Episode 2169 Scott Adams: Musk Pays, Disney Is Dismal, Movies Are Over, Tate Persuades, Tucker Plots
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Coffee Time!
Politics, Monetized Twitter, Meta Threads App, Woke Disney, Rep. Summer Lee, Military Viagra, Domestic Terrorism, DEI, Student Debt, India Moon Rover, Woke Mind Virus, Celebrity Trans Kids, McMartin Pre-School Brainwashing, Biden Campaign Strategy, Andrew Tate Accusations, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Bo Bo Bo Bo Bo Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
We're already private on the locals platform and talking to you also on YouTube.
You're all awesome.
And might I add, you're looking extra sexy today.
Better than even yesterday, and yesterday you were killing it.
So, if you'd like your sex appeal and also your enjoyment of this livestream to go to levels that you didn't even know were possible, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's called the dopamine of the day.
It's a simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
So, ah.
Well, thank the gods of news who have delivered upon us.
Oh, a bounty.
It's a bounty of funny news and interesting news.
I don't want to be a spoiler, but it doesn't look like... Goodbye.
But it doesn't look like we're going to have World War III.
We'll get to that.
If you were worried about World War III, probably not.
That's the spoiler.
All right, let's talk about other things, though.
I've developed the best insult for the year 2023.
The best insult.
I've been testing the sound.
I told you I was going to test it.
And now I have an outcome.
Absolutely nobody likes to hear this.
Bob believes in the news.
So if you really want to insult somebody, you go, Bob, you believe in the news.
Now, I would recommend that you only use this for somebody whose name is Bob.
I don't really have anything that would work with other names, but this would work really well if your name is Bob.
Bob believes the news, and just walk away.
There's nobody who can respond to that.
You have to try it out.
The next time you're debating about something in the news, political, just look at the person and say, so Bob, you believe the news.
And then Bob will say something like, well, you know, I do my own research and I look at multiple sites and I talk to people.
And then you just look at him and say, but in the end, you believe the news.
That's it.
That's the whole technique right there.
All right.
Well, looks like actors and writers are going on strike.
Hollywood actors and writers.
First time since 1960.
And so we will not be gifted with the greatness of their products.
So maybe they won't be making more movies right away.
And I can't tell you how different my life would be if I didn't occasionally have to sit through three hours of bullshit that I imagined was going to be good, but I was fooled again.
Do you really think the world would be worse without movies?
I mean, I realize this is heretical, but I don't think we need them.
Don't think we need them.
I said the same thing about all those species that were becoming extinct.
Think about your past week.
You know, how did the past week go for you?
Do you remember that time this past week when you said everything would be good except for, you know, the dodo is extinct?
Because I was going to have dodo barbecue, and there's no dodos.
So my life is ruined because of the animals that have gone extinct.
Now, I'm not in favor of animals going extinct.
If you could stop it, that'd be great.
It'd be great.
But I just want to point out, you have not missed any animals.
There's not a single animal that you've said to yourself, if only, if only those specific animals were still here.
You know that bird with the funny head?
Things were good when we had that bird, but not anymore.
No, it's like that.
You would never miss movies.
If they stopped forever today, you would miss the habit.
You would miss the habit.
But then you would replace it with something healthier.
You would not be worse off with no movies.
And by the way, I can say that about myself.
I don't believe that getting cancelled in newspapers globally is, you know, desperately injuring the people who would have been reading it otherwise.
Entertainment's pretty optional, it turns out, if you have other sources.
All right.
The funniest news from yesterday, which is kind of awesome, is that Twitter had started mailing out checks To people who were not expecting any checks.
So it's the bigger accounts that were getting lots of engagement.
Musk had promised that he would start paying people for engagement because they can run ads in your comments.
Which is a much better place to put an ad because you're not going to see it unless you're interested in that comment.
Well, some people... I saw one tweet of somebody who got over $900,000.
Matt Wallace.
I don't know who Matt Wallace is, but... Is that true?
Maybe it was like a... I don't know.
It doesn't seem possible.
I don't think the math works, because how much engagement would you have to have to get that?
Other people were getting, I think Tim Poole said he got $5,000.
Krasenstein's got $25,000.
Krasenstein's got $25,000.
I didn't get any notice that I noticed.
They were all tweeting this little notice of getting paid.
I don't think I have, but it might also be because I didn't start my subscription service as soon as they did.
So maybe, I don't know, maybe I get paid.
Allegedly I would.
So here's the funniest thing about this.
So just when people were going to threads, you know, the competition to Twitter, Elon Musk comes up with a plan to monetize your critics.
That's right.
The more trolls that come into my tweet now, and they yell at me and call me a racist or whatever they want to call me, the more money I make.
And the funniest thing about this was Mike Cernovich's reaction.
So many of you know Mike Cernovich from Twitter.
And he's one of the bigger accounts.
He's over a million.
And he's most famous on Twitter for being the most aggressive blocker of trolls.
And he commented, damn it, I have to unblock 25,000 people now so they can help mine me money on Twitter.
And he coined the term, using the trolls to mine money on Twitter.
I love that term.
So, let me remind you that the number one factor in success is just pure luck.
So, Cernovich decides to make that sort of almost a brand, that he blocks people.
And then it turns out that maybe he could have made a lot more money if he didn't.
He'll do fine either way, because he gets a lot of engagement.
But I thought that was funny.
I'm going to confess this to you just because it's funny.
On Twitter someone asked me if I had been doing affirmations about creating a new source of cash flow.
Because this just snuck up on me.
I wasn't expecting it.
Just one day apparently I'm eligible for money that I wasn't expecting.
And the answer is yes.
I only have one affirmation going.
And the affirmation is that a magical source of cash flow would open up.
One that I was not aware of.
And that happened yesterday.
How often does that ever happen to you?
Have you ever had an unexpected source of cash flow open up?
It's never happened to me.
I mean, not like that.
So yes, that was actually my affirmation, that specific thing.
And it just appeared.
Now, Let me give you a little background.
I don't believe affirmations are magic.
And I don't believe I necessarily authored my environment because it seems to have affected other people too.
I doubt I did that.
The weird coincidences which you appear to have when you're doing an affirmation is just mind-boggling.
I've been doing it all my life, and one coincidence after another will just plop into your lap when you're doing affirmations.
I don't know why.
It could be because reality is subjective.
It could be that you literally just imagine a different path in your reality that is no more or less real than the one you are on.
It's just different.
So maybe it's just that.
Maybe all possibilities exist in like a steady state.
Like every path exists and the only thing that's moving is your consciousness weaving through the various four-dimensional reality.
Maybe.
Maybe.
I always think of consciousness like the control point in a program.
If you're executing a computer program, it doesn't all execute at once, right?
It executes in a logical sequence.
But I always think that that point of execution, if the computer program could have feelings, like, oh, I'm now at this point, it would have consciousness.
All you'd have to do is tell the program it has a feeling associated with the specific place that it's executing.
And if it felt different in different parts of that execution, it would be conscious.
All right.
Tucker Carlson is reportedly creating a new media company and trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars and he would run that media company on Twitter.
So Twitter is beefing up its video services and now allows long form for some bigger accounts, I guess.
And Tucker is looking to build his media company that would run on Twitter.
And the reason he would run it on Twitter instead of YouTube is censorship.
Censorship.
So one of the things that Elon Musk has created is a safe place for creators, which is also paying them.
And I also wonder if my incentives will change.
I feel like they will.
I feel like they will.
Because I spent much of yesterday, I couldn't even get it out of my head, thinking about the worst thing I could tweet that would get the most engagement.
Because now that's monetized.
And I have to talk myself out of it.
All morning long I've been talking myself out of it.
I'm coming back with my full cup of coffee to start the show and I'm thinking of a tweet.
I think I'm going to say that Taylor Lorenz is the hottest woman on Twitter.
Just because I know I get a lot of engagement.
I barely know what she looks like.
I just know people are really mad at her right now.
That's all it would take.
But I didn't do it.
I didn't do it because it's not creative.
If you do creative things for a living, you have these sort of standards that develop accidentally, where you go, ah, that's not creative enough.
So if I were to immediately go out and just do troll bait tweets, I would not feel good about myself, even if I made money, because it would be so uncreative to do that.
However, I don't know if you noticed that Mr. Beast, who is an enormous social media presence, if you're not aware of him, Mr. Beast on YouTube and Twitter, just one of the biggest accounts of all time.
He's just a legendarily gigantic social media presence.
And he said that he would give the money from his engagement this month to whoever had the most engagement on the comments to his tweet.
So all the people jumped in with trying to compete for, because if you got one month of Mr. Beast's Twitter money, I don't know what that would be, but it's a big number.
And he makes so many millions a year that he could give away a million dollars.
It wouldn't even touch him.
So I thought, damn it, I think I can compete for this.
You know, my competitive juices were just automatically triggered because it's a contest.
And Mr. B says 22 million followers.
22 million.
22 million followers.
That's a lot.
Anyway.
I decided to enter the contest, meaning I made a comment that I hoped would get a lot of tweets.
And I got absolutely smoked by Bill Pulte.
Bill Pulte just comes in and says he'll donate the money.
And I'm like, oh, I can't beat that.
Come on, Bill!
So I think his engagement was something like 50 times mine.
All I did was post my Dilbert Reborn comic today about the Outcome of the cage match between Dilbert's CEO and another CEO.
I won't say it on YouTube, but let's just say it definitely wouldn't run in a newspaper.
So you'd have to look at it yourself.
If you want to see it, I took it outside the paywall just to compete.
Normally you wouldn't be able to see Dilbert reborn.
It's behind the paywall.
But if you go to the MrBeast tweet, You can find it there.
Possibly the funniest thing I've ever written.
I actually think that's true.
That the comic I put under Mr. Beast's tweet, it might be the funniest thing I've ever written.
It's just me.
So your mileage will differ.
So Tucker Carlson starting his company.
It looks like they might get some other hosts.
Who do you think Tucker is going to recruit?
If Tucker Carlson starts his own thing with other hosts, who would he recruit?
Because the problem is everybody who's notable already has a pretty good job.
The people working at Fox News, could they really imagine that they would get a bigger paycheck doing this?
I don't know.
And other names I hear you say, they already have their own thing.
Glenn Greenwald already has his own thing.
Dan Bongino, his own thing.
Megyn Kelly, her own thing.
So there actually aren't that many people who are big name, let's say, voices in the political realm, who are also looking for a job.
Because the thing that makes you that prominent is that you have a platform that's already working.
So it's gonna be tough.
It's gonna be tough to recruit.
But wouldn't it be interesting if he recruited young?
You know, let's say he looked on Twitter and found the people who are just killing it on Twitter but don't have their own platform yet.
That'd be fun.
Yeah, that'd be really fun.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
Zero Hedge tweeted that the use of threads, the competitor to Twitter, is down 20% from Saturday and user time spent is down 50%.
Now, I have not checked threads in a few days.
I did sign up just to see what it's all about.
Haven't felt any need to check it in two days.
I've checked Twitter 400 times.
Why the difference?
Well, here's the mistake that Zuckerberg made, which sounded like the smartest thing he did, which might have turned into the dumbest thing he did.
So one of the features when you sign up for Threads is that you can automatically bring all of your follows over, not the people who follow you, but the people you follow, you can bring over to Threads.
So I brought all the people that I follow because they look good and they have good pictures.
Because that's what I do on Instagram.
If your pictures are good, for whatever reason, I follow you.
Maybe it's attractive people I want to look at.
Could be that.
And so I bring all those people over and then I see what happens when they're forced to produce content that's only text.
It didn't go well.
It's some of the worst tweeting or threading you've ever seen in your life.
All the people who look amazing when they have to talk.
It all just goes right the fuck away.
They don't have anything.
It is so amazingly uninteresting to read the threads from the same people that I happily follow on Instagram and will continue to.
Their Instagram posts are great.
There was a reason I followed them.
But boy, when they start talking, there's nothing to see there.
There's just nothing there.
A typical tweet would be like, I don't know if I should wear socks today.
Okay.
All right.
All right.
Let's talk about your socks.
So, as I tweeted about that, it turns out that moving my Instagram followers to threads did not give me the Algonquin roundtable effect I was hoping to achieve.
Now, I'd like to look to the 5% of you who understood that joke for a reaction.
Anybody understand that joke?
Algonquin Roundtable.
All right, some of you got it, good.
The rest of you will just have to Google it.
The Algonquin Roundtable.
Add that to your snooty vocabulary.
There's some things that, if you know them, it sort of signifies, you know, that you're sort of a well-informed person.
It's like the use of the word zeitgeist or eponymous.
I couldn't even say it.
If you ever use the word eponymous or zeitgeist or Algonquin roundtable or Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude, thank you.
Excellent one.
If you use any of those words in normal conversation, you're kind of a douchebag.
Talking about myself, because I do use them.
Kind of a douchebag, because there's a very high likelihood that the person you're talking to doesn't know what those words mean.
In a normal American circle, 5% would know what all of those words mean.
Maximum, when you say 5%, would know all of those terms.
No more than that.
So if you learn them, Oh yeah, and solipsistic.
If you learn those little terms, you can spoof as though you're highly educated, even if you're not.
It works every time.
All right, what else is going on?
Disney's business is slumping.
Of course, you're going to say, is it because of the fight with DeSantis?
And is it because of politics and their wokeness?
Is that why they're having low traffic in their theme parks and their movies from Pixar are not doing well?
Is that why?
What do you think?
Do you think Disney is suffering because of wokeness?
I'm going to say no.
You're going to say no.
I'm just going to make a hypothesis.
What could it be?
What could it be?
What would cause Disney to slump?
I got it.
They make movies.
They make movies.
Movies suck.
All of them.
They pretty much all suck.
And they have a theme park that If you were to put the entire experience of the entire day at the theme park, it would be about equal to five minutes of strolling on a smartphone.
Scrolling, not strolling.
Yeah.
Who goes to a Disney theme park?
Masochists?
If you went to a Disney theme park, isn't it mostly standing in the sweltering heat, waiting for something that wasn't that good in the first place?
And then when you're done, you go wait in the sweltering heat for yet another thing that you didn't want to do in the first place.
Because you have children.
Who in the world does that voluntarily?
You know, the news should not be that their business is slumping.
The news should be that somehow they built a business on this.
Now, again, in the old days, this was pretty interesting stuff.
Ooh.
It's a small world after all.
Are you kidding?
I didn't know that.
It's a small world after all.
And they're singing.
Look, look, look.
They're animatronic.
And they're in boats.
And they're singing.
They're singing.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Oh.
It's not really the thrill it used to be.
So, I would think that Disney's biggest problem is they make shit nobody wants.
Am I wrong about that?
Your kids enjoy it.
Do you know what kids enjoy?
Kids enjoy anything that's got bright lights and junk food.
Hey kids, I'm going to take you to a place that's got a lot of bright lights and colors and junk food.
Can we eat good, healthy food there too?
Nope!
Don't even have any.
Actually, they probably do, but kids don't want it.
Kids are delighted to go anywhere that they can run around, have a little freedom, and eat some junk food.
So yeah, the kids love it.
They don't love it as much as playing on their iPad, but they love it.
Actually, they do probably love it more than their iPad, but I think the direction of Disney is clear unless they do something pretty radical.
I can't imagine their business model working in the long run unless they change it quite a bit.
All right, so a little clip of Congresswoman Summer Lee, Representative Summer Lee.
I would like to first Compliment Summer Lee, Congresswoman Summer Lee, for having one of the best names of people who have ever been named.
You know, Summer's a pretty good name, but Lee is an excellent last name to go with Summer.
Summer Lee.
Am I wrong?
That's like one of the best names I've ever heard.
Like, I always wonder if that actually affects your life.
To have a name that people really, really like to say.
Like, I'll probably say that name to myself later when I'm thinking about it.
Summer Lee.
It's like a perfect name.
Anyway, so that's not what the story's about.
Summer Lee pointed out in a tweet, and I guess she was talking in Congress, grilling somebody and said, how much does the military spend on Viagra each year?
And the Director of Defense Contracts said, I don't have that figured out.
But Summer Lee did have it figured out and answered her own question.
$41.6 million spent by the military every year for Viagra.
And then she pointed out, Summer Lee did, a name I just can't stop saying, Summer Lee.
Do you know how many bridges in my district of Pittsburgh could be repaired with that amount?
It turns out it's I think it's two bridges.
You could fix two bridges for the amount that the military spends on Viagra.
And so I introduced the hashtag bridges not boners.
We'll see if that trends.
Bridges not boners.
And the thing that you should be worried about is military Our military vulnerability.
Yeah.
Our military vulnerability.
I said it.
I'm not embarrassed.
No, I said it.
I said it twice.
I stole that one from somebody on Twitter.
That wasn't my own work.
And I would like to add a counterpoint to this.
That it seems to me that's 42 million dollars well spent.
Because you know what I don't want?
Maybe this is just me.
I'd like to get a get a feel from the audience.
I don't really want a military that can't get hard.
Was that just me?
Is anybody with me?
I want a military that's rock hard all the time and ready to rock.
They'll fight or they'll fuck.
You know?
And if you interrupt them after they've taken the Viagra, but before they do the thing they want to do, well, they'll fight!
I like them angry and turgid.
Harder the better.
I think that's the best money we're spending.
I want these guys to be saluting at all times, if you know what I mean.
And I think you know what I mean.
So Summer Lee, you're awesome.
However, I do like I like a hard military, is what I'm saying.
Takes hard men, hard men to fix things sometimes.
Well, CNN is directly going after Biden in ways that you would not imagine they would do unless they really don't want him to run for office.
So you don't expect CNN to just directly go after the Democrat, but they did.
And it's the kind of story that seems designed to take him out of the office.
See if you think this is just unbiased news, because they're criticizing their own side in a sense.
Is it just unbiased news and welcome?
Or is it clearly designed to remove him from office?
So, the article is about how the big donors are worried that he's not worth the money.
If you want to kill somebody's campaign, run a story on CNN, the one that everybody on your team is aware of, and tell them that big donors, other big donors, you know, I'm not going to name them.
Oh, do you need the names of the big donors?
No, I'm not going to give you the names of them.
But trust me, trust me, I've talked to people.
Those big donors, who I won't name, are very hesitant.
They're looking for somebody else to give money to.
Now, if you were a big donor also, and you were On the verge of giving Biden a lot of money, and you read in CNN that other big donors have decided they might not or are not, wouldn't your money feel wasted?
That's the play.
The play is to make the other donors think they're wasting their money by saying that there's so much doubt and he might not run, he might be replaced, and the big donors, when they say big donors, do you know what the synonym for that is?
They don't say it out loud.
Big donor.
equals what?
Big donor, not just victory, but not lobbyist.
Big donor equals smart.
Smart.
Because people assume that the billionaire class and the big donors are going to do their homework.
That's the group that's making damn sure they know who to give their money to, because it's a lot of money.
And they're smart, high-functioning people who are not just guessing.
They're doing good risk analysis, and they know where their money's going.
So if you say, oh, I don't know if you knew this, but the smart big donors, the smart ones, the smart billionaires, they've decided not to give money to Joe Biden.
So, I mean, you can if you want.
I mean, that's up to you.
It's a free world.
You can give your money to anybody you want.
But the smart ones, The smart ones, they've already decided not to.
Now, you tell me.
I'm exaggerating.
That's hyperbole.
The article doesn't go that far.
But don't you think this article is designed to take him out?
You know, and of course they mention, you know, people are looking at the alternatives and all that.
It feels like it's designed only for that purpose.
It does not feel like news.
It doesn't even have the vibe of, we just wanted to inform you as a citizen.
Nothing like that.
It just feels like a play.
An actual op instead of news.
All right.
Let's see what else is going on.
Michael Schellenberger tweeted this.
There's some entity called Public.
I don't know who they are, but some kind of publication or entity.
But Schellenberger is tweeting that Biden and the FBI suggest that domestic terrorism is increasing, but it's not.
And now a new investigation by Public, whoever they are, reveals that the FBI is deliberately stoking domestic extremism and white supremacy in order to paint Republicans as terrorists.
Now, I'm not going to say that this is confirmed to the level that I feel comfortable with it.
But on the other hand, Schellenberger isn't wrong a lot, if at all.
I can't think of an example.
But anyway, he thought it was credible enough to retweet it.
I would put a little caution on it, you know, just put a little skepticism on whether public has the goods.
But it's a report.
And it does, you know, here's the problem.
I guess here's the problem.
This has to work both ways.
It feels too on the nose.
Doesn't it?
If the politics of this were reversed, that's the first thing I'd tell you.
That's a little, that's like exactly what you suspected.
Isn't that a little on the nose?
Might be true.
Might be exactly true.
But it has a feel like things that aren't true.
You know what I mean?
If you just use pattern recognition, it looks like maybe somebody is stretching the story a little bit.
But it's also possibly completely true.
So the fact that we don't know if we can trust our FBI to be working for the public or actively against it, by playing in politics I would call that actively working against the public.
Isn't that weird?
We actually don't know.
If the FBI is actively working for or against the public.
That's pretty scary.
Anyway, so it does seem to me that white supremacy is the new hoax.
So maybe I should add that to my hoax list.
FBI white supremacy hoax.
What do you think?
I think we should call white supremacy a hoax at this point.
Now, you know how the argument always goes, right?
The side that disagrees with you will tell you if there are three white supremacists in a group of 80 million, all 80 million are white supremacists.
Right?
That's where we go next.
So next we go that if you have two or three in that group of 80 million, probably the whole group's white supremacists.
You'd know where it's going, there's not going to be any question.
But if the rate, apparently there's some jiggering with the numbers to make it look like the white supremacy was worse than it was, and that maybe that was intentional.
It's scary, but we don't know how much is real.
So there was a story today about a Republican representative who was speaking in Congress and he He used the phrase colored people.
A black woman whose name insisted that that be stricken from the name.
And then the individual who said it, realizing that he had mispoken, said he would like to revise the record from colored people to people of color.
Does that sound reasonable?
He immediately went up No argument?
No argument.
He immediately went up and said, I'd like to revise that to people of color.
And then the woman who was challenging it said, that's unacceptable.
She wants us to take it out of the record.
I don't know why.
I feel like amending it would get her more than taking it out.
Because amending the record, if there's any record of, I don't know, if they keep a record of what God amended, wouldn't it be better to show the path?
To show that you said something, you misspoke, you cracked it, move on with your life?
Alright, here is my overall opinion on this topic.
Don't care.
Don't care.
Do you know why?
The reason I don't care is because black Americans have been promoted, recently, to full citizenship and full respect.
Full respect.
Full citizenship.
That just happened with the affirmative action thing being overturned.
Once you have full, full citizenship, for the first time, in my opinion, we don't care about this.
Now it doesn't matter.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares that you were offended by it.
Do you know why?
Because if a white person had been offended in, let's say, the same fashion, nobody'd give a shit about that white guy.
Nobody.
How about an Asian American who was offended in the same way?
I don't give a shit.
Do you?
I don't care who got offended by something that was just clearly misspeaking.
I don't care at all.
And the reason I don't care is not because I don't care.
It's because you've been promoted.
It's literally because black lives matter.
I can't agree with you more that you need the full respect of a full citizen.
Take it.
We're offering it.
I mean, the whole world is offering it.
Just take it.
You'll love it.
Have you ever seen the, there were studies, I don't know if the science backs this, but I believe, I believe it has been studied many times.
That if you take students and tell them they're good at math, they get good grades.
If you take students and tell them they're bad at math, they don't.
Because they think they're bad at math, they get bad grades.
Relatively speaking.
Now if that's true, then the ending of affirmative action should Should, in the long run, have the effect of making everybody think that they could be good at math.
You know, if somebody tells them they're good at math.
So, I think the end of affirmative action is an insanely positive thing for black America.
That looks like an insanely bad thing.
At the moment.
I get that.
There are certainly individuals who are maybe counting on, you know, rules being different.
And got disappointed.
That's a real thing.
That's a real problem.
But overall, the full respect of being a full citizen of the United States is way more important.
That'll get you more in the long run.
Make you feel better.
Make you perform better.
Make everybody like you better.
It's all good.
It just doesn't feel like it in the short run.
Well, more to this point, 13 Attorney Generals from different states, 13 states, sent a message to their states that the affirmative action decision that applied to colleges must also be applied to corporations and businesses.
And the thinking is that if the Supreme Court found racial preference to be illegal in the context of colleges, obviously it would be also equally as illegal if businesses were doing exactly the same thing.
So there's 13 states that just says it's illegal to do anything that even has the effect of affirmative action.
And specifically, in those 13 states, DEI, Is dead.
Because the AGs just turned it off.
They just made it illegal to have a diversity, equity, and inclusion department.
Well, you could have the department, I suppose.
But you couldn't actually do anything that changed the mix of people.
So the DEI couldn't do the job of the DEI.
I mean, the essential part.
In 13 states, that's illegal now.
Goodbye, DEI.
Now, of course, these would be 13 most conservative states, I assume.
I didn't see the list.
Tennessee's on the list, I think.
So that should give you a hint.
Don't know if more states will join, but I think they might.
It could stay at 13.
Well, Biden found some new technical way to cancel a bunch of student debt.
Not all of it, but a big ol' chunk of it.
Has something to do with, and this is what you can do by executive order.
It took me a long time to figure out why an executive order can work when it's not Congress and it's not a law.
Like, why can't you just say the executive, the president can just change stuff?
I saw Congress as the only one who could do that.
But the details are that if the law allows the federal government and the president to manage something, then that president can manage that thing as long as it's within the bounds of the law.
According to, you know, a number of subjective or different, you know, technical ways to get it done.
So the trick is that you have to write your executive order.
So that it looks like you're just making a technical, operational, administrative change, but it doesn't affect the law itself.
The law is still the law and you're still obeying it.
You're just modifying how you're observing it or implementing it.
So apparently they found some technicality where people Got billed more than they should have.
Or at least you could define it that way.
Or you can interpret it that way.
And so they're going to use that technicality to make a bunch of mostly interest payment go away, I think.
I don't know.
I don't know what to think about this.
Because you'd have to see the technical argument, and I didn't.
But if it's true that these people were paying Money that obviously they didn't need to?
Well then we need to fix that and then that would be a good thing that he's doing.
But I don't know if that's the case.
Maybe it's just a bullshit technicality to make you sound like he did more than he did.
Well, if you were following social media today, you saw some frightened people say that Biden is calling up reserves in the U.S.
and the worry would be that the reserves are being called up because of Ukraine and that it's a preparation step toward putting boots on the ground, American boots on the ground in Ukraine, which I think we all think is the worst idea of all time.
But also, I was reading a tweet thread by Joshua Steinman, who you should follow.
Really good follower if you want to know what's going on.
Joshua Steinman.
And he had some experience in this domain and explained the different various reserves and who's a weekend reserve and who's a Coast Guard and National Guard and I don't know.
So he kind of broke down what all the parts are and how they move.
And then his takeaway was it probably was not related to Ukraine.
It's more likely related, he's speculating, but based on his experience which seemed directly applicable to the topic, he thinks it's more about talent retention.
Because the military is having a talent retention problem.
He thought that the move might be getting at that, although that's unconfirmed.
But it doesn't look like an obvious thing you would do to get ready to put boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Can we all agree that we're not going to put boots on the ground in Ukraine?
And when I say, let's agree, I mean, we can stop that from happening.
Right?
The public can absolutely stop that from happening.
If we want to.
If we don't want to, we won't.
But if we want to, we can absolutely stop it.
It's not up to Biden.
He's going to have to bow to the public.
If the public is 80% against it, it's just not going to happen.
But you'd probably have to get to about 80%.
All right, the 50-50 won't get it done.
So I wouldn't worry about World War III just yet.
India is launching a second attempt to put a rover on the moon.
Boy, you know, I had not been paying attention to India at all when it comes to space.
But I don't know if you've heard this.
This might be the first time you've heard this, but there are some good Indian engineers Did anybody know that?
Yeah, they got really good, they got smart people.
They got really, really good engineers and they launched a rocket.
I haven't heard yet if there's any problem with it.
So far so good?
I would love to see another rover on the moon and I would love it to be an ally.
That would be ideal.
So keep an eye on India and space.
And I also think it's important that India might want to get a foothold on the moon.
Because the moon is going to be a battlefield.
You know that, right?
The odds that we're never going to have a war on the moon are pretty low.
Because the moon is sort of the ultimate space attack base for Earth.
If you wanted to have like a A military base on the moon?
Someday.
That feels like it would be a good play.
Someday I can imagine a spaceship that does nothing but drag giant boulders into our atmosphere from Mars and just release them.
But figure out where they're going to land so it's like a rocket if they don't burn up.
That's the worst idea I've had lately.
I saw on, I think it was in The Hill or something, that Trump is less popular than Kamala Harris in the whole country.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think Trump is less popular than Kamala Harris?
Might be.
Might be true.
So, do you really want another four years of being called a white supremacist and a monster just because it's Trump?
I feel like he's the only candidate that would make his supporters look like shit.
I mean, it happened the first time.
I mean, it was devastating for anybody who supported him.
They were just demonized as racist.
But if Tim Scott is the candidate, I have a good four years.
No matter what happens, I'll have a good four years.
If Trump's the candidate, I'm going to get a lot of trouble.
Like there's just a lot of trouble to come my way.
And I'm even endorsing Ramaswamy.
And I'm still, if I say anything positive about his persuasion or something, I'm still going to get just villainized for all that.
Do I need that?
I don't really need it.
But I also object to the fact that the Democrats would make me, you know, try to sport somebody different because they're going to put pressure on me.
They're going to put pressure on me.
That's not cool.
You can put pressure on the candidate as much as you want.
They signed up for that.
But if you come after me because I have a political preference, that's not cool at all.
Yeah, not cool at all.
So we'll see what happens.
So the conversation about whether we're experiencing something called a woke mind virus.
I was actually in a conversation with somebody who does a great job of looking at both the left and the right and insists that the woke mind virus is a illusion by the right.
That there's no such thing.
And then I said, well, do you believe that, let's say, the trans situation would be exactly the same, except for the psychology of the current situation?
And I didn't get quite a good answer to that.
But it seems to me, it's obviously a woke mind virus.
And it's operating exactly like a virus, in that you catch it from other people.
They have to talk to you about it.
It's spreading.
So if you get it from other people and it's spreading, is that wrong to call that a mind virus?
I mean, it's not a physical virus, but obviously it's a mental process that's spreading from one to another and has negative effects.
I mean, I think a woke mind virus fits perfectly and is observable and scientifically measurable and the data supports it.
To me, it's the most obviously true thing in politics.
You like TDS, right?
So I saw a little back and forth.
First was a tweet that Jordan Peterson was boosting.
And the tweet said, Megan Fox has three boys.
Charlize Theron adopted two boys.
Both are woke Hollywood stars.
Both are unmarried white women.
Both have sons identifying as girls.
And then this tweet said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
So in other words, it was suggesting that these children would not have made these choices, except that their parents are woke, white, liberals, and single.
And single, and you know, the implication is dad wouldn't let them do that.
I don't know about the dad part.
But then I saw a tweet by Jordan Peterson who calculated the odds.
So he did the odds.
What are the odds that you would have two non-binaries or two kids who think they're in the wrong gender?
And it's like one in hundreds of billions or something like that.
Just crazy odds.
But I would like to add the following thing.
I've talked about the McMartin school preschool case before.
I think it was 70s.
Or 80s, I forget.
Was it 80s?
Yeah, it was in the 80s.
And the famous case, just to remind you, it's well documented, you can see it on Wikipedia, is that there was a preschool in which there were allegations that the children were being tortured and used in satanic rituals.
And that there was a basement under the school in which they took the kids and did all kinds of, you know, very elaborate rituals and everything.
And the reason that they were accused of this is that that's what the children said.
So when the children were interviewed, they said, oh yeah, we're taken underground and these bad things happen and they touch me and you get hurt and blah, blah, blah.
And one child after another, had a story that had these same satanic elements, and so it went to trial.
The people who owned the school had to go to trial to defend themselves against being Satanists, which they had no connection to whatsoever.
No connection to Satanism whatsoever.
But yet they were really Satanists, and they had a secret basement under the school.
Now, think about this.
They went to trial Even after it was discovered that the school has no basement.
Pretty much most of the charges involved being taken into the basement, which didn't exist.
And everybody agreed it didn't exist.
Well, the good news is that the McMartin School defendants, they won.
They won completely, because there was literally no physical evidence or anything to back up the children.
But then you say to yourself, but the children are not nothing, right?
You had lots of children, and they were telling similarly terrible stories.
You can't ignore that, right?
Well, here's how we figured out how to ignore it, intelligently.
Which is, people who knew what they were talking about, people with actual right kind of skills, looked at the videos of the investigators interviewing the children.
And they learn very quickly that the investigators were putting the ideas into the children's minds, and at that age, and when you put them in this high-pressure situation where they're alone talking to a cop, imagine being a little kid, alone, Being interviewed by adults about something pretty important.
Apparently you can get the kids to agree to whatever it is you think that they should be agreeing to.
And that's what happened.
So the explanation of the McMartin preschool case is that children can be really easily hypnotized, brainwashed, to saying things that are completely untrue.
So long as the person asking the questions is leading them.
So it's not about asking the questions, it's about leading them.
So the difference would be this.
So if you didn't lead them, you'd say, hey little Bobby, is there anything happening in your school that we should know about?
Is there anything that worries you?
Have you heard any stories?
Something like that.
Might not be leading them, depending on what else the kid had heard about the situation, right?
But, if you say, were you taken into a secret basement?
And the child says, no.
Nobody said, why don't you come down here and you'll enjoy this?
No.
So the head of the preschool never said to you that we have a place we go, you know, a location, a room in which we'd like to take you?
Well, okay, yeah, yeah.
And was that the basement?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that was the basement.
And what did you do down there that was satanic?
What?
Satanic.
What satanic things did you do in the basement?
I didn't do any satanic things in the basement.
Well, but did anybody put you on a table and have like a, you know, blood or something?
Well, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
I was put on a table.
So that's what happens when you, when somebody in power interviews a very young kid.
Remember, this is preschool.
Preschool.
These are really little kids.
And those kids just, they will adopt a fantasy as a reality without even really being too aware of the crossover point.
It's really dangerous.
Children can be hypnotized by their environment.
They can be hypnotized by questions.
They can be hypnotized by simply reading the intention of their parents.
They can be hypnotized by overhearing a conversation.
That's all it takes.
They just have to overhear a conversation and a little kid can be completely hypnotized.
So, if you're asking me is the, you know, sudden spike in number of trans kids and gender confusion, is it caused by something in the environment, specifically the way people talk about it?
Yes.
I can tell you I'm an expert in this domain, meaning persuasion, and it's obvious.
Jordan Peterson is an expert in this domain.
When he talks about it, he's not guessing.
He's not guessing.
He does know.
He literally knows.
This is not an opinion.
I mean, well, I suppose you could You could call it an opinion.
But there's no way he's wrong about this.
This is solidly right in the middle of his sweet spot.
So if your job is plumber and you're disagreeing with him, stop it.
Stop it.
He's not arguing with you about the plumbing.
Don't argue with him about how brains work.
That's not smart.
Go fix your plumbing.
He won't tell you your plumbing is wrong.
You just don't tell him His cognitive behavior stuff as well.
So yes, it's very obvious.
You know, I don't know about these particular Hollywood women.
I'm not saying that I know anything about their specific situations, but it's very obvious that children are being brainwashed into gender confusion.
Very obvious.
There may also be other things.
When RFK Jr.
talks about maybe something in the environment.
Could be.
What's that called?
Atrazine?
There's some chemical in the water that turns frogs into female frogs or something.
But I would certainly look into that atrazine stuff.
You could imagine that there's an interplay of two forces.
One force is changing the chemical balance of the children, and the other force is the hypnosis, and one makes the other easier.
Very easy to imagine that that's happening.
Don't know, but very easy to imagine it.
And just a preview in tomorrow's Dilbert Reborn, which will not be public, for only the subscribers will see it.
You can subscribe either on Twitter or the Locals platform, scottadamsoutlocals.com.
But anyway, tomorrow's Dilbert Reborn comic features Dilbert's CEO, who lost a cage match with another CEO.
And apparently they had a bet.
And so that boss has to marry the other CEO even though Dilbert's boss is not gay.
So he's trying to figure out how he can pay off his bet of marrying the other CEO while not being gay.
And so Dilbert recommends Atrazine.
So the CEO tries some Atrazine.
And if you want to know what happens after that, you better subscribe.
There's my commercial for the day.
I saw Jim Jordan tweeting that Joe Biden's FTC wanted Ernst & Young to punish Musk's Twitter.
In other words, the FTC was putting pressure on the accounting firm, presumably this was Twitter's accounting firm, to slap them down.
To basically do something bad to Twitter, and if they didn't do something bad to Twitter, they'd pay for it later.
The FTC putting the hammer on Ernst & Young.
Now, I don't know how much of that is right.
That feels like a Twitter story.
Meaning like we're not hearing the whole story.
But it's pretty messed up if it's true.
I'll just say, big if true.
I suspect there's more to this story.
So don't buy it completely.
All right.
Joel Pollack was writing about there's a thing coming up in the election that you probably need to pay more attention to in terms of prediction.
And that's the New Hampshire primary for the Democrats.
Now Joe Biden is going to skip New Hampshire and what's the other state?
Iowa?
He's going to do South Carolina, because that's a big, diverse state.
So he's going to skip New Hampshire and Iowa, partly because he doesn't know he would do well.
You don't want to go into New Hampshire and lose to somebody on the first one.
That's a bad look.
So he's just going to skip it.
However, RFK Jr.
will not be skipping it, and he's pretty popular in that part of the country.
So if RFK Jr.
pulls off a win, In the first primary, at the same time Biden's cognitive decline is happening, and the same time that the big donors are saying, maybe not, could that be enough to swing the momentum toward RFK Jr.?
And I guess the only real answer is, it could.
And even though Joe Biden is skipping New Hampshire because it doesn't represent the country and it's small, That's not how people are going to see it.
People are very trained that New Hampshire matters.
Even if it doesn't.
You know, in our brains it matters.
It doesn't matter in the real world, you know, in terms of its size.
It's such a small thing.
But yeah, it actually could change the psychology of what's possible.
And that change could absolutely create a path for RFK Jr.
So I'm not saying it will.
I'd bet against it.
If I had to put a bet on it, I'd bet against it.
But it's definitely within the realm of, I don't know, 30% possible.
Kind of a serious consideration.
All right.
I had a Observation about the Andrew Tate loverboy charges in Romania.
So according to Tate, and of course he's not the final authority on this because he's, you know, he's selling a version that he wants you to hear, but he says that the only charges that got put on him by Romania is that he was making girls fall in love with him.
And it's called the loverboy approach, which is by the way, not even illegal in a lot of places.
But in Romania it is.
And the idea is that you seduce these women, and then when they think they're really just your girlfriend, you use your persuasion to turn them into sex workers.
And then you take some of their money.
So that's the lover boy technique.
Now, what Tate did, and I think he admits it, is that he had girlfriends fall in love with him, and he did in fact Create an opportunity for them to do webcam sex talk stuff.
Now, he says he didn't take any of their money.
I don't know, one way or the other, that's just what he says.
The prosecutors say something else, but I don't think the girls are complaining.
So, my understanding is there are no witnesses against them, and that there is no victim who is willing to define themselves as a victim.
So after all of this, there's not one person in the real world who says he victimized them.
None.
There's actually none.
Now that's his claim, right?
For all I know, there could be hundreds of them.
But his claim is that there's nobody.
But in the Romanian system, the Romanian Department of Justice, they can declare that the woman is a victim.
Even if she says, what are you talking about?
I'm no victim.
I didn't get brainwashed.
I was offered this opportunity by somebody I care about a lot.
And then I decided to take the opportunity because it looked good.
That's what they say.
Now, you might ask, are they under duress?
Are they being maybe bribed?
Are they afraid?
Are they afraid?
Or are they just in love?
Maybe they're just in love with him, so they don't want to say anything bad.
But it is a weird situation that there's no victim.
At least no victim who admits being a victim.
So that's kind of a sketchy situation, wouldn't you say?
But here's the thing I realized.
The charges are basically that he's one of the most persuasive people in the world.
Because he's not being charged with convincing one woman to be his girlfriend and then turning her into a webcam girl.
No.
He's accused of doing it 75 times.
Do a fact check on that.
But I think at one point, There was word that he had 75 webcam girls that he had, you know, got there under, at least some number of them, under similar circumstance.
Now, do you believe...
That he is so persuasive that he could get dozens of girls to not only fall in love with him, presumably had physical encounters with him, and then also he convinced them to become sex operators in Romania because he's that persuasive.
Yeah, he could do that.
Yep.
You want a definitive answer?
Yes.
Yes, he can do that.
He does have the talent.
He has the entire persuasion stack from the physicality, which is a good half of what he does.
Women like tall, muscular guys who talk in a confident way and have a lot of money and have a lot of swagger.
Yes, he is persuasive enough that he may have convinced 75 people to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise.
But this is where it gets interesting.
If he's really that persuasive, there's no way in the world they're going to beat him in a trial, or even if it's just a judge.
If he's that persuasive, he's going to persuade himself out of prison.
Yeah.
Oh, well, yeah.
So Tate said that he got up to do TikToks, not webcam stuff.
So that's what he said to Tate.
Separately, Separately, he said that he had webcam operators.
So he said it.
It's not from news reports.
But it could be.
It could be that none of the women who were part of the charges were on webcams.
That's possible.
It could be that they were only doing TikTok.
It's also possible that they were using TikTok as a way to get customers for a webcam business and the prosecutors can't find evidence of the webcam business.
Maybe they just Don't have access to those records.
Because if somebody did a bunch of webcams, but nobody recorded it, and whoever would have records of that is maybe a company in another country that doesn't want to give you access, it's entirely possible that there was massive webcamming, you know, sex webcamming, but it's impossible to prove.
Because you go to the girls and you say, were you webcamming?
And they go, no, I was just TikToking.
What do you do?
If that's their story.
Because probably they don't want to be implicated in anything sketchy either.
So they might say, no, I didn't do any of that webgaming.
Can you prove it?
Can you prove I did some webgaming?
Maybe they can't.
It feels like they could, but maybe they can't.
Anyway, so here's the funny part.
If Tate is as persuasive as the prosecution says, Then he's also persuasive enough to get out of the charges by literally persuading himself out of jail.
Does he have the talent to actually persuade himself out of jail if he's being targeted and or actually guilty?
And the answer is yes.
Now I got some pushback on my tweet because somebody says, Scott, Scott, Scott, trials are about evidence.
The evidence will determine whether he's found guilty.
To which I said, get back in your time machine and go back to 1953.
Because in the world of today, no, it's not about the evidence.
If it were about the evidence, everybody would have agreed on OJ.
Right?
If it were about the evidence, Biden would be in jail.
It's never about the evidence.
Not with high-profile stuff.
It's about persuasion.
And so, the government of Romania is trying to enter a persuasion contest, which is what a trial would be, a persuasion contest against, allegedly, one of the most persuasive humans on planet Earth.
Which actually he is.
I don't know if he's in top 5 or top 10, but he's one of the most persuasive human beings on the planet.
That's just a fact.
And how does he lose a jury trial?
Because he also has the brains and the strategy.
He's a chess player.
I mean, he's got the whole thing.
How does he lose?
Now, there are two possibilities.
One, he really is as persuasive as the Romanians claim.
If that's true, then he'll persuade himself out of jail.
Two, he's not very persuasive at all.
In which case, how did he persuade 75 women to move to Romania and do webcams or TikToks or whatever?
How do you do that if you're not persuasive?
So there's sort of a logical problem here.
If the charges are true, he'll go free.
If the charges are false, he's innocent.
And there's only two possibilities.
It's true or false.
And they both get him out of jail.
Is that weird?
That he has two paths and both of them are getting out of jail.
Unless it's rigged.
Which is a very good possibility.
Unless it's rigged.
So his suggestion was that maybe Great Britain was trying to suppress him.
Because his message wasn't good for the youth of Great Britain.
I think there might be something to that.
There definitely might be some political pressure on Romania to tamp him down a little bit.
Maybe.
Seems reasonable.
But we'll see how that turns out.
It's probably the most interesting contest in the world.
Because he genuinely is more persuasive than any prosecutor is going to be.
I don't know what kind of evidence they have, but if that evidence isn't just super airtight, with witnesses who admit they are victims, I just don't see how he can be convicted.
He's just too good at this.
Specifically this.
We'll see.
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my amazing live stream.
The very best thing that's ever happened to any of you.
Is there any topic I missed today that I should have spoke about?
He does not speak Romanian, but that shouldn't change the result.
Because whatever persuasion he possesses, he can just run through his lawyer.
You basically just tell the lawyer how to handle things and Should work out fine.
You assume a trial?
No.
When I say trial, I mean a judge will decide.
Are you making a distinction there?
My understanding is that in Romania, you talk to judges, not a jury of your peer.
Or at least for this case.
I don't know if it's different for others.
But I still call that a trial.
And the rules of persuasion would still apply.
He would have an easier deal.
Well, let me say it this way.
There isn't the slightest chance a jury of his peers would convict him.
Let me say that flat out.
Flat out, if the trial, and I think it won't be, it'll be judge or judges, but if it were a jury of his peers, there isn't the slightest chance there would be a unanimous 12 people conviction.
None.
Literally a zero chance.
It couldn't happen.
Because his powers, Or just too big?
He could take out a few jurors just easily.
The NXIVM cult leader was very persuasive but still received a 100-year sentence.
Now, good point.
That's a good point.
But do you think he was as persuasive?
I think there's a level of difference here.
Because I never even heard of NXIVM until they got in trouble.
But the entire planet heard of Tate.
So I would say the NXIVM guy has skills, but he was still a B+, compared to what you're seeing from Tate.
Tate's at the A++ level of persuasion.
By the way, I don't like him personally.
I just want to make sure you know that.
Don't like him personally.
Personally, nothing.
But I've promised I'm gonna call balls and strikes as I say.
God, I hate saying that.
Calling balls and strikes.
Let's retire that.
It's such an NPC thing to say.
But I told you I'd say when people had good persuasion and when they don't and you could probably learn.
Watch his technique and you could probably learn.
learn.
All right.
The NXIVM guy was too ugly to be persuasive.
Well, who's that?
Who's your favorite puppet?
Please discuss The Sound of Freedom.
No plans to watch it.
I recommend you don't watch it either.
Not because it isn't great and not because it isn't important.
It's like, I'm not going to watch things that are going to bring me down.
I get the topic, right?
If you understand the topic, I feel like that's enough.
All right, I'm in the zeitgeist.
Cool pool vacuums?
I don't.
I wish I did.
That's the worst suggestion I've ever heard you make.
What would be the counterargument?
Give me the counterargument.
What's the argument for watching it?
If you're aware of the situation, Let's say you read a review or you read an article.
What would be the point of suffering through two and a half hours of the worst thing I could imagine?
What do you get from that?
You need to be talking about it.
Now, I'm out.
I'm out.
I'm tapping out.
I'm not going to do every topic.
And I'm not going to turn this live stream into that.
There are plenty of people working on that and doing a great job.
The fact that you're begging me to talk about it tells me you already know about it.
You don't need me.
Whatever's happening in that domain looks like it's happening exactly the way it should.
Meaning that somebody made a movie, it's very persuasive, and it's getting tons of attention.
You don't need me for this.
You would need me if it were getting no attention.
And then I'd probably actually have a different opinion.
But at the moment I'm not additive.
I would be just one more person to make you think about bad things.
And you have enough people making you think about bad stuff.
So you don't need me.
So I'm not minimizing the problem.
And I'm not minimizing the movie.
I'm saying it's doing fine just the way it is.
is it doesn't need any extra help.
Scott just says it doesn't exist like they say it is.
Have I ever said that?
No.
So, people on YouTube, could you please go to Twitter with the rumors that you're making up about me?
Because I don't think enough people are seeing your comments.
They're kind of wasted over here on YouTube.
I feel like an idiot like me.
I mean, you really need to tell me off.
Sometimes I just need that.
Sometimes I just need to be put in my place and I know it.
I know it.
So if you wouldn't mind...
The criticisms on YouTube, while very well intended and very effective, and I thank you for them, I really think you need a bigger audience for them.
So I've got a million followers, close to a million, on Twitter, whereas my live streams are just in the thousands.
So if you want that criticism to get the credit that you deserve for really insightful, made-up thoughts, With no connection to reality, I think you deserve a bigger venue.
You need a bigger platform.
Take that to Twitter.
It's at Scott Adams says.
And then under any tweet, it doesn't even have to be on topic.
This is the beauty.
I could be tweeting about a new building material for your house.
You can slip in those comments and tell them that I'm just not as angry at pedophiles as I should be.
And that probably means something, doesn't it?
So slip that in there.
Make sure that it's all caps.
If you could do me a favor, all caps.
Because then I can find it easier.
I'll be looking through my comments, looking for the good ones.
And I'll be like, bad one, bad one, bad one.
Oh, that's a good criticism there.
That is nicely done.
Crisply put together, well designed.
Good for you.
Good for you.
So all caps will draw me to it.
Bigger platform.
I would like to see you get the credit that you deserve.
Can we all agree on this?
I believe my critics have not been getting the platform and the credit that they deserve.
Can we all finally agree that I should be criticized far more aggressively?
