3781 What Pisses Me Off About The Google "Anti-Diversity" Memo
Controversy erupted last weekend when a Google software engineer’s memo discussing gender differences and diversity challenges leaked online. It didn't take long for Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance Danielle Brown to issue her own memo to all Google employees in response to the engineer's statement of basic scientifically verified facts.Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hey everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
Hope you're doing well. You've probably heard about this very interesting memo that was circulated apparently by a senior Google engineer.
And there's sort of two Things that I want to get across regarding this, both of which are extraordinarily important.
The first is that leftism is, it's not even fair to grant it the status of a religion because religions come with obligations, but it is more of a, I don't know, smug, self-satisfied kind of cult and hostility towards all outthink or non-groupthink, and it really is quite fascinating.
So it's worth reading the whole thing.
One of the things that you'll notice And this happened recently in a New York Times article where the writer was writing about Paul Joseph Watson and myself and others.
The writer for the New York Times didn't actually provide any arguments, any of the arguments that Paul and myself or others had made.
What the writer did was say, well, here's some titles of the videos, and it wouldn't actually give you access to the arguments or any of the text or the verbiage within what we do.
That's actually interesting because that is a throwback to really, really old-school Catholicism, you know, before the Martin Luther, like, original Martin Luther revolution.
The Mass was conducted in Latin and the, of course, the Bible was only in Latin.
It wasn't translated into anybody's local vernacular language.
And so anytime you had a question to go to the priest, the priest would say, I'll get back to you, or here's the answer, but you couldn't actually look at the text yourself.
You had to have it interpreted for you, and that of course is really dangerous.
And when Martin Luther came along with the printing press and so on and translated the Bible into the vernacular, Then, of course, people began to look for themselves what the Bible said.
This caused a lot of fragmentation.
There were a lot of problems. But eventually, separation of church and state, free market, you know, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, Modern Age, you know, lots of good stuff came out of it.
So, it's interesting.
Like, I can't imagine if I'm doing a book review.
And what I do is I simply quote the titles of the chapters.
And that is my book review.
See, isn't that crazy? When he says, ha!
And it's funny, this is the stage where people are at.
The gatekeepers are really the ones in the mainstream media who don't let you look at the actual text, but simply give you their extremely volatile response to what...
The text supposedly says.
And that is really sad.
You know, whenever you get a very emotional reaction to something from people, go to the original text.
It is a fantastic red pill because when you go to the original text and you see what is actually written there and you compare it to people's hysterical reaction, Then it leads you down a very, very productive path.
You know, up from the shadows of the items on the wall cast by the flickering cave light back out and you actually see the things for what they are.
Don't be a social metaphysician.
Don't base your reality on what other people say.
Don't say, well, what are people upset by?
That must be bad. That gives way too much power.
To people being upset and you need to go and look at the source material for yourselves.
I put notes into what I put out where there's intellectual content or referencing other people's stuff and just go and check it out.
So the responses are sort of worth having a look at, right?
So I won't give the names, but this is various responses that came out.
So effing sick of this garbage Google engineer, Google engineer, women unsuited for tech.
Right. Another person wrote, white male engineer at Google hates women and people of color so much he pens a 10-page paper, believes his workplace will be okay sharing it.
See, it's just Hatred.
Just hatred. And it's called a screed, because that sounds like screech or re.
It's got a, you know, this is how you're programmed.
I'm telling you, it's very powerful stuff.
It works, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
And it is just wild stuff.
The amount of, you know, he hates, he thinks, blah, you know, just like, well, can you actually cite any arguments that he's making and show how they're false?
Because, you know, the guy includes some charts, says there's lots of footnotes and so on.
He's not pulling this stuff entirely out of his butt.
But, of course, One of his points, to some degree, is that women are not always as objective and factual-based.
And then, of course, when you see this response of, like, women, ah, sexism and hates people, and, huh.
You know, if you wanted to disprove his thesis, see, what you would do is you would calmly and methodically line up his arguments and dismantle them one by one.
You would find his source material, you would find out how it's invalid, you would break down the irrationalities in his arguments, and then you would calmly and passionately Passionlessly, impassionately, just disprove what he has to say.
That would be just screaming and hyper-emotional reaction.
It's like if you sit down with someone and say, hey man, you might have a bit of a problem with your temper.
What are you saying?
It's like that lack of self-knowledge, lack of how you appear.
Well, I don't know. I shouldn't laugh.
But it's just kind of funny. You look at these reactions.
It seems more of a confirmation of his thesis.
So, you know, his thesis, I won't go through the whole thing.
It's fairly lengthy, but it's well worth reading.
So, he says, I value diversity and inclusion.
I'm not denying that sexism exists and don't endorse using stereotypes.
Right? So, this is funny, you know, and I think we've all been prey to this.
Okay, well, if I put things in reasonable terms, if I couch things, if I put all of the qualifiers and so on in, then I will get a more reasoned response.
And it's like, I gotta tell you guys, I hate to say it, I've been doing it myself for years, but I think we're past that, my friends.
I do not think that these qualifiers and these facts, and it's like, well, I'm not saying that sexism and racism doesn't exist, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter what qualifiers you put in.
It doesn't matter.
So just go full tilt boogie.
Just state what it is that you want to say without all the qualifiers, because the qualifiers won't help.
So he's, I'm paraphrasing here to some degree, but There is these two explanations as to why there are group differences in outcomes, right?
Group differences between, say, Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians and Caucasians and Hispanics or Mestizos and Blacks and so on, and between men and women and There are these disparities, group disparities, right?
How well they do. So there are two explanations to this.
One is that everyone's equal, therefore, because everyone's equal, the only disparities that can arise, arise out of sexism, racism, homophobia, whatever you want to say, right?
Bigotry, nastiness, and because that's fundamentally unjust, we need big giant government programs to force people to hire people, to force people to utilize people, to force people to fire people.
Basically, sometimes if you have quotas and only so many jobs to fill, then if you have to fill it with people of color, you've got to fill it with women, then you've got to fire white males, right?
That's the one thesis. Everyone's the same, therefore the only group differences that can occur occur because of unjust, horrible, bigotry, sexism, racism, prejudice, whatever, right?
That's one argument.
Now another argument, and this guy is not saying that doesn't exist at all, but the other argument, the one that I am leaning towards, says, well, there are IQ differences between the genders, there are IQ differences between racial groups, and that explains The differences between outcomes in these genders and races and ethnicities.
And that's a testable hypothesis.
It's highly testable. Because what you do is you say, well, okay, so let's say blacks in sub-Saharan Africa, IQ average 70, right?
Two standard deviations below Caucasians in Europe and other places.
That's a big, terrifying difference.
A while ago, 70 was considered mentally retarded, and so it's a big challenge.
So what you would do is you would say, I don't know, you could take someone in the middle, right?
So blacks in America have an average IQ of 85, right?
It's 20% miscegenation, 20% European.
So what you would do is you'd say, okay, let's find everyone with an IQ of 85, forget the gender, forget the race, forget anything.
Let's find everyone with an IQ of 85 and see how they do.
Now, if everyone who has an IQ of 85 does about the same, that would be a blow against this idea that it's prejudice or bigotry that is fueling these group differences.
Another way you could do it is, you know, one of the reasons, or a number of the reasons, why women don't do as well in rising to the tops of organizations is that women, and I love them for it, right, women...
Have kids and they breastfeed and they do all the great things that moms are needed to do to raise healthy and wonderful children.
And so that means they're just less available to work, right?
Men on average spend about 15% more time at work than women do.
So what you would do is you would measure men, say at a particular age bracket, at 30 or so, you'd measure men who are unmarried and child-free or childless.
You would measure women who are unmarried and childless at the same age and you would say what are their comparable salaries.
As it turns out, funny story, women who are unmarried around the same age group as men who are unmarried, in other words if you're comparing apples to apples here, Women do actually slightly better than men in many situations and circumstances in terms of wages and so on.
So there's lots of testable ways that you can test this stuff overall.
And the data favors the IQ explanation.
And it also favors the fact that, as this guy points out, women I generally prefer to get involved in people facing occupations, whereas a lot of men are comfortable with working with computers, you know, working with blueprints, you know, all that sort of engineering and architecture and computer programming and stuff.
That just tends to make more money.
If you look at sort of the top five degrees that women get versus the top five degrees that men get, well the degrees that women get are generally low paying and the degrees that men get are generally high paying.
And there's no reason why the women can't, if they want, get The higher degrees.
And since the 1960s, certainly in America and in many places in the West, since the 1960s, it's been illegal to pay a woman less for the same job as a man because, you see, women are so empowered that they need politicians to pass laws to negotiate on their behalf.
Anyway, okay, it's a topic for another time.
Now, the Google engineer, he does, he criticizes left, he criticizes the right, and he says that If we can't talk about any of the disparities between, he focuses on men and women, doesn't mention Ikea, but if we can't focus on any of these differences, then we can't solve the problem, right?
So this guy's an engineer.
I don't want to speak for him, but as an engineer, what he wants to do is he says, let's put prejudice aside, let's put bias aside, let's put what we would like to be true aside, and let's deal with what is actually going on in the world.
Let's deal with the facts and build a case from the ground up.
Because the hypothesis that all group differences arise From bigotry, it's just a hypothesis, right?
Where's the evidence? Like, where's the evidence that diversity is good for society?
Where's the evidence that diversity is good for a company?
Well, you see, if you're in a cult, you don't need evidence.
In fact, evidence is kind of against where you are, right?
I mean, if you're that way inclined, then evidence is kind of your enemy.
He says, okay, well, we've got these disparities and the hypothesis has been put forward for the past, I don't know, 50 or 60 years that it is, you know, sexism and racism, the only roots, everyone's exactly the same and the only reason why groups end up different is because of bigotry.
Okay, well, he says, okay, well, is it true that everyone's the same and it doesn't take more than a few minutes, ironically enough, Using Google to look up and find that, yes, there are differences in brain volume and distribution of white matter and so on between the genders, between the races. There are IQ differences.
There are virtually no women at the highest levels of IQ. That's almost exclusively East Asian, Caucasian, Ashkenazi Jew territory.
And it doesn't take long to figure out.
This goes all the way back to the bell curve.
Many men in the 90s, right?
Charles Murray and Richard Turnstein wrote the bell curve, which if you haven't read it, I don't care what you have to say on this topic because you're just woefully uninformed.
You're like somebody in the 17th century who never read Copernicus or Galileo or Tycho Brahe or any of those guys.
So they're talking about the solar system.
You just don't have the facts.
And so what I find interesting is he's looking at it and saying, okay, we need to solve this problem.
I want to solve this problem.
And so let's start with the facts, not with our pre-sorted ideology.
Let's start with the facts. Let's take a non-religious, non-culti approach to this.
Let's pretend we don't know.
It's a Socratic thing. Pretend you know nothing and build everything up from the ground, build everything up from scratch.
And so that's what he does.
And he says, look, there are differences in the distribution of traits between men and women.
It may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
So, again, he's reasonable.
He says, you know, don't stereotype.
There is sexism. There is racism.
But, you know, it doesn't explain everything.
Now, that is a pretty reasonable stuff.
Now, one of the things that's interesting is that this is being called an anti-diversity paper.
It's completely and totally not.
I mean, this is why they don't want you to look at the source material.
This one's actually kind of hard to find.
Because no, he's saying, why can't we talk about the possible biological bases or sociological or whatever it is, but the bases, the differences as to why different groups end up in different places.
At least it's part of the explanation, can we not include it?
Now, if there's such a thing as diversity, Then this perspective should be a welcome addition to the challenge of how to solve this problem.
Or if it is indeed a problem to be solved.
Like if I work part-time and I complain that the full-time guy makes more money, that is not a problem to be solved by taking money from the full-time guy and giving it to me.
Because I've chosen to work part-time, therefore it's unjust for me to say I want the money from the guy working full-time.
It's not a problem to be solved.
He is saying there's more than just prejudice, there's more than bigotry, more than sexism at work here.
That's called diversity.
Don't you want diversity of opinion?
Isn't this the whole point? If you have a monoculture, right?
Isn't this what people say? Oh, if you just have a bunch of white males sitting down together, they're all going to...
That's ridiculously collective.
And the white males could come from Australia, South Africa, Eastern Europe.
They could come from Swaziland.
They could not speak English.
They could speak any one of a dozen languages.
But apparently white males, just one big giant blob of conformity, like there's no cultural differences across any Caucasian.
It's ridiculous. Anyway.
So, this should be a welcome entree into the conversation about diversity.
In other words, if you have a monomania of political opinions, you're only allowed one political opinion, which is that all differences in groups result from bigotry, no other data, no other facts, no other arguments, no other perspectives, no other measurements, no other Like the IQ is like as far as psychology goes, there's a lot that's kind of woo woo and loosey goosey.
But my understanding is that as far as like IQ, that's the one thing or what's called general intelligence, that's like the one thing that is fairly indisputable when it comes to psychology, that it is significantly, if not largely genetic.
That it's highly predictive of life outcomes, that nobody knows how to alter it in any fundamental or permanent way.
I've heard some exceptions.
If you don't spank, you get a couple of IQ points on your kids.
If you breastfeed for recommended at least sort of 12 to 18 months, you get another couple of IQ points.
But outside of that, nobody knows.
How to change IQ in any permanent way and IQ gaps between men and women and between ethnicities are substantial and, at least up to now, cannot be remediated by any known approach or technology.
These are facts. I mean, after the bell curve came out, the American Psychological Association, I think it was, put together a whole task force and went through all the data and they were like, yep, no, he's right.
This is like, we don't know much, but we know this one for sure.
And so it's just a fact.
Now, if you can't bring facts into a discussion without being attacked and ostracized and stigmatized and fired and threatened, right, if you bring facts into a discussion, And you are attacked, you're not dealing with anything rational.
You're dealing with something specifically anti-rational at this point.
And this guy, yeah, he's bringing in some facts, and apparently you're not allowed...
He's also saying, look, conservatives have to keep their heads down in Google.
Like, you can't talk about stuff.
You can't go to work wearing a MAGA hat, but if you're a Bernie bro, it probably wasn't a big deal.
That's not what he was saying. You can read the source document.
And he's saying, look, I mean, it's not diversity if, you know, like conservatives are like half the American population by some metrics.
Now, either they're not half of Google's workforce, in which case Google has a very big problem when it comes to diversity, which is that they're not hiring enough conservatives.
That's reprehensible, right?
That means that you're discriminating on the basis of political belief system, which is absolutely heinous.
I mean, absolutely, completely and totally wrong.
So either there aren't that many conservatives at Google, which is evidence of overwhelming anti-conservative bigotry and bias and prejudice on the part of Google, absolutely reprehensible, absolutely wrong and reprehensible and disgusting for them to have that perspective if that is the case.
That's one possibility. The other possibility is they're hiring conservatives, but the conservatives don't feel free to be themselves at work.
They don't feel, they're not free.
They feel that they're going to be negative repercussions, a blowback career, what's called the CLM, a career limiting move, to put it mildly, which is you talk about Donald Trump maybe not being the Antichrist and next thing you know you're off the project and you get relocated to Google's Siberian search engine division or whatever it is,
right? Yeah, so either they're not hiring conservatives or they are hiring conservatives, but conservatives are not able to speak up or speak out or Be conservatives at work in the same way that you're allowed to be a liberal at Google because, well, they're going to face negative repercussions, big problems if they do that.
Well, that's also intolerant.
That's not diversity. If 50% of the population either isn't at your place of work or is not able to be themselves at your place of work, come on.
Come on. If there was, like, let's say that the gays were 2% or 5%, let's say 5% of a population, and there were either none of them at Google, or they all had to stay in the closet for fear of being fired, for coming out as gay.
I mean, everybody would be horrified at this.
Conservatives, well, what do they matter, right?
What is that, right?
People don't understand their own biases.
That's not diversity.
50% of the population, shut up!
We welcome diversity! No you don't!
You really don't! So let's just sort of briefly close off on this woman from Google.
She was their, I think, one of the VPs of diversity or something like that.
And she, I guess maybe they were hoping this blew over or blow over or whatever it is, but she ended up writing back about this.
So she wrote and said, Googlers, I'm Danielle Google's brand new VP of diversity, integrity, and governance.
She says, I just started a couple of weeks ago and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all, but given the heated debate we've seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.
Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google.
And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.
Oh, no. Oh, man.
Oh, SJWs.
Thou doth weary me sometimes.
And it's good. It's a good kind of weariness.
It breeds impatience which bleeds clarity and forthrightness.
Wow. I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.
Boy, wouldn't it be great if you could just wave your wand and just...
It's incorrect. Let's move on.
Wow, I don't know why I spent all these decades studying logic, reason, evidence, debate, philosophy, argumentation, sophistry.
I could just say things were incorrect and move on.
Did you feel something on the road?
To hell with it. Let's just keep driving.
It's incorrect. Care to make an argument there, Danielle, at all?
Care to rebut anything that he said?
Care to point out counterfactuals?
Care to point out logical errors, incorrect assumptions, fallacious arguments?
No? Well, I maybe can see why you ended up in that department.
Because, you know, the engineer is like, well, yes, here's my case.
I built this thing up from the ground up.
Logic, reason, evidence, sources.
Wave it away is incorrect.
Wow. I can see the difference between HR and engineering a little bit here.
And she says, I'm not going to link it, link to it here, as it's not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.
So. This guy has concerns about whether he can speak freely of these things at Google.
And she says, not going to link to it here because you can't speak freely of these things at Google.
Not exactly. Pushing back against the fellow's narrative.
I wonder if I can speak about this.
Oh no, HR has told me I can't.
Now you could say, of course, well what is this guy doing bringing these issues to his workplace?
I mean, shouldn't his Political opinions remain his political opinions, his arguments about race and gender.
Well, the problem is that there's all this stuff going on at Google, right?
This promotion of diversity, this promotion of women and what they call underrepresented minorities.
See, you've got to watch this language, right?
Minorities are not doing well at Google, because Google is like 40% oriental.
Sorry, I'm going to have to resurrect it, because this Asian thing, for my British listeners, they think Asian means Pakistan, so sorry.
I could say East Asian, but that doesn't clear things out.
You know, we're talking Japanese, Chinese, and so on.
Now, 40% of Google's workforce is Asian.
I think 1% is black, right?
Now, again, East Asians, the Orientals, do enormously well on spatial reasoning.
And IQ is higher than Caucasians as a whole, right?
Very bad supremacists putting whites right in the middle of where the IQ is, but that's where the facts are.
And so, this...
It's a reality.
The fact is that there are quota systems in universities, there are quota systems in graduate schools, there are quota systems in a lot of corporations.
It's sometimes not explicit, it's implicit.
We aim to promote what are called underrepresented minorities, which are on average the lower IQ minorities, which are the blacks and the mestizos and so on.
Okay, so this guy may not...
I don't know if he's... I have no idea what ethnicity he is.
Doesn't matter. Arguments are arguments.
I don't care what the ethnicity is.
It'd be funny if he was a woman. Anyway, but the law and Google are bringing ethnicity and gender right there into the workforce.
So the idea that he should just leave these opinions at home is like, I'm sure he would love to, except that the government and Google and other corporations, they're not leaving these things at home, right?
They're bringing those things right into the workforce.
So, yeah, so she says, diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate.
I'm not going to link to this.
It's false and not something that we encourage or endorse or promote.
but apparently inclusion is your facts or hate facts they can't be here but we're very inclusive and we love to have diversity and now come on diversity is not what they say it's not what they say so she quoted some guy building an open inclusive environment is core to who we are and the right thing to do enough said yeah that's That's also not an argument.
Naf said. Period.
Not an argument. Not an argument.
And she says, Google has taken a strong stand on this issue by releasing its demographic data and creating a company-wide OKR on diversity and inclusion.
Strong stands elicit strong reactions.
And this is something you see all the time, too.
It's a white lash. It's angry white men feeling displaced in a country that's changing underfoot and they're lashing.
All of this psychologizing.
It's like, okay, well, but...
The man did bring up a few facts.
Do you want to rebut any of those facts or just want to analyze his emotions from a distance in your own mind and consider that a counterargument?
Oh, he also said we've got to take the ethics out of this and just look at it like it's a problem to be solved.
Because as soon as you put the ethics in, like diversity is just a foundational moral value, then you become a fundamentalist on the issue.
So, yeah. Anyway, so she goes on and on.
The funny thing is, though, I mean, I don't, I mean, people haven't noticed this, maybe just don't really notice this kind of stuff, but this Danielle woman, it's like, her job depends on this guy being wrong, right?
So the fact that she disagrees with this guy, it's kind of like a conflict of interest, in my opinion.
It's... You know, the fact that her job depends on diversity being an automatic value and anyone who opposes diversity is a racist or a sexist or a bigot of some kind and that group differences between genders and ethnicities are entirely the result of bigotry.
Those are the bunch of premises.
That's why she has a job.
There's no vice president of making damn sure that tall people get into the NBA because that's just gonna happen on its own.
There has to be this imaginary barrier that she's helping people over.
If Google, or the free market as a whole, is a meritocracy, in other words, if you're good, you'll just rise no matter what, and it sorts by IQ, and it sorts by hard work, and so on, then there's no job for this kind of diversity stuff, because... It's already fair.
You can say it's not fair that there are different group outcomes, but that's not the fault of capitalism.
That's the fault of evolution. That's the fault of mother nature.
You can get mad at her, but there's no point getting mad at the free market for reflecting differences in groups that are real and just can't be waved away.
So the question is sort of why are people so ferocious about all of this?
Well, the answer I think is pretty simple.
I can go over very briefly why I think that's the case.
Let me know what you think, of course, in the comments below.
It recently came out that workers in the government in America earn twice what people in the free market earn.
See, it's wrong to pay men and women differently for the same kind of job, but apparently paying government workers twice what they would get in the private sector is totally fine, right?
So people resist privatization because that's going to cost them resources.
In the short run, in the long run they'll make more, but Anyway, if they thought about the long run, they wouldn't be working for the government in the first place, right?
Can I get an amen? So it's about resources, right?
So if you are a woman and someone comes along and says, okay, well, if I cast you as a victim, you get more money.
You get more opportunities.
You'll get promoted over someone else who may be more competent, but we'll pretend that that's not really true.
Maybe more hard-working, but so it's just free stuff.
Nothing corrupts faster than the thirst for the unearned.
The thirst to have what you did not earn is the foundational sin, right?
It's Adam and Eve. It's the foundational myth of sin that you wish to become as God.
You wish to have the knowledge of good and evil.
And once you can get people to accept something that they did not earn, Ideology just follows that, right?
It's the thirst, it's the thief for the unearned, right?
The unearned is the thirst for the unearned, the corruption for the thirst for the unearned.
That's like the mother duck and all the ideologies are just like the baby ducks following.
It doesn't really matter. So when this guy starts to question whether Group differences, gender differences in outcomes are the result of bigotry and says there's lots of data that says significantly biological or whatever.
Well, that threatens people's unearned stuff.
It threatens people's free stuff.
And, you know, anyone say, oh, it's as easy as taking candy from a baby.
Really? Have you ever tried taking candy from a baby?
It's not pretty, and they've got a grip like an anaconda.
So, yeah, once people are used to their free stuff, once people are used to their unearned riches, Trying to take them away is, well, it's not pretty.
So that's all it is.
I mean, why do they believe this?
Because this narrative pays well.
This narrative elevates people of lesser competence and lesser ability and lesser work to good money, to good job security.
It gives them Good benefits that, you know, gives them a lot of...
And once you're in receipt of free stuff, your ideology changes.
Suddenly you're not such a big fan of the free market anymore, are you?
Suddenly you're a big fan of the victim ideology, of the oppressor ideology, of the sexism, racism, bigotry ideology, because you are well paid to believe in that.
You know, there's an old saying, when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
No, no, no, no. When you have them by the wallet, the ideology becomes a slave to the unearned.
It's all it is. It's all it will ever be.
Stefan Molyneux for Free Domain Radio.
Thank you so much for watching and listening.
Please don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.
