Episode 2118 Scott Adams: DeSantis Announces & Trump Pounces, Mental Illness, Trans Bans, Fear Map
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Watch me verify 274,000 ballot signatures in 2 seconds (again)
DeSantis announces with Musk
Sympathy for the mentally ill democrats
Russian critics keep dying
My Fear Map (that will get me further cancelled)
Boycotts kind of working
Trans backlash happening
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Today, featuring, I know, hold on, electricity.
Yeah.
Yeah, today we're going to do the show with electricity.
See if that keeps the lights on for a little bit longer.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that have never been experienced before, Well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, 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 of the dopamine, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip it happens now.
Ah.
Surprisingly delicious.
Oh, that's good stuff.
All right, I'd like to begin by putting you all into tech support for a moment.
Does anybody else have the experience lately, and I can't tell if it's an internet problem or a Scott problem, that your internet is working fine, you can test it and there's plenty of signal, but some of the main websites you go to just stop working in the afternoon?
Has anybody had that problem?
Is there something like, oh, okay, yes, I'm getting a lot of yeses.
I thought I was crazy.
For example, my internet can be blazing at, you know, several hundred megabits per second, and I can check it, at the same time that Instagram isn't working.
And then I'll go to Twitter, I'll be like, ah, Instagram isn't working, I'll go over to Twitter, and Twitter won't work.
So then I'll say, well, check my Gmail, and it won't work.
And it can last for hours.
So you're all having the same problem, right?
A number of you having this problem.
Is there some kind of common... How could there be a common element to any of that?
There must be something common.
Well, I don't know what it is.
Alright, well I'm glad it's not just me.
But there are times in the afternoon where I can't use my internet at all.
And here's the weird thing.
My 5G stops at the same time.
I don't know what's going on.
So I always think, oh, my internet's not working.
I'll switch over to my 5G.
It goes down the same time all the time.
I don't know why.
All right.
If you're not watching the new Dilbert Reborn comic, available only to subscribers here on Locals, or if you subscribe on Twitter, you only get the comic.
And Dilbert is still trying to deal with his new Karin 3000 AI sex bot.
And I will just summarize by saying, it's still not going well.
It's not going well.
Well, I saw today a visual illusion that mirrors the Yanni and Laurel.
You know the audio illusion, where some people hear Yanni and some people hear Laurel?
And you've probably seen on the internet that that illusion has been expanded.
You can have a list of something like 10 different sentences that if you're reading the sentence, the audio that's always the same sounds like the sentence you're reading.
And then you go down to the next sentence, and the audio instantly changes in your mind, but not in reality.
In reality, it's always the same.
But in your mind, it changes to exactly the next sentence, which has nothing to do with the sentence above it.
And then you can repeat that nine times.
Every sentence you read, completely different sentences, the audio instantly changes to the sentence you're reading.
Now, if that didn't freak you out enough, you can do that with visual stuff as well.
So I tweeted, if you want to see it, there's a visual illusion where if you concentrate at a dot in the center, sometimes you see green, sometimes you see purple, and sometimes all the dots disappear and turn into one green dot.
And all of it is based on kind of wanting to see it.
You just concentrate in one place and the entire visual field changes while you watch it.
Now, if that doesn't tell you that you've always been living in a complete subjective bubble of reality, that your bubble and my bubble do not match, You should.
I mean, that's about the best evidence you could ever have that we don't live in the same worlds with each other.
We're imagining that the other has experienced something like we're imagining, but it's pure imagination.
Your little world and mine, so different.
And we'll never know.
We'll never know.
All right.
Yesterday, if you were watching my show from YouTube, you knew that the video crapped out just because I didn't have my iPad charged up enough.
And you missed the big reveal.
I promised you that I was going to show the Kerry Lakes Challenge in Arizona, which said that the signature matching had obviously not been done, or at least not done well, because the claim was that 274,000 signatures were matched, or at least looked at for a match, in two seconds.
And I claimed That I could do that, right in front of you.
274,000 signature matches, and I'm going to do it in less than two seconds.
Do you believe I can do it?
Well, if I remember, on this board are two signatures.
And I'd like to demonstrate that I can do a signature match in under two seconds.
Takes a little stretching.
It's not something you can do right away.
Let's see if I can get this.
Alright.
You can set the timer.
Set the timer for two seconds.
I'm gonna turn around quickly and see if I can do a signature match.
How was it?
Was that under two seconds?
They do not match.
They do not match.
How'd I do?
Pretty good, wasn't it?
I'm pretty sure I got that in a little under one second.
Maybe a little over one second.
But two seconds was plenty.
I had plenty of time.
Now, you might be confused because I said I was going to do 274,000 of them in two seconds.
274,000 of them in two seconds.
Did I say that?
That's what the news said, didn't it?
Didn't the news say that there were 274,000 in two seconds?
Well, not really.
No, not really.
What the news said was per signature match.
Two seconds per signature match.
Which I just proved.
I just did it in less than two seconds.
Now, of course, that doesn't answer all the questions.
I'm really just mocking the quality of the news.
So I'm not making any real point about the election itself.
I'm just mad at the news for telling you that what that really meant was all 274,000 happened in two seconds.
It was two seconds each, which is plenty of time.
Now, here's the part I don't know.
How do you do a signature match?
Do you have to fumble around and find two things before you do the match?
Or are they presented to you on a screen and you just look at them?
Because if they're presented to you on a screen, let's say in a column, where all you're doing is seeing if this one matches this one, you could just take your finger and run right down the page.
Couldn't you?
Is it on a screen or are you looking at it on two pieces of paper that you have to, like, fuss with and find the two pieces of paper?
Does anybody know how that works?
It's on a screen, somebody says.
If the two signatures are on a screen next to each other, you can do that in two seconds pretty easily.
That's not even a challenge.
Because they're not looking for exact, they're not looking for, oh, you dotted your I differently.
They're looking for like massively different signatures.
Or like one's missing or something.
They're not looking for small differences.
Am I wrong about that?
I don't think I'm wrong.
Anyway, so this is more a comment about the quality of the news coverage.
It's not a statement in any way about whether the election was fair or not fair.
I have no idea.
Right.
So that's what you missed.
Let's see.
So as you know, tonight DeSantis announces and Trump pounces.
Yeah.
All right, you can savor that for a minute.
DeSantis announces and Trump pounces.
We have both stories.
So DeSantis is going to go on the audio service on Twitter called Spaces and is going to do an unscripted interview, which I suppose is the only kind you should do, an unscripted interview with Elon Musk.
Do you think Elon Musk is going to get any pushback for having DeSantis on?
Oh, of course, because it's Elon Musk and it's politics and it's DeSantis and all that.
So we must find reasons to hate it.
Reason number one to hate it.
Twitter has become a right-wing echo chamber.
Right?
Except that Musk has, on Twitter, said that he'd love to interview Biden as well.
So there's your right-wing echo chamber.
The guy who's being blamed for being biased.
Literally open to any of the major candidates talking to him, I'm sure.
Now, he didn't say anything about Trump.
But would he say no?
I don't know.
It's a good question.
He might, he might actually.
Because they're competitors on Truth versus Twitter.
But we'll see.
However, I think I love, I love everything about it.
I think DeSantis is smart to do it this way.
Because it makes news.
So DeSantis gets to make news twice.
Once because he's announcing, and twice because he's doing it in a way that is newsworthy.
That's good technique.
I'm going to give DeSantis some compliments.
He does consistently find the free money.
Right?
The little things that his base likes.
And this is just one of those little extra... There's just a little extra for this.
Right?
Anybody can announce for presidency.
Several people have done it already.
And it's usually boring.
I don't think there's anything less boring than having an unscripted conversation with Elon Musk, where he gets to ask the questions.
What could be less boring than that?
That's pretty good.
So DeSantis, A-plus for announcement technique.
However, when DeSantis announces, Trump pounces.
And so he had a little screed today about it, in which he called Ron DeSanctimonious.
Now he's shortened it to Ron DeSanctus.
Ron DeSanctus.
Now, I cannot hide the fact That Trump's technique makes me giggle.
And he's done this before, right?
He's announced a nickname, but then he's later shortened the nickname.
He's abbreviated it, and then he gets another hit for the abbreviation.
So now I guess he's abbreviating it to dissect us.
And these are the claims that Trump makes.
Now these are political claims.
So, you know, use your judgment about the truth of any of this, right?
It's all out of context stuff.
So, you know, I'm not claiming any of this is true.
If it were to be considered in context.
So he says that DeSantis voted to cut Social Security and degrade Medicare and he wanted to introduce this 23% sales tax increase and he's a rhino who Paul Ryan likes and he's a disloyal person.
So Trump is basically just emptying the clip.
He said, what do we got?
Bring me the entire list.
I'm gonna do one announcement.
I'll just throw everything in there, see what sticks.
But my favorite was, Trump said about DeSantis, he desperately needs a personality transplant and, to the best of my knowledge, they are not medically available yet.
Now, am I wrong that Trump is one of the best humor writers?
In our age.
It's just the way he chooses his words.
Because it would be one thing to say he needs a personality transplant, right?
If you say somebody needs a personality transplant, that would be sort of innovative and might get a little news, right?
But most people would stop there.
Oh, he needs a personality transplant.
But what does Trump consistently do?
What technique does Trump use?
Say it.
Say it.
He gets attention, of course.
No, there's more.
It's the most obvious thing he does.
Say it.
He makes you think past the sale.
Right, here he did it again.
The sale is that That DeSantis needs a personality transplant.
So that's what he's trying to sell you, that he has a boring personality.
Now, can you imagine any other candidate focusing on somebody's boringness as a political attack?
Because if you saw this out of context, you'd say to yourself, perhaps, and I think even Musk said something like this, that you'd like a boring president for a while.
You know, a boring president might be exactly what we need.
How about a president with no personality whatsoever?
I could go for that right now, right?
So there are a lot of people who would say, well, that's not even an insult.
Like, why would you focus on his personality when it's the least important part of the process?
And the answer is because it works.
That's it.
Trump knows, while other politicians don't know, that people do vote based on what they think will be more fun.
I know I do.
I am absolutely conscious of the fact, completely conscious, of the fact that I'm biased by what would be more fun.
Or funnier.
Or just more interesting.
And he knows it.
He knows that if he's more fun, people are going to vote for him.
I'm sure that helped Zelensky.
Do you think Zelensky won because he was more fun?
Probably.
Probably that and nothing else.
Probably Zelensky only won because it was more fun.
It doesn't seem like it at the moment, but I imagine they thought so.
So, anyway.
And then the claims he makes are all out of context.
For example, the sales tax increased to 23%.
If you hear that out of context, Doesn't it sound like Ron DeSantis wants to raise your taxes?
Because at one time he said 23% sales tax.
No.
Now, I don't have to do any research, I've done no research on this, to know that that was in the context of lowering your other taxes.
Did I guess right?
I'm just guessing.
But I'm guessing that Ron DeSantis never suggested keeping all your other taxes the same and raising your sales tax to 23%.
You know that never happened, right?
You don't have to research that?
Of course it never happened.
Yeah, he was probably in the context of a total tax overhaul that would result in lower taxes or something more efficient.
And I'm not saying it was a good idea or a bad idea.
I'm just saying it wasn't this.
It wasn't just keeping everything the same and raising your sales tax.
So, you know, it's a very political, Trump-like set of complaints.
Right.
But I will give Trump credit for one thing in particular.
Can you do a fact check on me here?
I'm not sure I'm going to pass the fact check on this.
But my understanding is, just based on memory, that Trump has been pretty consistent about not cutting benefits for seniors Especially, you know, Medicare and Social Security.
Am I right about that?
I believe he has been completely consistent about backing seniors.
Yeah.
So that's a strong attack.
Because if DeSantis has ever wavered on that and thought, oh, we need a grand deal to balance the budget, which is not a bad idea.
I wouldn't criticize it.
If somebody came up with an idea that did maybe shave off a little bit from Social Security and Medicare, but had the benefit of saving the country because we get out of our debt spiral, That's something you'd want to talk about.
But if you see that in a context, it just sounds like a big old, you know, tax-raising, benefit-cutting guy.
All right, so I don't know if this attack made any difference, but I love the fact that he mentioned the personality transplant.
And here's the part where he makes you think past the sale.
To the best of my knowledge, they are not medically available yet.
It actually makes you think about whether it's possible.
Which is the hilarious part.
It's like, wait a minute, he's actually talking about this like maybe it's possible.
All right.
So Vanity Fair, which used to be a respectable publication, some people say, has devolved into just a ridiculous parody of itself.
So there was an article today that had two headlines in it.
One of the headlines was, That DeSantis is going to announce on Twitter because, quote, David Duke wasn't available.
That's right.
Vanity Fair actually says in a headline that DeSantis will be announcing his presidency with Elon Musk because David Duke wasn't available.
And then they double down in the same article later saying, I don't know, it was somewhere else.
But there was another similar accusation.
Oh, it also said, and other neo-Nazi sympathizers weren't available.
Now, I'm starting to have a whole different feeling about Democrats now, like the writer of this article.
I think we'd all agree that at some level in the Democrat You know, power hierarchy.
They know they're doing things just for politics.
In other words, they don't believe their own messaging, they just know that it works.
Similar to Trump, right?
He doesn't believe his own messaging, but he knows it works.
So, here's what I'm starting to feel.
When I see people like the writer of this Vanity Fair, I don't know that this writer is part of the Democrat power structure.
Or is it somebody who has induced mental illness?
Because the Hitlerization of the Democrats, where they see Hitler everywhere, because the media has hypnotized them, basically, to see Hitler in their closet and under the bed, that to me reads as mental illness.
Now, it could be a temporary form of it, something that passes when the news passes to another form.
But at the moment, I don't see it as a political opinion.
Do you?
Do you see that as politics?
It doesn't look like that at all.
It looks like mental illness to me.
And I'm not saying that for a hyperbolic... I'm intentionally trying to not exaggerate here.
My actual impression of it is I only see it as mental illness now.
Does anybody else have that yet?
Are you seeing it that way or are you still seeing it as politics?
Now I don't know if there's a version of that that works the other way.
Do you think that Democrats have a view that there's some stuff that Republicans are doing that's not based on their actual opinions or politics, but rather on some kind of mental illness?
They would say that about religion, right?
So some Democrats, non-religious Democrats, some of them might say the right is crazy because of their belief in God.
But I think we're well beyond the point.
Where somebody's religious belief is considered a mental illness.
There's nobody in the medical community who would say that, at least for the standard religions.
I think the medical view is that people have different filters on life.
And if you pick this particular religious filter, it's more of a lifestyle preference and can be very good for you.
Would you compare somebody who believed in, let's say, a specific religion, and let's say you don't believe that's a true religion.
That's your opinion.
Is that mental illness if somebody picks a religion that gives them a good guideline for living their life in a healthy way?
To me, if religion is a mental illness, you're going to have to show me where it's hurting people.
You're going to have to show me that the negative is greater than the positive.
Because my observation, this is just anecdotal, but my observation is that religious people do better.
They have happier lives, less mental illness, more success, more satisfaction, live longer.
To me, the benefits of having a religious faith are somewhat unambiguous.
I mean, it just seems obvious to me.
Now, I'm saying that as someone who is not a believer.
So I think that gives me some credibility, wouldn't you say?
Because if I were a believer, and I said, oh yeah, believing is the healthy thing to do, well then you'd have to say, you know, that's confirmation bias.
But I'm giving you something that's the opposite of my confirmation.
My confirmation is, I'm not a believer.
I'm not by choice.
I'm not a non-believer by choice.
It's just where I ended up.
It's just where I am.
I don't choose it.
So, if I could choose, I would choose to have a religious faith.
That would be my rational choice, if I could choose.
But I can't.
My brain doesn't have that capacity, I guess.
So, I'm not sure I'd call that a mental illness, if it's making you healthier and more successful and gives you meaning and all that stuff.
But if you see Hitler under the bed, how is that helping you?
It's not.
That's just mental illness.
So that's going to be my take, I think, for the rest of the cycle.
I'm going to try to make a distinction between what is political attack, such as Trump making tax and benefit related claims about DeSantis.
That's clearly not mental illness.
Would you agree?
A politician just claiming the other one has bad policies, even if it's a lie, it's not mental illness.
It's just how they play that game.
All right.
But I think we need a name for this seeing Hitler everywhere.
It's like Hitlerization or that's not quite it.
But something that, you know, TDS didn't get it done.
Trump derangement syndrome is too nonspecific.
I'm looking for something that's more specific to the racist narrative.
Godwinization?
Too clever.
Hitler haunting?
Hitler under the bed?
How about Hitler under the bed?
Does that work?
You got the Hitler under the bed disease?
That kind of works.
It's very visual, isn't it?
It's visual and it's absurd.
So it kind of works.
Bedtime for Hitler.
Too long?
Yeah, it is too long.
All right.
As you know, if you're following the news, there is something like, I'm going to call it a trans backlash.
So, entities that are pushing back against trans activism, etc.
So, added to that list is Montana.
It's the first state to ban people dressed in drag from reading books to children at public schools and libraries.
I don't know.
Is that too far?
That feels too far.
Now I'm not in favor, just to be clear, I'm not in favor of people reading to children if the reading to children is also coming with a political message.
So just to be clear, I'm not really, I'm not crazy about the men dressed, well, how do they say it?
They say people dressed in drag, right, so they don't say it in the impolite way, so they don't say men, they say people dressed in drag.
I'm not in favour of people dressed in drag reading to school children, but I don't know if banning it is quite the right approach.
I don't have a better idea.
Just to be clear, I don't have a good idea for this, but I'm not sure that it feels like a little too much.
Does anybody have that reaction?
Or is it just me?
Somebody says jail?
No, it's just me, right?
I'm the only one having this reaction.
Yeah, because we always have to walk this balance between over-regulating everything and protecting children.
So if on this one you fell on the side of protecting children, I'd be OK with that.
I mean, I wouldn't complain about that instinct.
I just feel like it's sort of an expensive way to do it.
It's a little over-regulating, but I get it.
I get it.
I guess I'm not opposed to it.
It's just I wish there was some other way to get the job done.
All right.
But here I'm useless because I have no good ideas for this.
So I'll just point out that there seems to be some kind of a backlash coming.
Likewise, I saw a story about Target and the boycott there, because apparently Target was selling some trans-related clothing for children, right?
Was that the story?
It was trans-specific clothing for children.
So there was a complaint about that.
I saw a tweet about it that pointed to an article in The Hill, but by the time I clicked on it, the article was gone.
Is that because something about the story changed?
Did The Hill maybe get a fact check wrong?
So there's something about the story I don't understand, because it kind of came and went, and maybe it's because some of the facts were wrong.
Anyway, the only part that I think we know is that Target's getting pressure to change their approach.
So that is yet another example of, I'll call it a trans backlash.
Now, as you know, I'm pro-LGBTQ, pro-trans, for adults.
For adults.
And the kid issue is That's a whole other topic.
But for adults, you know, live your life, do what you need to do, etc.
But I would also say that the trans, let's say, messaging or persuasion was overdone.
Is that fair?
You know, can I be unambiguously pro-trans because I'm pro-human beings?
Pro-human beings, that gets you everything, right?
Adults.
They're following the law.
You follow the law, you're good with me.
You stay off my lawn, you're good with me.
I don't ask of anything else of you.
So if you could put up with me, I can certainly put up with your differences of whatever.
But I think the messaging was overdone.
It was just overdone.
Surprisingly, I think more people were already there.
The trans community was weirdly accepted from the start, in my opinion.
I mean, haven't you all, you've encountered trans people probably your whole adult life.
Did it ever matter to you at all?
Like, did they ever hurt you?
Have you ever been beaten up by a trans person?
Did the trans people raise your taxes?
Did they try to take away your rights?
I mean, it was sort of a non-problem.
But then I think things went maybe a little bit too far.
So there's a little bit of adjustment going on.
I saw one interesting theory and it was somebody talking about what they thought James Lindsay's belief was.
So there was mind reading involved.
So I don't want to blame James Lindsay for what I'm going to talk about, because it was some other person talking about his opinion.
It's just such an interesting idea, I wanted to raise it.
So you remember that the summer of George Floyd was a big narrative builder?
You know, the country is racist and all the white people are white supremacists.
But that messaging is starting to wear thin.
It's starting to not work as well.
And so there's some thought that we're heading toward the summer of the trans activism and we'll make it, that the idea would be To gin up a bunch of trans protests so that it can paint especially the conservative religious part of the Republicans as a bunch of bigots.
And that really any kind of public demonstration is not so much about George Floyd, it's not so much about protecting black citizens, it's really just political.
It's a vehicle With which people can wrap their politics around it.
So it's never about the thing.
Now I said the same thing about me getting cancelled.
And I'll say it again.
Nobody cared what I said.
Nobody cared.
It's just that there are some stories in the news that you can wrap your existing political beliefs around like a truck.
So it's like, oh, there's a truck that's driving through my neighborhood.
Oh, let me throw my politics on there.
So everybody who saw my story of getting canceled, if they thought that was about me, or it was about anything I said or my opinion, or about how my opinion might change anybody else's mind, it was never about that.
And none of these stories are.
That's the lowest level of understanding of the news.
If that's how you saw the news, that that story was actually about me, then you missed the whole story.
There were no Republicans who cancelled me.
None.
It was just Democrats.
So the Democrats found a truck.
Oh, here's one of those trucks going by.
I'll throw my politics in it and I'll get a little ride, a little free ride.
So that's all that's happening.
So the trans activism, I think, is starting to fit into that model.
That the Democrats don't really care about any specific trans issue.
They just know they can throw their politics into it and it hurts Republicans.
So that works.
All right.
And if you stay till the end, I promise you I'll do something that will make my risk of getting extra super cancelled much higher.
So if you're thinking of bailing in early, before I risk my entire career, or what's left of it, the shards of what's left of my career, you're going to want to see that.
All right.
So Hillary says if Trump gets re-elected it's the end of democracy.
Is she calling for his assassination?
I say yes.
I say yes.
I say if you are as prominent as Hillary Clinton.
Now this would be different if you were just a citizen.
If you're a citizen and you say something crazy people just say, eh, your opinion.
But when Hillary Clinton Says that electing Trump would be the end of democracy, and then of course they'll use the January 6th insurrection hoax to be their evidence of that.
This is definitely a call to assassinate him.
Or, at the very least, to do whatever it takes to keep him out of office.
I don't even know how that's legal.
You know, I guess it is, because it's free speech, blah blah.
But it feels like that should be the most illegal thing that could happen in the country.
It should be more illegal than murder.
Because when you murder, you kill one person, which is plenty bad, and you should be punished for that.
But if you call for the assassination of a president indirectly, You're calling for something that would destroy the country, at least for a while.
The level of evil in this just casual statement, oh, it's the end of democracy if Trump is elected.
No.
Here's what a reasonable person who cared about the country would say.
He'll not be good for the economy.
Debatable.
He won't be good for international relations.
Debatable.
Debatable.
He only cares about himself.
Debatable.
You know, I would argue that his self-interest and the country's are too closely aligned that it would be hard for him to get out of that box.
But when you say that it's the end of democracy, you're really calling for somebody to kill him.
Because the end of democracy is a line where nobody can survive.
Right?
Nobody's going to be okay with that.
We would die to stop that from happening.
This is the most irresponsible thing I've ever seen a leader do.
No exceptions.
That's a big statement.
Think of all the bad things leaders have done.
But I'll just say the United States, because we don't have a Hitler in the United States yet.
But can you think of anything that would be less or anything that would be more irresponsible than saying that somebody who might be the next president will destroy democracy?
Knowing that people will believe that.
That's just about the most unethical, dangerous, irresponsible thing that any American leader has ever said at any time and in any context.
Am I wrong about that?
I'm making a very extreme statement but I don't think it's hyperbole.
I don't think there's any public statement by any leader that's ever been more dangerous, more irresponsible than calling the next probable, I think he's a probable next president, the end of democracy.
That's just, I don't even know what to say about that it's so bad.
Like you actually lose the ability to speak about it.
That's what was happening just now.
I was trying to find the right words, but it's so enormously bad.
It's just enormously bad that I couldn't even characterize it.
It's outside my imagination.
That's the problem.
If something happens within your imagination, Then you probably already have words for it, because it's something that you've considered.
But this is outside my imagination.
That somebody at that level would call, essentially call for an assassination indirectly.
All right, and I'm the only one talking about it.
What's up with that?
Nobody else thought that was worth mentioning.
What was bigger than that?
Well yeah, how did that not become the biggest news in the country?
But it won't be.
It won't be.
Alright, looks like the Democrats are trying to save TikTok.
I saw a tweet that says that TikTok's on track to have all of its US user data hosted by Oracle.
That's apparently according to the TikTok CEO.
Do you understand the play that China is doing here?
There are two risks with TikTok.
One is they get all your confidential information.
But the other is they can make anything go viral.
They have a heat button that literally makes something go viral.
So they can determine what things you see or don't see, and therefore they can manipulate and hypnotize the American public.
For example, China has the ability to push one button and turn more American youths trans.
True or false?
There's literally a button, it's called the heat button, that can make anything trend.
If China decides to push the heat button on pro-children transitioning content, it will make more children in the United States become trans.
Do you doubt that?
Now I'm not saying all of them, you know, doesn't instantly turn everybody trans.
But we do know that persuasion works.
We do know peer pressure works.
We do know that social media influences people.
None of this is controversial.
China can actually turn your children trans.
I would argue that it's already happening.
And that if you could, here's the study I'd like to see.
Show me a study of trans kids and then social media usage.
If you can show me that there are just as many trans kids who don't watch TikTok as there are who do watch TikTok, I will change my opinion.
But I'm 100% positive.
I could be wrong, I suppose, but I'll give it 1% chance I'm wrong.
If you looked at the TikTok viewers, You would find that they're more likely to become trans during the time they're watching TikTok.
Would anybody take the other side of that bet?
And do you think that that's completely naturally occurring?
Do you think that China is not aware of that impact?
Of course they're aware.
Do you think they could stop it if they wanted to?
Of course they could.
Of course they could.
Now, here's the problem.
We don't know if China has pushed a button to put heat on something, or if they simply created a situation where heat would automatically arise in unproductive places.
And then they just let it happen.
Because that would be just as destructive.
And it would also explain why our version of TikTok is literally illegal in China.
Because they know that even if they don't push any buttons, its nature is to surface bad ideas and make them prominent.
Could be its nature.
That's all they would need, and that would make sense why they just don't even allow it in China.
Because if it wasn't bad by its nature, they could always control what trended in China, right?
If the only concern that China had was any specific persuasion, they would just turn that off in China.
Oh, okay, you're worried that we'll turn Chinese kids trans.
Alright, we'll just turn that off in China.
It would be that easy.
They can control what content you see.
Anyway, so the Democrats appear to be buying this diversionary technique where instead of looking at the big risk, which is persuasion, they're trying to divert us to the small risk, which is data security.
And if they can get Oracle to allegedly hold the American data, they can make you forget the biggest risk.
Because they could say, the TikTok thing, we took care of it.
Oh yeah, there was a TikTok risk, but we took care of it.
No, you didn't.
No, you diverted us from the real risk to the fake risk, the small risk, the data.
The Democrats are doing that, presumably because they like TikTok to win elections, and they're willing to turn your kid trans in the process, because that doesn't matter so much.
Again, this is one of the most Evil and unethical things you'll ever see in your life.
The Democrats hiding the fact that the big risk is persuasion.
And by the way, the Republicans are just a little bit better.
You know, I've prodded some of the Republican people in Congress to mention persuasion when they mention it, and a few of them have.
So I know that the Republicans are at least, you know, mentally, they're on board with the fact that there are two risks.
But you can't find a Democrat to say it.
Find me any example of a Democrat in Congress who mentioned the risk of persuasion as opposed to the risk of data security.
You'll find Republicans who have said both.
I don't believe you'll find even one Democrat who has done anything but say it's a data security problem.
And hey, we'll take care of that.
No problem.
Yeah.
All right.
So I think Trump should just ban TikTok if he becomes president.
Or DeSantis.
Or as we like to call him, DeSanctus.
All right, even Chuck Todd.
This made news, it's funny.
Chuck Todd did something that wasn't stupid, and it made national news.
How would you like to be so incompetent that when you said something that made sense, it made national news?
That actually happened.
Here's what he said.
So the NBC host said that basically that the FBI is looking bad because of the Durham report and that trust in the FBI is eroding left and right and he's saying that even the left doesn't trust the FBI and the Durham report blah blah and even suggests that maybe you need something like the Church Committee to revamp the FBI and make it credible again.
Now, again, the story is not about the FBI, because we've already talked about the FBI to death.
The story is that Chuck Todd made national news by saying something reasonable.
I mean, that's the story.
He just said something reasonable based on the news and things we all agreed to be true.
And that was national news.
That is so embarrassing, that being reasonable makes you a head life.
All right, speaking of unreasonable.
So you know that the left, of course, has tried to demonize Twitter and turn Twitter into a right-wing garbage dump so that nobody believes anything on Twitter.
And they'll all go to TikTok for their political opinions, I guess.
So here's what the Trump attack dog Stephen Collinson says in an opinion piece on CNN.
And by the way, I do read the CNN opinion pieces for the humor.
Meaning that I laugh because it's so propaganda.
I mean, it's not even pretending to be anything like fair.
That always makes me laugh.
So, Collinson says that DeSantis is trying to out-Trump Trump.
What do you think of that approach?
I think you're going to see more of it.
They're going to say, all right, Trump is the worst thing that we've ever seen in the history of the Republic.
And here's the surprise.
The guy in second place?
Even worse.
Even worse.
He's out-Trumping Trump.
Yeah, I don't know.
It might work with their base.
Because I think they're worried that if DeSantis does get some traction, they're going to end up with a reasonable-looking Republican, and they don't know what to do with that.
So they're going to have to turn DeSantis Into a worse version of Trump than Trump, because they've learned that the only thing they win on is what?
What's the only way that the Democrats win?
Fear, right?
They don't win on policies, because the majority of the public is not on board with their policies.
Policy-wise, I think something like a middle-of-the-road Republican would have the most Beneficial policies, according to the majority of Americans.
So, they've got this weird little balance, don't they?
They're trying to make Trump look like the craziest person in the world, but then DeSantis comes along, and if they take Trump out by saying he's crazy, and a threat to the Republic, you get one of the strongest Republican operators of all time.
Because although I don't think DeSantis could beat Trump, unless there's some new news that comes out that we don't know about.
But head to head, I don't think he can beat Trump.
However, that said, he's unambiguously one of the sharpest, best, most effective Republican leaders in a long time.
Would you agree?
So what are the Democrats going to do?
Do they want them some DeSantis to run against?
Because that's not going to work.
Do they want Trump to run against?
I don't think that's going to work either.
I mean, they've got a real balancing act, and I don't even know if the Democrats have decided how to handle it yet.
It's like they have two ways to be wrong and no way to be right.
Do you see that?
They can be wrong in two different ways, but they don't have a way to be right.
Because either one of those candidates should be able to take whoever they run against, in my opinion.
I think both of them can take anybody.
Now, Vivek also makes things interesting.
I love the fact that the Republican Party has the most diversity for who's running for president.
So far, Biden's challengers are a generic white guy and another generic white guy.
Who is running against Biden?
So, RFK Jr., generic white guy.
Mariana Williams, well, generic white woman.
And then Asa, Asa Hutchinson?
No.
He's running as a Republican.
Wasn't there somebody else?
Newsom's not really running.
Bernie's not running.
So now you've got, you know, Nikki Haley, and you've got Vivek, you've got Tim Scott.
So even though Trump, you know, would be the standard bearer, probably, if he wins the primary, that's a lot of diversity.
That's a lot of diversity.
Yeah, RFK Jr.
is a generic white guy.
I mean, he's more interesting than the average generic white guy, but so is Trump.
The Debs are going to say Tim Scott is a racist.
Yeah.
Good luck with that.
That's probably why they have to turn to the trans issues.
The racism thing is sort of wearing out.
All right, let's see what else Stephen Collins has said.
It says of Twitter, that's because Twitter, which once offered a platform for democratic movements in the Arab Spring, has been transformed by its new owner into a, wait for it, a febrile circus of untamed free speech, conspiracy theories, and unverifiable information.
Does that sound like word salad to you?
Yeah, word salad.
I had to look up febrile.
Have you ever heard that word?
F-E-B-R-I-L-E.
Yeah, it means like a feverish approach to something.
Like a feverish excitement.
So it's a feverish, what is it?
It's a feverous circus of untamed free speech.
Now let's break down these complaints.
Untamed free speech.
Untamed free speech?
That's a bad thing?
I thought untamed free speech is what we like.
It's untamed because the Democrats don't control it anymore.
The Democrats are actually against untamed free speech.
Here it is.
It's right here.
It's in writing.
Opposed to untamed free speech.
Wouldn't most of you run toward untamed free speech?
I wouldn't run away from it.
I'd run toward it.
That's why I'm on Twitter.
I like the untamed free speech.
So what else is bad about it besides the untamed free speech?
Conspiracy theories and unverifiable information.
Well, thank goodness, Stephen Collinson has alerted us that only since Musk took over Twitter, that's when things got bad with conspiracy theories and unverifiable information.
You all noticed that, right?
It used to be there were no conspiracy theories.
And there was no unverified information.
But as soon as, as soon as Must took over, I don't know what happened.
Suddenly, suddenly there are all these conspiracy theories that were never there before.
And unverified information, my God, I didn't even think it existed until Must took over.
Now suddenly, some information is unverified?
Are you kidding me?
How could we live in this world with unverified information and conspiracy theories and untamed free speech?
Wait a minute, I just turned into that meme.
Oh my god, I just turned into the meme.
It's like that, right?
I'm not wrong.
Look at that face.
That's my impression of the internet meme face.
Anyway, it's hilarious.
So you better stay away from that febrile circus called Twitter.
You don't want to be part of a febrile circus.
You know, that's one of the things that my mother taught me when I was young.
I was probably only, I don't know, maybe eight, nine years old and she called me in one day and she said, you should always look both ways before crossing the street.
I understood that.
She said, be home by five o'clock for dinner, because you don't have a smartphone.
They haven't been invented yet.
And I thought, wow, how does she even know that?
But yes, so I'd be home at five.
But then she would always throw in, no matter what other advice, she would say, but most importantly, stay away from any febrile circuses.
And I would say, you mean the feverish kind of circuses?
Because I had really good vocabulary then.
And my mother would say, exactly.
Stay away from the febrile circuses.
And I have done that for most of my life, and I think that's paid off.
So, that's my advice to you too.
No febrile circuses.
Well, here's a little surprise.
The American economy, it keeps surprising on the upside.
I think we try to do everything we can to kill the American economy, you know, through our politics and bad opinions and stuff.
And it just keeps going.
So apparently the services sector is better than it's ever been.
So May was like the best it's ever been.
Now, manufacturing is not great.
But the services sector, stuff like vacations and things, there's a lot of pent-up demand, it looks like.
So that's good.
Now, inflation did come down.
And Donald Luskin had a piece on the Wall Street Journal.
You should follow Donald Luskin on Twitter as well.
Good follow for economics.
And he talks about how the Fed is always fighting the last war.
So, you know, I won't give you the economic argument here, because you're not all going to love it, but the point is that people who work for the Fed, and people who are also experts on economics, don't have the same opinion of what works and what they should be doing and when.
Wouldn't you think that economics would have figured that out?
That if you do this, you'll get more inflation.
And if you do this, you'll get less inflation.
Don't you think that that, the most basic, basic economic thing, you don't think the experts should be agreeing on that stuff?
But they don't.
They don't.
Like even the Fed seems to be confused about what caused inflation, according to other economists, right?
Not according to me, but according to other economists.
So what is up with that?
You think that you can You can distrust experts and you think you've reached the level of skepticism that's appropriate.
It's like, oh yeah, I don't trust all the experts.
No, I live in the real world.
I know experts could be lying for a variety of reasons or just wrong.
But did you think it would go all the way to all the experts in economics in the world?
Can't agree on the most basic thing.
Will this cause more or less inflation?
And so Donald Luskin raises the alarm that because the Fed is fighting the last war, in other words, I think his view, if I'm characterizing right, is that inflation is going to come down on its own.
So if the Fed is goosing the reduction of inflation, you can get to disinflation.
And you're in real trouble with disinflation.
It doesn't sound like trouble, does it?
Your prices are coming down.
Sounds good, right?
What do you do when your prices are dropping?
How do you act when prices are dropping?
How do you act if you think a car will be less expensive in six months than it is now?
Yeah, you stop buying.
You just completely stop buying things because it'll be cheaper in six months.
If you stop buying things, the economy dies.
So, this was a real useful context thing.
Is that the Fed might be doing the exact opposite of what would be good for the economy.
And the argument is that the Fed didn't cause inflation and the things they're doing is not going to reduce it much.
It's external factors that caused inflation, external factors that will reduce inflation, especially the bonus payments during the pandemic.
Once those stopped, it was a big source of inflation that went away.
And it could be That the Fed is pushing us in a direction we're already going to go, and then we'll go there too far too fast, and prices will decrease, and then the whole thing fucking falls apart.
So, good to know.
But it's interesting that experts are completely on opposite ends of what makes sense for the economics.
All right.
You know those neo-Nazis in Charlottesville who were saying they will not replace us?
Now I think they were talking about not just, it wasn't just anti-Semitic, I think it was about immigration as well, right?
And they were concerned that brown people from other countries would be replacing white people in the United States and apparently it's happened.
So we've had some prominent examples where white supremacists Which used to be a job that only white people held, has now largely gone to brown people.
So, I mean, you got the head of the Proud Boys.
Head of the Proud Boys is part Cuban, I guess.
And then there was the Indian American who had the Nazi flag and tried to attack the White House recently.
Yeah, that was a job that was totally white people.
They used to do that.
But now, now Indian Americans getting in on the white supremacist stuff, the replacement is happening.
And I think we had some other examples recently, didn't we?
Of brown white supremacists?
Yeah.
So, I didn't believe them when they said that immigrants were going to be replacing white people, but they are taking the white supremacist jobs.
I don't know about the other jobs, but the white supremacists are losing a lot of jobs, and I think somebody should look into that.
Well, it turns out that being a critic of Putin is not good for your health.
Russia's Deputy Minister of Science and Higher Education, who apparently was a critic of Putin, died mysteriously on a flight.
Nobody knows why.
He just got into flight and he fell ill and he died.
I wonder if he ate anything on the flight.
A big old coincidence.
All these Kremlin critics, they just keep dying.
You know, it's kind of amazing that Putin just murders his critics.
And apparently he's done enough of it so we're just used to it.
Do you remember when it was a big story that Putin murdered a critic?
And now it's just one of the stories.
Putin actually made us get used to the fact that he murders his critics outside the country.
We just got used to it.
Have I told you that before, that you can get used to anything?
This is a perfect example.
It was the biggest outrage, and now it's just a little news story.
Putin's killed another person.
All right.
For those of you who are nice enough to wait to the end, I give you the most provocative, dangerous thought you've ever seen.
I call it my fear map.
And it's on the back of this whiteboard.
And I'm going to cause some trouble here.
Now, people sometimes ask me, Scott, what?
Why are you saying this?
So they don't question what I say, but often they'll say, what's your purpose?
What are you trying to accomplish here?
So I'll tell you what I'm trying to accomplish, and then I'll explain.
What I'm trying to accomplish is, since I find myself in a unique situation, that I'm already cancelled, I can't get too much extra cancelled, it wouldn't make that much difference.
So I have free speech in a way that you don't.
So I can simply say things that I think would be useful, and I am trying to focus on things that are useful, right?
I'm not just trying to mix stuff up, not trying to get some extra clicks.
Everybody likes extra clicks, but that's not why I'm doing it.
I'm doing it because there are just some things that I uniquely can say out loud that are useful.
I only do useful things that you need to hear.
Specifically, what I'm going to talk about would be useful for black Americans.
It won't feel like it.
It might feel the opposite.
But here's my general statement.
You need to have good information to make good decisions.
You all agree with that, right?
The better your information about your situation, the better decisions you can make.
I believe that black Americans are crippled by the fact that white people lie to them about everything.
White people, can you give me some confirmation?
White people lie to black Americans about everything because we've been trained to lie.
We've been trained to hide our true opinions because we would be demonized if we were even just objectively talking about data, right?
Even if white people are just trying to help.
Trying to help will get you cancelled, for sure.
So here I am, I'm going to try to help, and it's something I couldn't have done, except I'm already cancelled.
So you're going to see one of the rare things that you've ever seen in public.
A cancelled person telling you the truth.
Now, I'm going to prime you a little bit more.
This type of topic necessarily is easier to talk about when you talk about groups of people acting on average.
If I say white people like cheese, you're smart enough to know that I don't mean every white person likes cheese, right?
It's just sort of a general statement.
If I say black people like hip-hop, you're smart enough to know not everyone, not every black person likes hip-hop.
That'd be crazy.
So everything I say about any group is just a generalization.
It does not include you or any specific person.
The next thing I'm going to say, which is very important, under no circumstances does it ever make sense to discriminate against an individual.
In romance, in hiring, in your social life, your family life, any kind of employment, anything like that.
Giving somebody a loan, It makes no sense to discriminate individually, because it doesn't help the person you're discriminating against, it doesn't help the system, you know, the United States, and it doesn't help you as a discriminator.
You're just cutting yourself off from, you know, the beauty and talent of most of the world.
So if you have a situation where nobody wins, how can you possibly be in favor of any part of that?
So discrimination against individuals, you can't favor it on any level.
Because there are no winners, it's just a lose all the way across.
And it's the opposite of what made America great, which is we tried really hard not to be those people.
We didn't succeed, but we tried really hard to be those people.
So, with that in mind, I give you the fear map.
Now, I'm roughly dividing people in the United States by income and education.
Would you agree that education is highly correlated with income?
Again, we're not talking about every person.
Of course there are people who didn't go to college and made a lot of money, of course.
But in general, the higher your education, the greater your income, right?
Now I'm going to start with a white person in America's experience.
Now when I talk about fear, I'm talking about a visceral, irrational reaction.
Right?
I'm not talking about logic.
This is just fear.
Irrational fear.
As a white American, if I go into a low-income area that's all white Americans, am I afraid?
If I go to a low-income area that's just all white people, am I afraid for my life?
Not even a little.
I grew up in a low-income, mostly white area.
I never even thought about it.
I never even thought about violence.
I mean, there was plenty of violence, because it's everywhere.
But I didn't have any special fear about white people being a white person.
Suppose I go into a middle-income environment.
I get a blue-collar job.
I just go to work.
And let's say that my co-workers are all white.
Am I afraid of anything special?
Well, just the normal dangers of life.
But I'm not extra afraid because my co-workers are white.
Why would I be?
It wouldn't even come up.
How about high income and high education?
If I spend some time around some highly educated white people, would I be in trouble?
Well, yes, a little bit.
The higher educated white people are more likely to accuse you of being a racist.
Am I right?
High income white people will accuse other white people of being racist.
That's where it comes from.
Universities and people who write books and stuff.
So if as a white person in America I would have I would feel again it's just a feeling.
I would feel no risk around poor white people.
There would be a risk.
Because income and crime come together.
So there would be a little extra risk, but I wouldn't feel it.
I've never felt it.
In fact, I can think of zero places in the United States that are mostly white that I would have any danger feeling going to.
Although there would be elevated risk with lower income.
In the middle income, I don't worry about white people at all.
At the high income, I do worry about them.
The high-income white people I do see as potentially my enemy.
Does that make sense?
Not necessarily my enemy, but potentially.
Yeah.
Now let's say you're a black American, and we'll just reverse it.
You're a black American and you're in a low-income area.
Is your danger higher?
Probably.
Probably.
If you're a black American and you're in a middle-income environment, is your danger higher?
Probably not.
I mean, probably not, right?
How about if you're black and you're in a high-income, high-education area?
Probably not much danger at all.
You'd probably be pretty happy.
Suppose you're a white person and you're contemplating going into an all-black area that's also low-income.
Would that be risky?
To be a white person going into a low-income, mostly black area.
Well, you can talk about the data or the statistics, but I can tell you with certainty, that would scare the shit out of all white people.
All of them.
Now, of course, when I say all, I don't really mean all, right?
Because every time I talk about a group, it's never all.
It's just sort of an average.
Yeah, white people are scared to death of going into low-income black areas.
What about white people going into an environment that had a big mix of lots of black people in the workplace along with everybody else?
So it's not mostly black, but it's a good mix of diversity.
Would a white person have any fear being in an environment that was a mixed group versus, let's say, all white?
Yes.
Because the fear is that you will be accused of racism.
Right?
If you work in a mixed group, the odds of you being a white person being accused of being a racism are close to 100%.
Do you want that?
That's an extra risk that you don't have to put up with.
How about if you're a white person and you're in an environment where there's a lot of diversity at the higher income level?
Well, they're going to tell you that you're the problem, that you're supporting white supremacy, and you owe me some money.
So, if you're a white person in a diverse environment, you've got the extra risk that they're going to ask for reparations.
No white person has ever asked me for reparations.
Again, this has nothing to do with whether the reparations are a good or bad idea.
I'm just saying from a risk management perspective, being in California is riskier than being in Idaho.
Am I wrong?
In California, there's a risk I will pay reparations for having nothing to do with slavery.
That's a risk.
If I go to Idaho, probably no risk.
Probably no risk of any reparations.
So, I will say again, if you're dealing with an individual, Of any color, ethnicity, religion, gender.
You have to treat them as an individual.
You just have to.
It's good for you.
It's good for them.
And it's the only thing that makes our system work.
However, if you're judging your personal risk, you can use averages.
It's not against the Constitution.
It's not against the law.
It's not unethical.
It's not immoral.
It's just risk management.
It's just risk management.
And everybody gets to do that.
There's nothing that took away your ability to manage your own personal risk.
So, I would say if you're a white person, there are three areas you should have extra Concern about, because your risk would be higher.
Anywhere there's a high ratio of black people in a low-income area, anytime you're working with a number of black people who have been trained by society to see you as the enemy and then accuse you of discrimination, whether you do it or not.
And then the high-income group, you get the professors who will say, not only are you discriminating at the moment, but just by existing.
Your mere existence makes you an asshole.
So, should you use your risk management common sense to stay away from dangerous situations?
Or, should you allow yourself to be in what are obviously more dangerous situations?
Because that would be the moral thing to do.
Is it more moral to put yourself in obviously more dangerous situations?
Not physically, but also reputationally and money-wise, etc.
Now, it is moral and ethical to manage your risk any way you want.
Any way you want.
Am I cancelled?
Did I say anything you don't agree with?
Was there one thing here, anything, that you didn't agree with?
No, you agreed with all of it, right?
You know this is what got me cancelled, right?
So earlier in the live stream I said I didn't get cancelled for what I said.
I got cancelled because I was a truck going through the neighbourhood that wanted to put their message on a truck.
So I just happened to be the truck.
And they just loaded me up with their message and I carried it with them.
I couldn't get it off my truck bed.
It was too late.
That's all my fault, by the way.
I take full responsibility.
Just to be clear, I always take full responsibility for my own actions and the outcomes.
So, of course, I take full responsibility for getting cancelled.
But you should understand the mechanism, which is slightly different from who takes responsibility.
Now, when I explain it this way, you all said, oh, right?
But when I explained it in the, let's say, the angrier, more provocative way, where I said you just stay the F away from blah blah blah, it was just this story.
It was just this.
And when I explained it without the hyperbole and without the swearing, you just looked at it and said, oh yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, that is high risk.
Now what's different is, It's hard to manage, you know, in the short term, the extra risk that comes with low income, right?
Because low income and crime are pretty entangled.
But I would say that at the middle income and high income, there's a media poisoning.
And the media has poisoned black Americans.
And black Americans have not yet figured out that white Americans really need to kind of stay away from them for their own safety.
Again, not individuals.
If there's an individual, you should treat them individually.
But if you're deciding, should I go to an environment where my co-workers would be mixed or less mixed, you are managing your risk in a realistic way that the media has created.
You didn't create that.
You did not create any of that risk.
And you do get to avoid it If that's your preference.
Now, a number of people said that you should increase your personal risk to make sure that there's plenty of interaction among groups, because in the long run, the mixture of the people will give you a better outcome.
You'll get used to people and discrimination will go away on its own.
To which I say, I don't think you've lived in the real world at all.
And it's not my job to make the world better in 50 years because I did what you described.
My job is to not get my ass kicked.
That's my job.
I just don't want my ass to get kicked.
I don't want my reputation or my money to be taken.
That's all.
So I'm just going to look out for that stuff.
I'm loving the nature of the comments, because usually when I'm doing my silly stuff, you know, there'll be silly comments.
And if I do things you disagree with, you know, there's a big pushback that's coming in immediately.
But this kind of scrambled your brain a little bit, didn't it?
Maybe in a way you liked.
But I can tell when you get a little quiet that there's some processing going.
So I think there's a lot of processing happening on this right now.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my live stream for today.
YouTube, thanks for coming back after I so rudely disconnected you yesterday because my battery died.
But I think it was worth it.
And yeah, most of you, I think, were on this page.
So here's a writer's trick for you.
Here's how I describe a good writer.
A good writer, at least in the non-fiction world, a good writer is somebody who says what you already think, but they say it better than you were thinking it.
Have you ever heard me say that before?
So that's what this was.
This was me telling you what you already thought.
Most of you, I think.
But I said it better than you were thinking it.
So now you can think it better, because you've just seen another way to model it.
