Episode 1738 Scott Adams: Elon Musk Worries About Being Murdered, Supply Chain Mysteries, And More

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And today we will be talking about 2000 mules. We will be talking about Elon Musk. We will be talking about the war in Ukraine and all things interesting. And some other stuff, too. You're gonna love it. It's gonna be the best time you ever had while you're exercising or getting ready for work or possibly commuting. And all you need to make it extra special is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker Celserstein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dope meat of the day thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Go. Ah, so good. Delicious. Well, here's a cool story in technology. So apparently, Lockheed Martin is building these hybrid airships that are part lighter than air. What do they put in them? Helium or something? So they fill them with a gas, but they're actually heavier than air. But they've designed them to be gigantic. So now they've got orders for these hybrid airships that are the size of a football field, and they're very stable, apparently. And they can carry 20 tons of cargo to remote spaces, which is a pretty big deal because a lot of remote spaces are where you drill for oil or you need resources or you got to bring them something. So I can't imagine what would be cooler than traveling by gigantic airship. I wouldn't mind that it was slow. I would just think it would be a cool way to travel in luxury. Don't we need these? I think we need gigantic airships. Let's get these going. By the way, here's a cool little related factoid. When I was testing virtual reality goggles, I think it was HTC's goggles. Now, this was about three years ago. One of the contents that you could explore was you could go into the Hindenburg, the airship that caught on fire and was destroyed. And you could walk. You could walk around inside it. You could go to the. The control area where the pilot is. You can walk into the back, you know, area and see stuff scattered around. But the funniest thing was that on the airship that, you know, caught fire and blew up, they had a smoking room. There's actually a room with little ashtrays. That was their smoking room on the. On the. On the Hindenburg. Anyway. Well, Rasmussen has a poll. They asked people, among other things. How likely is it that climate change will be a catastrophe in the next hundred years? And half of the people who asked about 50% thought that it was a good chance, or at least likely, a little bit likely. So half of the country thinks there's a catastrophe coming in the next hundred years. Do those people reproduce? Here's an evolutionary question. If you looked at the half of the country that believes that everything's going to go to hell versus the half that thinks everything will be okay, do they have the same amount of children? What do you think? In theory, they would have fewer children, right? Does it work that way? Maybe it's not that direct, but I do wonder if scaring one side has a difference in who ultimately survives. Because the ones who are not afraid will be the ones who have children. They do not reproduce. That's why they need immigrants. That's an interesting concept. If the left is in favor of abortion and maybe less in favor of traditional marriage and traditional children having, it would make sense that they would be in favor of immigration because it would be the only way to repopulate the country. That actually makes sense. It's the first time I thought of that. That was a good comment. And now I have to think about it a little more. Is there any connection there, or is that a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that the people who want to create their own humans don't want as many to come from the outside, but the ones who can't or won't think they need some more outside people because they can't make their own. Huh. Kind of makes sense. All right. Rasmussen also asked who's in favor of drilling, doing more drilling. 60% of the country was leaning in that. In that direction, which makes sense. You know, that's basically most Republicans, and you pick up a few independents and stuff, I guess. And 52% said Biden should focus on oil and gas prices, which I don't know how you could do much about them except for drilling more and building more pipelines. 34% say he should focus more on limiting carbon dioxide emissions. So that's where we are as a country now. What would the country look like if half of the country were not convinced that we had a catastrophe in the next hundred years? I feel as though the news has really changed the entire nature of innovation and technology. In fact, the direction of civilization itself is really kind of dependent on what we think about climate change, isn't it? So climate change is kind of the macro thing that's guiding everything, all the smaller decisions. What if it's wrong, it would mean that the news basically, you know, trimmed $50 trillion off the GDP for no good reason. But I do think that fighting against climate change, even if it's not going to be a catastrophe, which I think it won't be, because I think we'll respond to it, not because it isn't a problem. Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's not a problem. I just think we'll figure out how to respond to it adequately. Let's talk about 2,000 mules. Everybody says, scott, why don't you go watch Dinesh D' Souza's big hit movie, 2000 Mules, which refers to the mules being humans who allegedly ballot harvested and brought ballots to boxes and maybe stuffed them with people who weren't going to vote on their own. So we don't know that exactly what crimes may or may not have been perpetrated there. But here's the worst advice I'm getting. It goes like this, Scott, Scott, Scott, do not form an opinion on this movie unless you've watched it. Does that sound reasonable? Do you think it's reasonable that I should not form my opinion until I watch the movie? How many think that that's a reasonable thing to say? Pretty reasonable, right? To have an opinion on a movie without watching it. What would that make me? What would you think of me if I had a strong opinion about the movie or didn't have any opinion, but I had not watched it? You're all wrong. You're all dead wrong. You could not be more wrong than the answers you're giving me right now. And I'm going to change your mind. And you won't believe how easily I'll do it. Because right now, the most obvious, clear, smart thing that anybody could say is that you have to watch the movie before forming an opinion. That is the cleanest, most obvious thing anybody could ever tell you. It's also 100% wrong. 100% wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Now, let me change your mind. Give me 60 seconds. 60 seconds, I'll change your mind. Watch the Michael Jackson documentary that says he absolutely, definitely molested a bunch of children. Absolutely. When you watch that documentary, you will be convinced that he definitely did those crimes. Then watch the documentary that came out later that says that the accusations are bullshit and there's no way he did any of that stuff. You know what will happen? You will walk away completely convinced that he did nothing and that he was set up. That's it. I'm done. If you think watching one documentary tells you something? You don't know anything. You've learned nothing. You've learned nothing. So if you think that watching the documentary will give me an opinion that will tell me that either there was fraud or there was nothing, you're so wrong. You could not be more wrong. I will not form an opinion after watching the movie. I promise you I won't. I'll watch the movie. I'm definitely going to watch the movie. You don't have to argue about that. But I'm not going to form an opinion from it. Why? Why? Why will I not form an opinion after watching it? And why did you. You all formed an opinion. Why are you all wrong and I'm right? Because you haven't seen the opposite documentary, have you? If somebody made another documentary whose only purpose was to debunk this documentary, do you think it would be persuasive? It might all be lies, but it would be persuasive. I'm not saying that to debunk would be the accurate one, and this is not accurate. Could easily be the opposite, or they're both inaccurate. It could be any of those things. But if you don't understand that any good documentary will convince you it's true, you haven't learned a fucking thing. Let me say that again because I want to insult you a little bit, because I want you to feel this. Like, I want you to be mad at me right now. Like I actually, actually be a little pissed off at me. If you think that watching any documentary gives you information, you're fucking wrong. You're as wrong as you could fucking be. You could not be more wrong about anything than that now. But let me say clearly I do have my suspicions about the election. And I do imagine. Well, I'm quite sure of it. I'm sure if I watch the documentary, I will be even more certain at the end of it that something sketchy happened. Those of you who have seen it, would you agree with that assessment that if I watch it, I will certainly come away with the impression that something sketchy happened right now? Why do I have to watch it since I already know what will happen? Doesn't your advice sound ridiculous? Now, there's a hundred percent chance that I know what will happen if I watch it. Without even knowing what the content is, there's a hundred percent chance it will convince me. So that's the reason that I'm telling you that if you were convinced by the documentary, the only thing you learned is that documentaries are persuasive. If you think you learned that an election was sketchy because you watched a documentary, and this is not about Dinesh D'. Souza. This is not about 2000 mules. This is about thinking you learned something from a fucking documentary. It doesn't work that way. The documentary is meant to show you one side. If you don't see the other side, you know absolutely fucking nothing. Like, okay, I'm being too much of an asshole about this, but how many of you are bothered and persuaded at the same time? Have I made my point? If you feel certainty because you watched a documentary, no matter how well done, no matter how accurate, no matter how credible, no matter how correct, if you formed a certain opinion by watching one side, you've learned nothing. You've learned nothing in five years. Nothing. And I'm really disappointed. Honestly, I'm seriously disappointed. Do you not see that you're being fed exactly what you wanted to believe? How hard is it to convince you of something you already believed? It's easy. It's easy. So just be a little bit more critical about this movie. Please. Please be more critical. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, the you know what? I've. What I've heard of it sounds like a reasonable approach. And by the way, I've looked at the debunk, and the debunk looks like bullshit. Does that make you happy? So I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen the debunk and I read the debunk. I was like, that's the best you can do for a debunk? That maybe the cell phone data isn't as accurate as it should be to know that somebody actually put something in a box. That's where you're going to bank your argument on. We've got zillions of videos of people putting multiple things in boxes. Then add the cell phone data that says same people went to multiple boxes lots of times. And you're telling me you know that. That. Well, first of all, that doesn't prove that it was a crime. But you definitely can't debunk it. Do you think that could be debunked? I don't think it can be proven or debunked. So if you believe the debunk, you're a fucking idiot. Let me say that again. If you believed any debunk of the movie, you're a fucking idiot. If you believe the movie because it agrees with what you believed and you think that watching a documentary tells you something, you're a fucking idiot. Sorry, let me apologize to you before I go on. I don't mean to offend, but I am trying to get your blood boiling a little bit, right? Because I'm honestly concerned, like, genuinely I'm concerned if you believe documentaries, if you think, if you know, you learn to not believe the news, right? Don't you feel better that you don't believe the news? Don't believe documentaries. And again, this has nothing to do with this documentary. Just don't believe documentaries, period. You. You learn not to believe the news. This is your next lesson. How many of you tried to watch 2000 Mules as I did several times and were thwarted each time by various issues? I did a little poll because I was wondering, am I just having some kind of massive boomer problem here that every time I go to watch this fucking movie, I can't figure out how to do it? And 30% of the people who responded said they couldn't figure out how to watch the movie. Let me tell you. So this is a subset of my discussion the other day. Let me apologize to Hugh. I didn't mean to call you stupid, Hugh. So I apologize for that. What was I talking about? Oh, so I've said before this. Streaming movies has become impossible to do because you can never remember which platform you wanted to watch and your password's always wrong and your credit card expired and you can't find the thing and it's not out yet and there's every other problem. So I've tried now, I think five times to purchase or watch the movie. I failed all five times. Now I'm still going to do it because that's actually my normal amount of failing to watch a live stream. So once I clicked a link to go to Rumble and the page never opened. So one time Rumble just, I don't know, the server didn't work or, I don't know, I don't know the reason. I've clicked on several links that purport to be the movie but aren't. I've clicked on several links that purport to be the movie but are really the trailer. I've clicked on several links to places where it used to be, but it's cancelled. I've gone to Locals now, by the way, I'm an investor in Locals. I went to Locals and there was a page I didn't recognize. I couldn't tell if it was telling me to subscribe for a year or it was just buying the movie. So I thought, I don't know. Is There some place I could watch it for free because I didn't want to put in my credit card information unless I had to. Just the work. It wasn't the seven bucks or whatever. I didn't care about the money. It was just in order to do the work. So then I look for it for free, and then I go to Rumble. And Rumble, you know, again, I got a trailer instead of the movie. And then my wi fi broke, and then I got to. I finally went back to Locals and tried to buy it there because I figured, oh, it looks like some kind of special page just for content buying. And it didn't say. The page was so unclear. I didn't know if I was buying a subscription to Locals or buying just the content. I couldn't tell from the page. And then finally I got to the point where I said, all right, I guess this is how I buy it. So I started putting in my credit card information, and I didn't have my credit card on me. It's in another part of the house. And where I have it written down, I have the old one. And so I thought, I have a rule that I won't get up and go get my wallet. I'll just cancel what I'm doing and do something else. So that was the last time I tried. So the next time I try, maybe I'll not try unless I have my credit card near me. Everything. So, by the way, so how many have a similar experience where you went to watch the movie and you just got thwarted time and time again in the comments? Other people. Yes. I'm seeing some yeses now. Again, this has not almost nothing to do with a specific movie. So this is not about Locals, it's not about Rumble, it's not about 2,000 mules. It's about streaming. Streaming is now so hard. You just can't do it. 30% of the time. You got to do it and you just don't. You end up doing something else instead. Yeah, look at all the yeses to this. Now, I know this is a boomer problem, right? You don't HEAR Anybody who's 30 years old arguing, you know, even talking about this stuff. But there are a lot of boomers, and we're trying to watch this thing. So there's an interface problem. All right? Why isn't the supply chain the biggest story that it's the only thing we're talking about. What's going on there? What do you think? Because it seemed to me that the supply chain was a end of civilization size problem. Not really, but really, really big. And then it just got worse, right? So it was the worst problem in the world, and then it even got worse. But we don't really talk about it much at all. And yeah, we're talking about baby formula, but here's the thing. That's the exception that proves the rule, right? The fact that we're only talking about baby formula and microchips now and then, that seems a smallish problem, doesn't it? Not if you have a baby. It's the biggest problem in the world. But in terms of everybody. And even the baby formula thing probably will figure it out, I imagine. But I'm wondering if this is what's happening. Could it be that the supply chain is making enough corrections that the important stuff is getting through and that the things we're waiting for we were sort of used to waiting for prior to a supply chain problem. Have you ever tried to buy furniture, buy a piece of furniture with no supply chain problems whatsoever. Go back five years, no problem with the supply chain. How long does it take to get furniture? Six months, Just normal. How about ordering a car with no supply chain problems? You order a car. Months. Months, right, to get a car. And that's normal. So the things that I'm waiting for are things that I thought I would wait for anyway and in some cases maybe add two months, but it was, you know, such as my drum set. I ordered an electronic drum set. Took several months, but I don't really care, you know, so maybe they say, well, if your ship has electronic drum sets on it, you can wait. And if you got something important on it, like a microchip, well, go to the front of the line. So I'm guessing that there was an 80, 20 thing that happened where instead of just first, first come, first serve, they just do the 20%. That's the 80% important. And so we don't notice that things are 20% degraded because we are getting our important stuff. Is that what's happening? So I feel like that must be what's happening. It's not being reported, but I'm assuming that the Adam's law of slow moving disasters is in play, that there are millions of people making millions of small adjustments to get the important stuff to us faster and maybe slow the less important stuff. I guess so. But I also don't know if we're near some kind of breaking point. Are we literally going to run out of food at this point? I would say my grocery stores have more things than they did during the pandemic. I don't know about baby formula. So I have more things. And I would say that the weight for goods that I order by mail is not too bad. I've probably ordered, I don't know, 25 things by. By Amazon in the past maybe month, say 25 things. I think one of them is. And it's a trivial product. Delayed a month. That's about it. And it was trivial. All right. Ports don't work that way. Somebody says they don't work that way, but they could. There's no reason you couldn't put the important ones to the front of the line. I don't see any physical reason you couldn't do that. Food is from the usa. China stuff is delayed. That's probably what's going on. That the food is mostly US food. But we've got massive droughts and we've got problems with fertilizers and all kinds of things. So we'll see. Elon Musk tweeted this today or yesterday. If I die under mysterious circumstances, it's been nice knowing you. What? No further explanation. If I die under suspicious circumstances or mysterious. Now, let me ask you this. Do you think he's serious? Do you think he's seriously concerned that somebody will kill him? I think yes, Yes, I think that's real. I think that's absolutely real. Now, I don't think the odds are very high, but I think that's absolutely real. Now. Do you think that if you're the richest person in the world, you have access to, presumably, politicians and power brokers and the people who really can see behind the curtain? Aren't you a little worried that somebody who can see behind the curtain way better than you can thinks that there's somebody back there who might murder him? For what? Buying Twitter and finding out what the deal was there. I feel as if he already knows. He's going to find something at Twitter that will be really, really bad for somebody who has power. What do you think? Now he's being ambiguous here. So we don't know what topic he's even referring to. We don't know if it's based on some specific information or just a general fear. Could be just trolling, could be just being interesting, who knows? But I'm worried about it because he knows more than you do about how stuff works in the real world. I know a little bit and maybe more than some of you, just because I have access to some stuff. But he has way more access than just about anybody. Right. And he probably is already getting here's my guess this is pure speculation. Can you see any possibility that Twitter insiders are not already talking to Musk? Don't you think that's already happening? Don't you think there's somebody who wanted to suck up to him in the technical world who said, look, before you get complete control of the company, let me tell you what's going on here and where to look. I'll tell you where to find the bad stuff. You don't think that's happening? There's got to be somebody who thinks it's in their best interest to do exactly that. There's got to be at least one secret conservative or patriot or just free speech person. They don't even have to be Republican or anything. But there has to be at least one person at Twitter who knows how to reach Musk and knows what the deal is. Don't you think by now he's probably heard at least rumors of what he might find? And if the rumors about what he might find or how he might control Twitter also is enough to make him worried about being murdered, there's probably something there, but we'll see. So after he tweets, if I die under mysterious circumstances, it's been nice knowing you. His mother tweets, that's not funny. And then he tweets back to his mother, Maya. Elon tweets, sorry, I will do my best to stay alive. How small the world gets when you feel like you're talking directly to Elon Musk and then he's talking to his mom and you're part of the conversation. It just makes the whole world seem so small and personal. It's kind of awesome. And then some Saudi person with a lot of followers was saying that if he something about a blessing if he dies. And Elon Musk replied, I'm okay, going to hell if I die. Because the vast majority of all humans ever born will be there. Now, remember when you thought that Trump was the best tweeter of all times? And maybe he is, maybe he is. But you can't get much better at tweeting than this. And sure enough, his tweeting to replace all marketing is working again. I mean, I could not be more interested in Twitter right now because of his involvement. And I'm sure that my Twitter numbers are probably still going up. I think it has more to do with him buying the company. Let's try see, check my Twitter growth now because we all, a lot of the conservative leaning folks had big bumps. Let's see what happens. Is it still high yes, it is. So the day before Elon Musk was announcing things, my numbers were anywhere from under 100 new followers a day to, you know, 300 would be a good day. As soon as he bought it. These are the number of new followers 3310 times. So on the day that he bought it, I got 10 times the number of new followers the next day, the next day 20 times, next day, 10 times next day, 15 times, next day about 8 times. And we're still at today or yesterday was 856 new followers. So it's a, it's some kind of a multiple or 2 or 3 or something or 10 of number of followers. And I don't feel that that's just the shadow banning thing being loosened. I feel like it might be just more people coming to the platform. So I think his marketing might be working. And by the way, that's what he says. He says it's just people coming to the platform. You might be right. I have noticed that Elon has responded directly to Mike Cernovich at least several times. And it's interesting to see how much he's on the. Cernovich is on Musk's radar. They clearly have, you know, some commonality of thinking about some of these important things. And one of the most interesting ways to watch the news is to watch who knows who, to know who's influencing whom and what alliances are being formed. And so Mike Surovich printed out a left wing account that was talking violently and noting that that person had not been banned by Twitter. And Elon Musk responded to that tweet from Cerdovich saying that Twitter obviously has a strong left wing bias. So there it is. So there's no doubt about what Elon Musk intends nor about what he thinks about this whole situation, which I love. Are you following this whole situation with Steve Schmidt? He was one of the Lincoln Project, anti Trumper famous people. And he went on this tweeting tirade where for somebody followed it and said for 24 hours he just kept tweeting like crazy and hardly took any time off from tweeting. And it takes a minute and a half just to scroll through all of his tweets for that one day. And people are asking, is there something wrong with him? Does he have a mental issue or is there some kind of drug he's on? Of course we don't know, right? We're just watching him act differently. But as someone smart said, the only times they've ever seen this kind of a change in behavior Wasn't because of mental health. It wasn't because of a sudden mental health problem. But people have seen sudden changes like this when some kind of drug was involved. Now, I'm not suggesting he's on any drugs. I'm just saying his behavior looks unusual for his past behavior, and it looked like drugs to me. So again, I'm not making that allegation because we're just observers. But there's something going on, and I think that we have to. And somebody says he's a narcissist, and that's what's going. It could be. Could be that that's all that's going on. But the. The Amber Heard or Amber Turd trial has definitely alerted us to how a certain group of people act, you know, with projection and gaslighting and, you know, lying about everything and blah, blah, blah, blah. And it seems to me that this looks exactly like something's going on there. So there's either, you know, personality disorder, mental illness, which are sort of cousins, or some kind of change in medication or. Or drug situation. But watching somebody at this level of, I guess, you know, what do we call it? Prominence, Watching him sort of melt down in public. I hate to use that meltdown because people use that about me whenever I get on a rant. He's melting down. So I withdraw that word. But there's something going on, and I think that we have to be careful about knowing what is a political opinion and what is a health problem. And I'm not sure we're good at that. Cope is about. Is a bot word. Yeah, I feel like we should be a little smarter about knowing what's a health problem. Wall Street Journal has an article in which they talk about a study that said kids who have healthy early attachments to a caregiver such as a parent, so if they have a good, loving, protected relationship with a parent, at least one, they'll be in better shape to withstand the. Let's see, the lure of social media. And the social media won't bother them as much because they've had some love and care from a parent. Now, that's one interpretation is that the kids who had early good associations with parents can resist social media better. Here's the other interpretation. Every kid is different. How about that? How about. That's the whole explanation. How about some kids are born the kind of kid who will easily form an attachment to an adult. Do you think every kid is capable of forming a strong attachment to an adult? It's not up to the parent. The kid is part of the process. Have you not been around enough kids to know that some form attachments with adults and some don't, and the adult would act the same every time. It's always the kid. The kid decides if they have an attachment to you. You don't get to decide that. It's not your decision how attached a kid is going to be to you. It's the kid's decision. And have you ever seen three kids raise the same, but one of them has an attachment and one doesn't? I mean, this is such an obviously bullshit study, because to me, the biggest part of this is just that the kids are biologically, genetically, they have different impulses. Some of them have an impulse to be close to a parent, some don't. Or some act differently. Maybe they have the same desire, but they act differently to get it. So I would say this is yet another study that you shouldn't put any credibility in whatsoever. Well, here's the story that I find most interesting today. So Russia had its May 9th Victory Day celebration, and it's a World War II victory celebration. And normally they parade their military stuff and they talk about how awesome they are. And people were expecting Biden or not Biden. They were expecting Putin to say something like they were having victories in Ukraine, but he didn't. So he claimed no victory in Ukraine. Even partial victory. No victory, he claims. But here's what he did say. He said that the Russian soldiers are fighting bravely in Ukraine. They're fighting bravely. Now, here is the linguistic path that this has taken. At the beginning of the war, all the smart people said. And of course, I don't think any real smart people said this. Smart people is sort of in quotes. Let's say the media was saying that Russia would just conquer Ukraine in two days and in and out. Now then they went from they'll crush them in 48 hours to. Okay, it's not going to be 48 hours. Come on, people. You know, even. Even the United States took longer than that to conquer Iraq. You know, the two. Two days was sort of hyperbole. It never really meant two days. Come on. It really meant that Russia is so much stronger military that they will definitely win. Yeah, it just might take a little longer, but they're definitely, definitely going to win. Just takes a little longer. Right. So we went from two days they're going to win to. Well, they're going to win. It's just going to take time, take a while. And then the next step we have achieved, which Putin says that his team is fighting bravely. Let me give you some advice. Never join the team that's fighting bravely. Do you know what fighting bravely means? It means you lose it. Nobody who's winning is called fighting bravely. When people are winning, it's called winning. Victory. Winning. They conquered this land. They beat this army. They won fighting. And I'm not arguing that Russia is losing. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that the linguistic path went all the way from easy win to tough win to, oh, shit, at least we're fighting bravely. To me, that sounds like Russia feels they're losing, but they're fighting bravely. Now you can say, scott, you're reading too much into this. To which I say, yeah, maybe, but this linguistic path is very clear. It's very clear. I didn't make this up. I mean, you could look at the coverage yourself. It didn't go from two days to, oh, they'll get it done. It'll just take a while. To fighting bravely. That really happened. And suddenly the news coverage from there seems to be all the same. There's more fighting in X tomorrow. Let me predict the headlines. Tomorrow. There's more fighting in Mariupol. There's more fighting in the east. The Ukrainians have pushed back the Russians and some places that Russia probably aren't important. Still having troubles getting weapons to Ukraine. Right. How hard would it be for me to tell you the news tomorrow? Pretty easy. Oh, somebody's reading God's debris. I think you'll find that quite timely. I fought bravely to stream 2,000 mules, yes. But I failed. I will succeed the Poland ambassador from Russia. So Russia's Poland ambassador, one of them was at an event to mark, I guess, the victory day, and he was hit with red paint at a Poland Victory Day event. So the. The ambassador is standing there and the interesting thing is he's not trying to clean the paint off his face. He wouldn't fool Jussie Smollett and left the, you know, left the paint on and just made sure everybody got a good picture of it. And I thought to myself, that's a pretty good diplomat. That's a pretty good diplomat. That he didn't get angry when he was covered with paint and he didn't even take it off. He just let everybody take a picture of it. Interesting. Why do you still use MSM as a news source? I use them as a mocking source if you haven't watched my content. Well, I think there's going to be a lot more of That I think it's going to be real tough for any kind of Russian diplomat to feel safe in any country anywhere. I think Russian diplomats are unfortunately going to be targeted. I don't, don't endorse that, but I think it's going to happen more of it anyway. All right, here's an interesting story. It was a New York Post article by Melanie Notkin, and she's talking about the wage gap and the trouble that women will have finding a partner. Now, the good news is that women's incomes are up. And good news for women anyway is that in 2021, nearly 60% of college students were women. So that means that men are moving into more labor types of jobs, which would be lower paying typically. And women are moving into what could be, at least if they take the right majors, higher paying jobs. And the article goes on, Melanie Notkin's article reporting that it's really hard to find a woman. And one of the speculative reasons, I'm sorry, it's really hard for the women to find a man that they're willing to, let's say, marry, because the men earn less than the women. And traditionally, from an evolutionary perspective, women have been attracted to men who have resources. Makes sense, right? Because you need resources to stay alive and raise babies and stuff like that. So what happens if, if women are the ones making the money and having the babies, which looks like what's happening then Men are sort of, kind of don't have a purpose. And so what happens when women just can't find men, the kind of men they want to marry because the kind of men they can find or just they're not, they're not killing it, what happens then? I don't know, but something's gonna. Somebody's complaining that I made his penis obsolete. Sorry. Yeah. And so I think that there is a, definitely a big shift going on. I think the women are becoming men and the men are becoming women. And I mean that in a hyperbolic, but also in the literal sense that the women are becoming more masculine, the men are becoming more feminine. I don't know what the reason is. I don't know if that's social media or that's diet or lifestyle or. I don't know what that is, but it's definitely happening. When you say, wouldn't you say that that is a very. It might be soy. It might be. I wouldn't rule that out. Estrogen in the water. Somebody says, who knows? I do know that our system of traditional marriage will probably become just one option. It Already is. But I think the non traditional marriage area is going to explode. It's going to be bigger. I do not see a trend back toward traditional marriage. I think we have a one way trend away from it. That's what I think. There will always be traditional marriages. There will always be plenty of people who want them. But as a percentage of the total, I think it will continue to decrease. I'm not saying that's good. I'm not saying I want it to happen. I'm just saying that it looks like that's an obvious trend. And here's the problem that I see. Imagine 200 years ago there was nothing to do but work and try to survive. If you married the neighbor's daughter, well, you were lucky and that probably worked out. But imagine you're in this world where you have infinite choices, it seems like for everything. And you could shop for a new mate anywhere in the world and ship them in if things click. I feel like our pickiness is through the roof because we can be picky. If you couldn't be picky, then you get over it and you just, all right, I guess I'll marry the neighbor's daughter. But if you can be picky, then you will be. And if we are picky in all of our other decisions, from what app to use to what clothes to wear to everything, if we become super, super picky, I think marriage is doomed because you're gonna get married and then you get real picky about your spouse and then it's over. So I think our pickiness and the explosion of choices and options makes marriage essentially obsolete. It'll always be the right solution for some group of people. That'll never change, I don't think. But it's mostly obsolete for most people. Pretty soon, I think, yeah, try getting off the Internet and joining a club. You know, if I did not do this for work, I'm pretty sure I would just get off of social media, I think. I mean, I don't know. I don't know that for sure. But I don't find value in any social media beyond the fact that I have a functional value right here that I. It helps me watch the news and interpret it. But if, if I were not doing this and I were only just trying to have a job and a family or whatever, I don't think I'd even watch the news. I wouldn't pay attention to anything except that I do it professionally. Erica's in the shower. That means that the important part of our presentation is over. You've never had a biological family. So your understanding is less. All right, I'm going to try not to go off on you for that comment, but I really want to. I'll try to do it without going off on you. It is true that if you don't have a biological family, you can't understand it. But the concept is people who have not had a biological family. So everybody I'm talking about is people who have the same situation as me, which is they have not experienced it. And I would acknowledge that if they did experience it, they would be addicted to it and they would like it. Because when you have a kid, you're pretty happy you had a kid. Most of the time. Most of the time, you're pretty happy you did it. So your comment is an accurate statement that I would have a different appreciation of it if I had a biological child. But that wasn't the topic. The topic was people who haven't done it and decide not to because it doesn't work for them. They don't see the benefit. But I agree that if they went ahead and did it anyway, they would find reasons they liked it. They would still get. Bio. Dads are donors. It's not too late for you. You should try it. Yeah, it's too late for me. Scott likes to support those who get censored. Do you think that's the same question? Do you think me blocking somebody is a question of censorship? How many people think that? How many think that me blocking trolls is censorship? Because you can still see them, right? I only block them from myself, don't I? But you can still see them interacting. I'm not blocking them for you, just blocking him so I don't see him. I. I feel like that's just me deciding what I want to look at. That's not censorship. My reasons for not having kids are the same as AOC's. Does AOC say she doesn't want to bring somebody into the world because of climate change? I. I've never heard her say that. I don't think she says that. I'll bet she doesn't say that. That doesn't sound. All right. Yes. Either Go Luddite or Cyborg. Those are your two choices. All right, we need a. What? Mini skunk? You don't want a little Scott? Oh, the. Those Virginity Rocks T shirts have nothing to do with preferring virginity. So. Yeah, that's a big brand for the young kids. The teens that. There's a brand called Virginity Rocks or. I don't know if it's a brand or it's a saying, but they have a lot on their clothing. It doesn't mean they like virginity. That's not what that's saying. They like the brand. That's all. All right. Oh, somebody's asking if I could father Aoc's baby. Sure, sure. I'm all in. Could you. Could you tell her that the deal is on and I'll father her baby if she likes? No, not really. Not really. Not really. Do I think that Elon has people doing his tweets for him because they seem so good? No, because when he talks in person, he is. You could just tell his tweets are his. Like, nobody can write those tweets. You. It would be impossible for someone else to write tweets. Trump's good tweets, you know, maybe somebody did the boring ones, like announcing something, but the good tweets that Trump did there was. Those were Trump. Now, I actually saw. Stood in the room and watched Trump assemble a tweet. So I've seen it in real time. I've watched Trump tweet and designed the tweet as I was standing there. So I know he tweets himself. Now, he didn't send it. He dictated it to Dan Scavito, who presumably sent it. That was Trump I was talking about. All right, that's all for now, and I will talk to you later, YouTube. See you tomorrow.