
You know, Save the Kids, I'm sure that the left would say, what about the climate?
And that's easy.
We love the climate.
But we don't want to do something that makes things worse.
So it's easy to counter any argument against it.
I don't know.
But put that in your thinking cap and maybe just do a little observing about what people bring up unprompted.
Because it's the bringing it up unprompted that makes it kind of stand out.
Education does not mean what you think it does.
Well, I like... There's a good point.
I like to broaden education to mean any kind of training.
Anything that's useful for your life.
Especially your financial life.
But also anything that's useful for your sanity and happiness as well.
That should all be education.
Alright, let's talk about Doug Emhoff, the so-called second gentleman.
He's not even the first gentleman.
He's the second gentleman.
I don't know how you rank adult men in 2023.
But apparently if you had been married to a female president, you'd be the first gentleman.
If you're married to a vice president who's female, you're the second gentleman.
And if the vice president that you're married to owns a pet, you're something like the third creature.
You know, because the pet's going to be a little higher than you, let's face it.
So you got to get that right.
Well, Doug Emhoff, the second gentleman, is in the news by saying there's too much toxic masculinity.
And apparently he is selling himself as someone who... Not selling, that's... Selling is just a jerk word.
I hate myself for saying that.
Withdraw.
Withdraw.
He's simply stating, he's not selling anything, he's just stating that he thinks there's too much toxic masculinity.
But apparently he has escaped the curse of toxic masculinity, and he's pretty happy about it.
And a lot of people wanted to argue with him about, you know, masculinity and blah blah blah.
Here's my take.
Why are we arguing about that?
That's arguing over a word.
Why are we arguing over a word?
Or two words, toxic masculinity.
How about a high ground move?
I've told you that the high ground maneuver is what you say that ends all arguments.
All right, watch me end the debate.
How about everybody can just be different?
That's the end of the debate.
That's the high ground maneuver.
If you come into a conversation where people are like, me, me, me, me, toxic masculinity.
No, you don't have toxic masculinity.
No, I think Kamala is your boss.
Oh, you should not be saying that.
Oh, we need more toxic masculinity.
Yes, we need less toxic masculinity.
And then you come in and say, well, how about we just treat everybody as an individual?
Any problem?
Anybody?
Anybody?
Raise your hand.
Anybody have a problem with just treating everybody as a fucking individual for once?
Anybody?
That's the end.
So that's an example of the high ground maneuver.
Once you learn to do high ground maneuvers, you win every conversation.
You'll win them all.
Because you just say the thing that nobody disagrees with, that's sort of a higher level thought.
And it just ends it.
You may be noticing that I'm doing something along those lines.
So far, not completing the task.
But keep watching.
Keep watching.
All right.
Speaking of Kamala Harris, I would like to add a hypothesis to the mix.
But I asked this question on social media.
Now this is just a Twitter poll, so don't put too much scientific faith in it, because there is none.
Twitter polls are just people who answer the polls.
That's about it.
So a Twitter poll, I asked this question.
If an acquaintance tells you they belong to a wine club, what do you assume are the odds that person is a functional alcoholic?
And you can answer that question too.
If you know, if you have an acquaintance who's a member of a wine club, what are the odds that person is a functional alcoholic?
And by that I mean, you know, they have wine for dinner but, you know, every night and, you know, they have wine on weekends and wine for lunch fairly frequently.
But they're functional.
They have jobs and everything else.
So I'm saying estimates from 10 to 90%.
I would go closer to 90%.
My observation, and it took me years to find this pattern, is that the people who are functional alcoholics build a lifestyle around that so that there's a reason to be drinking every day that doesn't look like the reason is you're a functional alcoholic.
You've seen it.
Oh, you've seen it.
Yeah, they're the people who like to entertain.
Do you know any people who like to entertain?
Usually functional alcoholics who are covering their track.
Now, there are so many functional alcoholics, I don't have a complaint about it, frankly.
Like, as long as they're not driving, it's okay with me.
I mean, it's their life.
So I'm not judging.
I'm just saying it's one of those patterns that, if you've not noticed it yet, keep an eye on it.
Keep an eye on that pattern.
People will build a lifestyle to cover up You know, whatever they're trying to cover up.
If you had a foot fetish, is there a greater chance that you would work in a large department store woman's footwear place?
Probably.
Because that would be a great place to cover up your fetish.
So, I only ask this because a friend of mine who knows a great deal about addicts and alcoholics, I won't say an expert, but Pretty close to an expert on this topic.
Says that the reason that Kamala does that embarrassing cackling when she's speaking, not her normal cackle.
So have you noticed there's two kinds of cackles?
There's the everyday nervous cackle that she uses all the time.
But there have been a few times when Her happiness about ordinary things seems unusual, like her love for the fact that you could charge your phone on a school bus.
Like, that didn't look like normal cackle.
That looked like alcohol.
Now, this is not my opinion because I didn't have this observation, but somebody who knows a lot about this world said, oh yeah, those speeches where she's talking like that and she's too happy about things that you shouldn't be happy about, that's obviously drunk.
Now, once you said it, you know, once I'd heard it, because I hadn't really, that wasn't really high up on my list of possible explanations for what we're seeing, but once you hear it, I said to myself, hey, I wonder if anybody thinks that Kamala is an alcoholic, or even just drinks more than she should for her job during the daytime, I suppose.
You know, if you're vice president, you probably shouldn't drink ever, should you?
Because isn't there a greater than zero chance that you'll be running the country in an emergency within an hour?
Right?
Like, would you ever want Hillary Clinton in an office knowing that she likes her wine?
No matter how much she has.
I don't want a semi-inebriated president sitting there.
Like, that was one thing that I really think was underappreciated about Trump.
You could wake Trump up any part of the 24 hours and he would pop up and he'd still be Trump.
He's Trump all day long.
I don't think he's ever anything else.
He's just always him, 24 hours.
Love him or hate him, he was ready to go.
Love him or hate him, he was ready to go.
And sometimes that might be more important than your specific preferences.
Anyway, I think that's a great underrated element of Trump, that he didn't drink.
Didn't drink.
And by the way, you're all noticing that the trend to stop drinking, at least on Twitter, looks huge.
Are you all noticing that?
The number of people who are bragging about no longer drinking, not alcoholics, some of them are, but mostly just ordinary people who found out that alcohol is bad for you.
You know, I haven't had alcohol for years.
So, that's a really good trend.
I hope you're not switching out to fentanyl, that would be bad.
Alright, so here's tying this all together.
Once it was suggested to me, and then I got primed, you know, once your brain gets primed, it's all you can see.
So confirmation bias started to kick in.
And I said to myself, I think I'll look online and see if anybody has noted that Kamala Harris drinks too much in their opinion or any rumors about too much alcohol or anything like that.
And I didn't see anything like that.
So just to be clear, I didn't see anybody speculating.
I didn't see any reports of her drinking too much.
The only thing that came up is that she belongs to a wine club.
Next topic.
Rasmussen asked people about the age of the presidents and what age is too much.
And, well, let's see how well you do on this.
They asked people, how many people think 86 years old is too old to be president?
Does anyone want to guess?
I'll ask you it this way.
How many people think it's okay To be 86 years old and pre-president.
Roughly, what do you think?
Shit, you're good.
How do you do this?
Are you all mind readers?
How do you all know the right answer without being told?
You're so close.
It's 27%.
27% of those asked said that, yeah, 86 is not too old to be president.
What are you talking about?
said that, yeah, 86 is not too old to be president.
What are you talking about?
86 is just getting started, say one quarter of the respondents.
questions.
Yeah.
If anybody is new to me, I think there's probably more new people here than usual.
If you're new to my live streams, I've noted that 25% of the public, about, will get every question wrong.
Every poll question.
You can depend on 25% to have the most ridiculous opinion, Just completely batshit crazy on any question.
Now the thing is, I don't think it's the same 25%.
I think it depends on the question, which is the funny part.
I don't think it's just the same 25% of dumb people.
It doesn't feel like it.
But maybe it is, who knows?
Well, the most important thing... Well, the second most important thing.
The most important thing is, did Tim Pool really say that?
That's the most important question of the day.
But the second most important question of the day is, what the hell is up with me?
And why am I still talking to people?
And why am I not fully cancelled?
And what's going on anyway?
So, let's talk about that.
If you don't think I can offend you more than I have, well, I take that challenge.
Challenge accepted.
Let's see how offended you can get.
I will make the following claim: that no one who knows the context of my inflammatory comments from last week, you all know what I'm talking about, I don't have to summarize.
But here's my summary: No one who knows the context and is also a normal person is angry at me, either black or white.
Nobody who is a normal person, and I'm going to define normal by excluding the people who are not normal in a moment.
100% of the normal people, the non-professionals, just normal people, black and white, agree with me once they hear the full context.
That's my experience.
So far I have only agreement of people who understand the context.
Now there are a lot of people who don't understand the context.
And they quite reasonably don't agree with me, which should be no surprise.
But the ones who don't agree with me fall into the following categories.
Peacocks, race grifters, social signalers, dopamine gooners, and my personal political enemies.
And then people who were fooled by the fake news.
It's not fake news, because the quote is exactly accurate.
What's fake is that when you take out the context, it completely changes what was going on.
From helpful to horrible.
And if you didn't know that, well, it's really not your fault, because the fake news was not feeding you in a useful context, of course.
So I'd have to say that there's something positive happening, and here's another positive thing happening.
I believe that now, The conversation has already expanded in a useful way.
Here's what I mean.
The things that I said are the things that I'm being told by a lot of people privately, yet we all think that They may not be exactly agreed with what I said, but some version of, yes, you're speaking the truth, we're all thinking it.
And I'm not sure everybody is interpreting what I said quite the way they're quite accurately, but there still is this massive agreement that this is a conversation that is helpful.
That it's a helpful conversation.
Now, because anybody who even brings up this topic will be fully cancelled, as I believe I've proved, you will be fully cancelled for this topic.
But do you realize what I've created?
I've created a situation where people who can't say what I said can go on television and say, well, Scott Adams said, what do you think about that?
Do you see what happened?
It's now allowable conversation.
Because you can attribute it to me.
I did that.
I did that for you.
You can now say, this isn't my opinion, but I'd like to hear your feedback.
Scott Adams said, that stupid racist bastard Scott Adams said, that damn frickin bastard, who is more racist than any racist I've ever known, says this.
What do you think about that?
And now you can have a conversation.
Now, it'll still be awkward.
A lot of work to do.
But you now have more free speech.
You just have to be a little clever about it, so you don't get cancelled like I did.
Yeah, and I'm also sensing that there's a growing willingness to talk freely.
Because when somebody goes first, this is the whole point of why the general should be in the front line sometimes.
I don't think that's always a good idea.
But your leader should lead from the front sort of thing.
Now, I wasn't trying to lead anybody.
I was trying to deepen the conversation.
I was trying to provoke.
Of course I was trying to provoke.
Anybody who thought that was a literal serious statement should examine their reading comprehension.
But of course I was trying to provoke.
I was trying to get people angry.
Mission accomplished.
I didn't feel I was that persuasive, but apparently.
Once the fake media got involved, and like I said, among the people who are mad at me are my political enemies, I believe it's fair to say that 100% of the political right, including people and news-related organizations, did not think I should be cancelled.
What's that tell you?
Is this about race?
Is it about race if only Democrats want to cancel me?
You don't think there are any people in the Republican Party at all who know what racism looks like, including the black Republicans?
You think they don't know what it looks like?
Or how to deal with it, you know, productively?
No, it started out as me being provocative, but once it gained steam, it just became political.
It's just that they can hide that Just the way an alcoholic can hide their alcoholism by forming a wine club, the press can get rid of their biggest political enemy.
And by the way, I believe that's true.
Because most of you have watched me twist the narrative like almost nobody can, except Trump.
Trump can just have his way with the narrative.
That's why I've been talking about him, because he has those skills.
But there are very few people in the talking out loud political world who can reframe something as effectively as I can.
Which is why my book that was just cancelled, my new book, is all about reframing things.
So what I'm doing now is an example of what's in the book, but in the book it would be more reframing for your own purposes.
I'm reframing for public purpose, which is really dangerous.
If you haven't noticed, it's really dangerous.
Don't do it.
You know, I don't mind doing it because here's another thing I've been teaching you for years.
You've heard me say this a lot of times.
If you want to succeed at anything, anything, here's the formula for success.
This is the most summarized formula for success.
If there's something you want to succeed at, find out the price and then pay it.
It's the best advice you'll ever have.
So I wanted to talk about this topic.
So I thought, what's the price of that?
Well, the price of that is the risk of full cancellation.
And then I paid it.
Have you heard me complain yet?
Nope.
Nope.
I looked at the menu, I looked at the price, and then I ordered that meal.
Right in front of you.
I just paid the price.
That's all that happened.
Now, I wasn't expecting it would be this high, but that was on the menu.
Like, it was obvious that it could be.
It was quite obvious that that was a pretty high possibility.
I didn't know, but certainly I paid that price.
Now, am I sad that I paid that price?
I haven't experienced that yet.
I've not experienced any feeling of regret, which might surprise you.
Because this is something that you don't go around.
Once you've paid the price, I just bought a ticket to drive right through the middle of it.
I'm going to bore a hole through the narrative because I paid the price.
I bought the ticket.
The rest of you can watch.
I don't recommend participating, but just watch.
All right.
So I believe there's already a public benefit that is a benefit, and would you agree with this statement?
It would be a benefit to black, white, American, Asian-Americans, Hispanic, name your category.
Anytime you can broaden the conversation on the most important topic, in my opinion this is the most important topic in the country right now, you're probably improving your odds of a good outcome.
All right, I'm laughing at your comment, but I'm not going to say it.
All right, here's another thing.
So Andy Ngo is publishing a video, and apparently the city of Springfield, Ohio, and the context for this is all these videos of violence, individual violence, is creating a narrative in our heads that is super, super dangerous.
Because visual persuasion is the most important.
And if you see three or four anecdotes about anything, you don't even care about the data.
Right?
Would you agree that if you see some visual anecdotes of some horror, you'll never care about the data?
So it's the same problem that white people have said about the Black Lives Matter, probably the biggest issue about police brutality.
If there are videos of police brutality, you think it's happening everywhere because visual persuasion is so strong.
But was there actually a massive problem of the police targeting black people in particular for violence?
I don't know how big that was, but our impression of it is big, because we saw videos of it and we just kept seeing it.
You know, the George Floyd stuff, if you just watch that a million times like most of us did, it looks like he's one of thousands of people, or whatever.
So visual persuasion is very racist and misleading, and at the moment there's this whole bunch of racist videos of only black people, beating up white people and Asian Americans.
Now, what is anybody going to think?
Forget about the data.
Forget about the data.
What is anybody going to think if their news sources and their social media are feeding them this constant stream of things that would make them In, let's say, a reflexive, persuaded way, not a thinking way, but sort of a reflexive way to cause people to have a bad feeling about black Americans.
Terribly unfair.
And what makes it worse is obviously the social media algorithms.
Because the thing that's really bothering me is that if we didn't have, obviously, racist social media algorithms, That are, I think, clearly suppressing all the Asian-American and white kids beating up black people.
That just makes the, it makes the problem appear one-sided.
So I think we have to go all the way down to the social media algorithm level to, and maybe Elon Musk can fix that, and Zuckerberg could look into it, and fix that so that we're served up at least an equal amount of white kids beating up black kids and Asian-Americans, like, Targeting black Americans on the street and stuff.
Because if we got something that was more like balanced, then it's not going to look all racist.
What do you mean it doesn't exist?
No, it must exist.
Because we wouldn't be talking about it this way if it didn't exist.
Obviously it exists.
Obviously it exists.
So all of you racists who are just tweeting around these violent things of black people beating up other people, Just know that you're working with the racist algorithm, and between the racist algorithm and you, you're not making anything better.
So just be aware of that.
Larry Elder, Did a video in which, here's the first part of the video so you'll get the sense of it.
He said, quote, rather than thank Adams for saying out loud what clearly a lot of people feel, including a lot of black people, so we could have, you know, a healthy discussion about this, Adams is being hounded, shut down, and canceled.
Now, Larry Elder, I endorsed for governor of California.
And by the way, I think he would have been great.
When people tell the story of me, do they tell the story about how I supported Obama for president, and I think he did okay?
Nobody's perfect, so I'd have things to criticize, but I thought he was a solid president.
I backed Ye before I realized what his mental state was exactly, but I thought, you know, wouldn't that be fun to have a President Ye?
I've backed Larry Elder, For a governor, because I thought he was the best one running.
That's it.
I just thought he was the best one running.
I backed, and I am backing, Vivek Ramaswamy, who I think is Indian-American, I think.
And do you think that context was ever mentioned by the press?
How many of the stories you read about me said that I'd helped Black Lives Matter Try to organize their messaging.
How many reported that I strongly supported, against the will of much of my audience, it cost me money, prison reform?
That was not so popular among Republicans.
So I lost audience supporting that.
And knew it.
Did it anyway.
How many know that I once blogged in favor of reparations?
Not the way it's being described now where it's just a cash payment, but some kind of a grand, let's say, agreement among black Americans and everybody else to do something that would maybe mostly help black Americans, but it would help everybody poor.
And then you've got something.
Then you've got something everybody can say, all right, all right.
I see how this mostly affects black Americans, but that's because they were in the biggest hole.
So that's fine.
As long as we're talking about income, it's OK if it's racist, because it would be racist, wouldn't it?
If you did something that helped all poor people, but the nature of it is that black Americans were in a deeper hole, So it would help them more than it would help other people.
That would be racist, by definition.
Now that would be positive racism, in my opinion.
Would anybody disagree?
That would be a policy which affects races disproportionately.
You know you're doing it.
You know you're doing it.
I'm going to do this policy.
It will affect the races disproportionately.
But it's a good thing to do.
Are there other cases where there are things that are purely racist, but they're a good thing to do?
Can you think of any other examples?
Something that you would say, well, you know, tactically that's racist, but it's a pretty good thing to do.
Alright, here's one.
Affirmative action.
Historically.
So my take on affirmative action is that while it was very bad for my personal career, I lost two careers because I was white and male, in my corporate days.
Even then, I was not opposed to affirmative action.
I hated how it affected me, but I was not opposed to it.
And the reason I wasn't opposed to it is that I couldn't figure out an alternative.
You see the problem?
When things are really unequal, the tool to fix it is a sledgehammer.
And the sledgehammer breaks stuff more than you want to break, right?
But it's the only tool you have.
Like, what else are you going to do?
What else are you going to do?
But, as things get a little closer to equal, but before they're completely equal, the right time is to reassess it.
Because you're going to start to create more ill will than you're benefiting by correcting some historical imbalances.
So, I think that affirmative action was racist by design, by intention, and would anybody disagree with that?
Is there anybody who thinks that affirmative action is not racist by intention, by design?
In fact, if it were not racist, it wouldn't work.
The entire point of it is to be racially, racial preference is the entire point of it.
So, I would contend That there are racist things, which are the ones you want, because it's how you defeat racism.
Let's say the tax code was super favoring one group over another, which is always the case, even if you don't want it to.
It just feels like No matter how you create anything, it always has a disproportionate impact on somebody, right?
So, suppose you correct a disproportionate problem with some group.
How can you correct it without shifting resources back and forth or favoritism to another racial group?
Now, it might be a very good thing to do, but it's going to be racist.
Because it's treating the groups differently and then having a policy that represents your different treatment of the groups.
Now, if your point is to help a group that needs a hand up, that's a good conversation to have.
And I'm always open to that.
All right.
This point is going to get deeper.
Kevin Costa, who I'm taking as probably a black man on Twitter, just based on the profile and the conversation, he said about me and my statement, quote, he was clearly being openly and purposely racist.
Would you say that's true?
Was I being my provocative comments?
Were they clearly and openly and purposely racist?
Yeah, I said they were.
I said that.
So he's arguing with me by agreeing with me.
I'm saying, yes.
Yes.
Right.
Right, Holger.
It was totally racist and it was meant to be that way.
Would you like to hear the context?
Now, do you think that I was trying to make things worse for black Americans?
How many think I was trying to make things worse for black Americans?
Anybody?
Oh, somebody says yes.
Some of you were saying yes.
I wasn't expecting that.
All right, most of the answers are no.
The people who know me the most know the answer is no.
If you weren't listening to the opening context, I could see how you'd say yes.
All right, so the people saying yes don't know me as well.
But the people who know me on Locals, they're a little closer to the answer.
So here's how I explain this.
About being openly racist.
And we're going to the whiteboards.
Here are some things which I would argue are openly racist, and at the same time you like them.
Not everybody.
I'm saying these are the things that are socially approved, but they're clearly racist.
ESG, CRT, Black History Month, Affirmative Action, DEI, college admissions, if there's any preferences in those, and reduced free speech for some people.
I think society generally thinks that white people should not have the same level of free speech.
And I think a lot of people would agree with that.
They'd go, oh, if those white people are saying whatever they want, like, our narrative will be impacted.
Now, here's the one that I think is interesting.
Voting for Obama.
I voted for Obama in large part because he was black.
Did anybody else vote for him because he was black?
Like, it wasn't the only reason.
I think he was qualified.
And I think he did a good job.
Unlike my audience, I think he did a reasonably good job.
And I respect your disagreement on Obama.
But here's why I, and I see a lot of people saying yes, black America voted for him by overwhelming numbers, right?
And white Americans voted more for Obama than, I think, John Kerry.
And I believe that a lot of us had the same thing in mind.
I won't read other minds, but I speculate that a lot of people thought like I did.
Wouldn't it be good To finally have a black president so we don't have to hear any more complaints about how a black man can't succeed.
Now obviously there's still plenty of structural systemic racism, but isn't it good for the country that we've had a black president?
Would anybody disagree with that?
Like forget about Obama as a personality.
Just ask yourself, is the United States, the melting pot country, better or worse for having had a black president?
Who was popular by the way?
Okay.
Now, I'm pretty sure that was good for the country.
Now, at the same time, racism went through the roof.
Or I should say, racial harmony dropped like a rock during Obama, and then continued to drop.
So nobody fixed it.
So it's possible that something about the Obama era made things worse.
I don't know exactly what.
Policies?
Think it was policies?
Could be.
All right.
But I would say that voting for Obama, if you were voting for him to make sure that we had a black president finally, that's why I did it, plus he was qualified, I thought.
I thought that was racist.
Let me ask you, was it racist for me to vote for Obama in large part because of his color?
Was that racist?
How would that not be racist?
So he says, no.
Well, OK.
You probably have an argument there.
If I heard it, I'd probably agree with you.
But I would say that's racist.
And I did that.
I did this racist thing.
I'm guilty.
How about Black History Month?
Is Black History Month good or bad for black people?
Some of you say bad.
Let's see, you think I'm going to say it's bad.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't think it's bad.
I feel like black America went through enough.
They get a month.
If you have the experience of black Americans from slavery to today, yeah, you could have a month.
I don't have a problem with that.
But it is racist, isn't it?
This is a racism I totally agree with.
I'm totally in.
That's fine.
Let's be as educated as possible about our true history.
Now, you might say, hey, how about a woman's history month?
Well, we have that too.
We do have a woman's history month.
I don't know how many other history months there are.
But aren't they all either sexist or racist?
All those months are sexist and racist, right?
They're totally sexist, totally racist.
I don't disagree with either one of them.
I don't have a problem with them.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff in, like I said, affirmative action.
At the moment, I think we should reconsider.
But historically, I favor this racist, totally racist activity.
And yeah.
And the other ones you might like.
I mean, you might like ESG.
By the way, does everybody even know what ESG is?
Do I have to define that?
Let me explain ESG.
ESG is, let's say, Environmental, Social, and Governance.
And the two things in there are for corporations are being judged by entities that judge them, including BlackRock, this multi-trillion dollar financial behemoth.
So this huge financial entity, BlackRock, is pushing this idea that companies should be evaluated for their ESG quality.
So the E for environmental, they have to be reducing their carbon footprint.
And then the social and governance is they should have diversity at all levels up to the top of the organization.
Now, the companies that push ESG, are they Happy that I'm one of the most noted critics of the thing that is the operating system of the company right now.
They have ESG.
So management of newspapers, do you think that they were opposed to ESG?
The management of newspapers.
Or more importantly, in many cases, the hedge funds that own the groups of newspapers.
Because that's how newspapers tend to be owned, by big financial entities that own like a chain.
So the people that I've pledged to attack, the ESG people, because it's so harmful for business.
It's harmful for everything.
It's harmful for society, but business in particular.
Do you think there's any coincidence that the biggest critic of those things got cancelled by the people who promote those things?
It's not the only reason.
But when you see who's opposing me and cancelling me, you have to ask about their other motives.
The thing I said, maybe it was worth cancelling, according to some people, but that's not why they did it.
That's not why.
Why they did it is to shut me up.
Right?
Why they did it is to shut me up.
That's why.
Shut me up in a variety of ways, but ESG would be one of them.
I was reminded yesterday that when Dilbert was first introduced into newspapers, it was very difficult to get the newspaper to buy it because it made fun of management.
I'd forgotten how, you know, quaint things were back then.
You don't remember, but Dilbert was a controversial, it was a controversial strip.
It was controversial because it made managers and leaders look like idiots.
And the managers and leaders were not on board with that idea.
Because it allowed the staff to mock the people above them.
It made it easier for them just, hey, look at this comic.
So the people who cancelled me, has anybody stopped to think that the people who cancelled me, the management of the newspapers, are the people that I've been mocking for 34 years.
Like viciously mocking them.
Do you think they didn't want a reason to cancel me?
Even if they thought it was funny, they'd probably be like, well, a little less of that would be good.
All right.
Here's the second summary.
People who don't know the context of my controversy have asked me to summarize it.
And so I'm borrowing this, but this is Basically it.
I said some version of you should avoid people that the society is primed to be racist against you.
Some people said, wait a minute, Scott, you did not add that nuance the first time you said it.
And then I said, yes, that's why I clarified.
And then they said, clarification is not allowed.
And I said, what?
And they said, no, if you meant to clarify it, you would have done that in the first place.
And I said, no, the reason that there's a word called clarification is that there are all kinds of reasons that you don't say it in the first place.
Or sometimes you don't know that somebody needed that clarification.
I actually got two people on social media to argue in public, in public, while people were watching.
That clarifying your comments is not to be accepted.
Can you believe that?
Two people, like adult human beings, argue that clarifying is a bad idea.
That's how you know you've won an argument?
You can't win an argument harder than that.
Yeah, clarifying is a bad idea.
What?
All right, so here's the summary.
Avoid people who are primed primarily by things like ESG and the narrative and CRT and everything else.
So you should avoid people who are primed to be racist against you.
The media said, well, that's a racist thing to say.
And then nobody would have cared, except there's an entire industry of complainers.
They have different reasons.
So you've got your race grifters, dopamine gooners, victims of fake news, the people who didn't know the context, and my political enemies, the newspapers.
They're literally my political enemies.
So then the people who heard it from all of these people, they responded as exactly you'd imagine.
Bah!
Bah!
So that's what happened.
So people who missed the context, that's the Cliff Notes version.
There's a much deeper, richer, more interesting context, but the wine club with an H. That's funny.
All right, so.
My statement is this.
I don't require a Rasmussen poll.
To clarify my lived experience.
My lived experience is that the race relations are being poisoned by the media narrative.
That white people are the source of their problems.
Now, I don't argue with the fact that white people are the source of problems.
I just argue that if that's how you focus, you only make things worse.
And that focusing on the future and how to work together and solutions that everybody likes, education being the easiest one, because there's lots of agreement.
Black and conservative, at least, there's lots of agreement.
And more Democrats in general.
All right, so my lived experience is that black Americans are being poisoned by the narrative.
And while I can't be sure it's true, any reasonable person would see the poisoning happening.
Because the poisoning is obvious and on the surface, right?
That's not an opinion, is it?
Would you say that's an opinion?
Or is that just an observation that you all say?
That the media narrative is anti-white, and very clearly at the moment, very anti-white.
So my comment is that anti-white is looking backwards, and that everybody who looks backwards gets a worse result than everybody who looks forward.
It's on average.
So if you keep a backwards-looking, you know, victimization, who caused it, whose problem it is, that can be useful in the short run.
And I wouldn't abandon that.
But if it's your primary strategy for the future, it can't work.
It can't work at all.
So when Black America figures out that I'm trying to unlock them from effectively a brainwashing situation, which by the way isn't because you're black, like we're all brainwashed into our own bubble, so that's not a racial comment.
Everybody's being brainwashed into their own little bubble, and it's not their fault.
Because no normal, even smart person can get out of a brainwash bubble.
It doesn't work that way.
You can't really think your way out of the bubble.
Like you can't just think harder.
I'm out of the bubble.
Usually it's some external event that knocks you out of your bubble.
Right?
Or something.
Maybe you did mushrooms or something.
But you don't get out of your bubble just by reading the news.
That's not going to help.
So some people think they can.
There might be some exceptions.
All right.
So here's here's where we are.
If you say that what I said was racist, I agree.
I agreed from the start, by the way.
I never disagreed.
But I will say that if you're ignoring the context, that you can't fix any racist situation without also appearing to be, and maybe actually being, racist.
Meaning that... We should probably make a distinction between Racism with a capital R and Little Racism.
Doing things to try to correct a worse racism with something that's also racist, that's like the small R trying to defeat the big R. I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with a little racism as an antidote to a lot of racism.
Because don't you end up with less racism?
If you could spend some money to make some money, and make more than you spend, wouldn't you do that?
So, being accused of a racist is just part of my expense.
It's part of what I'm paying.
But if you're arguing about the meaning of the word, it's a diversion from the argument.
So here are the ways that... Now, I think you're all aware that at least half of the world wants to really, really avoid the actual topic.
Have you noticed that?
That most of the energy is about avoiding the topic.
There's almost no energy on the point I was making.
All the energy is going sideways.
So here's what happens to the energy.
People saying-- all right, a bunch of examples.
The first diversion is that Rasmussen poll you looked at.
It's not enough people to be a good sample.
Well, first of all, there's nothing about my argument that depends on the poll.
I used the poll as a jumping off point for the conversation.
So I don't depend on it.
But I will say about the poll that even though it's just like a hundred some black people were interviewed and only 60 some had a problem with the phrase, it's okay to be white.
Now is that enough people?
Now what most people don't realize is that there was only an 8% margin of error.
Meaning that even if it's off by 8%, more or less, it wouldn't change the point.
It doesn't change the point if you're off 8%.
It's not a point about an exact number.
It's a point about too many people being primed by the public, by the media, to have a negative opinion about white people.
Just too many.
Now, let me ask you this.
And then other people said that the question was a racist, some kind of neo-Nazi question or something.
Suppose the question had been different.
My take on the question, is it okay to be white, is that a black racist could still say yes to that.
What do you think?
I think a black racist could still say, yeah, it's okay to be white, but you're all screwing us and you're all doing bad things.
Right?
Suppose the question had been asked this way.
Do you believe that white Americans are the cause of past and continuing systemic racism?
What would have been the percentage of black Americans who would say white people are the cause of past and the primary cause of continuing systemic racism?
Because even I think that's true.
Even I think that's true.
But the difference is, it doesn't make me think less of white people.
Do you know why?
Because I don't know any white people doing that.
I don't know any white people who are plantation owners.
Not a single one.
I don't know any white person who's, in any intentional or even accidental way, perpetuating systemic racism.
I don't even know one.
Now, they may be doing it by inaction, but then it gets a little more conceptual.
But I don't know any white people like that.
Anyway.
Let's see.
Other diversions are...
That I'm a racist for pointing out the correlation, and I use the word correlation, and I was quoted back for saying correlation.
I'm a racist for pointing out the correlation between crime and the density of black population.
Now what I said was that the causation is systemic racism.
And that got turned into, oh, you're saying there's a correlation between black density and crime, therefore you're a racist, which is the opposite of what I said.
I said that systemic racism, which I also believe is primarily formed by and enhanced by white people, almost by definition, I think that's the cause.
That's the cause of black poverty.
It's the main contributor to black poverty.
And then poverty causes the crime.
Now, there's nobody who disagrees with my statement that there's a high correlation.
The correlation is caused by history.
And the correlation is that poor people have more crime.
Who disagrees with that?
But it's part of the diversion to avoid the point, right?
We're going to attack you on that one.
Here's another one.
Well, the people who oppose clarification.
That was funny.
And then the complaint that it's okay to be white is a racist meme.
That just seems to be trying to avoid the point.
Because like I said, the poll and the question were not important to my opinion.
It was my lived experience.
And I'm joining that now with all the people who were sort of chipping in, not chipping in, chiming in.
So a lot of white people are coming to me and whispering some version of, you know, I think it is okay to be white.
It's not a racist thing.
And a lot of white people are telling me privately that they're feeling increasingly victimized by the narrative.
But also the video showing the crime makes everything worse.
Somebody says crime is a tribal trait.
Well, no it isn't.
Crime is a tribal trait?
I don't think there's any evidence for that.
It seems to me everybody who's rich does less crime than everybody who's poor.
For obvious reasons.
If you're rich, stealing stuff is all downside, no upside.
It's easy to be honest when you're rich.
I can tell you that for sure.
Alright, yeah, I think the, it's okay to be white, is the question that would get you the least amount of racism in the answer.
Am I wrong?
The way Rasmussen asked it, is it okay to be white, I think a lot of people who actually had bad feelings about white people would still say, yeah, it's okay to be white, but you're also the cause of all our problems.
I don't want to be around a community of people who think that I, Like right now, in my current existence, I'm the cause of their problems.
And I would argue that nobody disagrees with that.
Okay, El Chapo is an example of a rich criminal.
But El Chapo can't change.
Because he can't really retire when you're ahead of a cartel.
I'm pretty sure retirement means getting killed.
Yeah, he didn't have a choice.
Which is why I think you could actually convert The cartels.
I think you could actually convert them to an honest industry.
Like if there were any way to do that.
Because they would want to get out of the crime business once they're rich.
If you were the head of a cartel, and you had a billion dollars, isn't the thing you'd want more than anything?
To not be a criminal anymore.
Like somehow, you know, launder that into the legal world so you don't have to worry.
But there's no way to do that.
It'd be great if there was.
All right.
Then I asked this question on Twitter, so this is another unscientific poll.
I said, does cancelling me make race relations in America better or worse?
Because that was the point of it, right?
The point of cancelling me is to make race relations better.
Otherwise, why do it?
What do you think?
9% said it made it better, 50% said it made it worse, 40% said no change.
Well, I think most of the world didn't notice, because most of the world doesn't even read the news.
They don't even know any of this happened.
Yeah, too early to tell?
It's hard for me to imagine it made it better.
I don't know.
Maybe because it made this conversation possible, it made it better.
I'll give you that.
All right, let's see if I missed anything.
Nope.
All right.
You may have noticed that my social media numbers are way up.
My Twitter numbers and my live stream numbers are through the roof lately.
And I think it's because this is a topic people are interested in.
It looks like.
And I think people are interested in two reasons.
They're interested in two reasons.
One is they want to see if I can survive this.
Sort of watching it like a movie.
You know, to see if I can get off of Prisoner Island.
Does it feel like I'm on Prisoner Island right now?
It's a little metaphor I use.
That I always have this belief about myself.
And I recommend this to the rest of you.
It's good to have a story of yourself.
If nobody's told you that.
It's one of the best self-help things you can ever have.
Have a story of yourself.
My story, I talk about this a lot, it's called Prisoner Island.
And in my story, I'm dropped on an island.
Let's say I'm falsely accused of a crime.
That makes my story better.
Falsely accused of a crime and they drop me on an island of only prisoners.
On day one, they beat me to near death.
Day two, they beat me and raped me.
Day three, same as one and two, and repeat.
But if you come back in a year, everybody who touched me will be dead, and I will be the king of Prisoner Island.
That's my story.
That no matter how bad it gets, I'm gonna be on top.
It might take a while.
Might not be instant, but it's gonna happen.
Now, because I run that story in my mind, When I run into problems, as everybody does, I say to myself, I just got dropped on Prisoner Island.
First week, not so good.
But wait.
Just wait.
So, a lot of you wanted to see the movie where I was dropped on Prisoner Island.
Here I am.
Prisoner Island.
And, uh, do you think I'll make it off?
How many of you think that I can beat the odds and make it off of Prisoner Island?
Now the cancellation will be complete, but making it off Prisoner Island means coming out better than you left.
Well, we'll see.
The one thing you can be sure of is that the negative feelings about me will remain forever, because people don't look into context.
Context is not a big thing on the internet.
So forever I will have this, you know, this over me.
But, I don't really care about the political gooners, race grifters, victims of fake news, and my political enemies.
And, I'm impervious to embarrassment.
Did you ever wonder to yourself, Scott, were you marinating in the shame and embarrassment of this situation?
Not even for a second.
Honestly, it never occurred to me.
It never actually occurred to me that embarrassment or shame or anything would be part of this.
Like, why?
I said what I meant.
I think it's useful.
I knew what the price was.
And then I paid it.
I have a very simple model of the world.
It was news in Brazil.
Well, I'm doing a good job then.
Doing a good job.
All right.
You got fired.
I did.
I paid the price.
I paid the price so that you might be free of sin.
Now, you may have noticed that I timed my resurrection for roughly to happen around Easter.
Has anybody noticed that?
Norm says, own it, Scott.
I am owning it.
Does that make sense?
Somebody's asking me to own it.
How much harder could I own it?
That's my point.
Nor my point is that I'm owning it totally.
Are you missing that point?
Did some of this look like an apology or something?
I'm totally owning it.
I'm owning what I said.
I can't own whatever impression somebody else put in your head.
Like, I don't have any ownership of your own mental faculties.
I can't control that.
But I can own what I did.
Totally.
I totally own it.
Desert Fairy Chick says, you all realize this is a way to promote his book, right?
Yes, the cancelled book.
You are correct.
You are correct.
It is a way to promote my book.
Because that book is the solution.
It's the solution to systemic racism.
Now, I didn't plan that at the front.
Nobody would get their book cancelled with the hope that cancelling it makes us all better.
That wouldn't be a good economic strategy for anyone.
It could work.
If I had to guess today, I feel like it might be the biggest-selling book of all time.
Now, you haven't seen it, so that sounds crazy to you.
But I wrote it, and I know Generally, how this content will be accepted.
It might be the biggest book.
You know, not counting religious scriptures and stuff.
It might be the biggest book of all time.
Because that's how powerful it is.
So, reframes are super powerful.
And reframes written by a hypnotist are going to be even more powerful.
Because I'm a hypnotist as well.
So, here's something that I tell people all the time, if they're trying to understand me.
I never do anything for one reason.
I never do anything for one reason.
I'm sure there's some exceptions.
I shouldn't make that an absolute.
But generally speaking, in the business realm or the social realm, I do things for more than one reason.
It turns out that after you get cancelled, having a book to sell is probably a pretty good deal.
And as it turns out that that book was exactly on point, with everything that I'm talking about.
And what makes it on point is that it teaches reframes for individuals.
So once you get individuals, if you train individuals of any type, just individuals, if you train American individuals how to be more effective, systemic racism will still be there and be almost unimportant.
So if you can't remove all the stains embedded in our culture of systemic racism, which is nearly impossible, it's such a big job, what you can do as a better strategy is teach people how to be invulnerable to it.
Now, not by not caring, but by being so successful, success solves everything.
Do you remember O.J.
famously said, he's not black, he's O.J.? ?
Because when you're so successful that you're OJ, systemic racism probably doesn't have anything to do with anything in your life.
Now, we're not all as successful as OJ, or as unsuccessful as it turned out.
Well, I guess he was successful in his own way, you know, in an evil way.
But success fixes everything.
Again, I'm exaggerating.
That's hyperbole, right?
You should be used to my hyperbole by now.
Anytime I speak in absolutes, Your little program should say, well, he doesn't mean everybody, because I almost never do.
Almost never mean everybody, even when I say the group.
So my experience in life, coming from a not rich place, is that having the right strategy seems to have made all the difference.
To me, it seems to have made all the difference.
And remember, I lost two jobs to direct racism.
Direct racism, where they told me, you won't be promoted because you're white and you're male.
So my tools of success for building a talent stack, that's one of the things I teach, and having good systems versus goals.
And then here's a big one that I think matters maybe to black America and maybe Low-income people in general.
You've heard the saying, you're the average of the five people you spend the most time with?
Have you heard that?
I know Tim Ferriss says it, but it came from somebody before that, I forget who it was.
And there's a lot of truth to that.
If you live in a poor neighborhood, your five closest friends are probably not doing so well.
Because poverty is associated with other bad behaviors.
With other behaviors, let's say.
And that's a problem.
That's a problem.
So I don't know exactly how black America solves that problem.
Because I didn't have that problem.
But that's a pretty big problem.
And I think that's where white America just needs to butt out.
Like at that level, I think black America just has to figure that out.
I don't know.
What do you do about that?
If I were the mother, let's say I were a single black mother and I had a kid who I didn't want to get pulled into crime or bad behaviors and stuff, the first thing I'd do is find parents who also had kids who had that same desire.
And then I would form like a playgroup pod so that my son or daughter only spent time with kids who also wanted to make it out.
And they wanted to figure out, all right, what do I have to do to get out of this place?
If you put them together, the people who are trying to get out, they have a chance.
But I think if you take one good person who wants to get out, but their friends, because of where they live, are five gang members, do you think that one good person is going to make it out if their best friends are four or five gang members?
Unless somebody says, yes, I did.
Yeah, so I'll speak statistically.
You can definitely make it out if you have bad friends.
You can definitely do that.
But your odds, I think, go way down because of the influence of your peers.
So I'll just say it's the odds.
Call your pod a church.
Yeah, okay.
Now there's the benefit of black churches.
It gets you to associate with people who are trying to figure out legal, useful, well-proven techniques for a good life.
That's smart.
Very smart.
Part of the reason young men are not getting married is they can't earn enough.
Yeah.
There's a constellation of problems for young men.
Much of it their own cause.
All right.
Are black churches racist?
Yes.
But in a good way.
In a good way.
I don't have any problem with the black church.
How about historically black colleges?
So there's still a number of historically black colleges.
As far as I know, anybody can go there.
Can you give me a fact check on that?
Because it would be illegal to ban anybody.
Yeah, I think anybody can go there, but they're historically black and they kind of stay that way.
Now, is having something that's even called an historically black college that clearly is focused on helping black people associate with other people who have the same goals in life and they can network and all that, is that racist?
Of course it is.
But do you disagree with their existence?
I don't.
I mean, some of you might.
Some of you might.
You know, if you're, like, absolutist, you might.
But, you know, the world is a messy place.
You need to make some exceptions.
Sometimes you need to boost some groups for the benefit of everybody.
And historically, black churches are clearly racist.
In a good way.
In a good way.
Just like me.
Were my comments racist?
Absolutely.
Were they useful?
Yep.
If you actually take the time to listen to them, you will understand better the situation.
And understanding the situation is the first step to doing anything useful.
So I know a lot of people who got their panties in a bunch, so to speak.
But I meant that.
And there's still some people asking me to apologize for angering people.
I don't apologize for things I did intentionally.
What good would that do?
I intentionally angered people to draw energy to myself so that I could talk about anything I wanted.
And here we are.
Although, again, I didn't think the cancelling would get as big as it was.
But I knew there'd be some.
And I knew it would drive some energy my way.
So there you are.
Is black music racist?
Well, let me ask you this.
White boy and a black... I won't say boy.
There's a young white man and a young black man in a car.
And a popular song comes on from a hip-hop artist.
Which one can sing all the words out loud in the car?
Yes, it's racist.
Yes.
Yes.
Black music is purely racist because white people can't even sing it out loud.
You're literally not allowed to sing the lyrics out loud if you're white.
You don't get much more racist than that.
Now, do I have a problem with that?
Not really.
Not really.
Not a big problem.
Is it racist?
Totally.
Is it OK with me?
Yeah.
I mean, it's not perfect.
I don't have a problem with it.
Yeah.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube friends who came in to get some outrage.
I hope I gave you enough outrage to keep you going today.
