Deepfakes, White Male Fragility, and the New Loyalty Tests

David (00:02.168) Hey, I'm David. I have 20 plus military and I am a board certified psychiatrist. Today my pour is a nice Colombian blend from, I have no idea where it's from actually, but it was coffee. It's coffee. It's early in the morning. I'd like to maintain my family sense that I don't just sit in the garage and drink. So Rob (00:23.883) It is. Rob (00:31.138) Ha Yeah, hey, it's Rob. I'm 30 in the military and 20, 26 or so, and psychiatry board certified. And my pour today is actually nothing. I've got, I don't even have coffee right now. It's early enough and late enough that I've already drank coffee and I'm... I'm in that zone. So let's do this. David (01:05.26) Right. Well, we've we've had a lengthy discussion already this morning about nothing that we're going to talk about. So I think that's pretty exciting. What did you want to talk about? So one of the things one of the things that jumped out at me as I was doing some research for the show, Robbie, is something that we kind of talked about before as being a possibility. But now it's happening and I think it's actually ripe for discussion, but there's a video for the Texas Senate, for the Texas Senate race of Telerico, is it James Telerico? Is it James? So there's a video of Telerico looking directly into the camera and making some statements about white men. Rob (01:53.966) I think so, yep. David (02:13.304) Let me get the actually the pull-up. So I'm not lying. I respect this. Rob (02:18.594) Yeah, don't don't don't lie on a podcast because it'll get caught up. David (02:21.688) Don't don't lie. I don't want to be. I don't want to be called. So OK, so we have. All right, so we have so Democratic Texas state representative James Tallarico is standing in front of a flag beaming with pride. That's it. Let me start again. Democratic Texas state representative James Tallarico is standing in front of a Texas flag just beaming. Rob (02:26.092) Well, we don't want to be shameless. David (02:50.644) And he says, radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country. and then a voice whispers white men and he continues. So true. So true. so this is a video that's been going around, social media, I think it's, and it's a, it's a legit. Campaign video. it was paid for and created by the national Republican senatorial committee. And he would think, my, James, maybe don't say those kinds of things in the public sphere, especially on camera, especially with the Texas flag behind you. mean, that probably doesn't look too great. Well, as it turns out, Robbie, it is an AI deep fake that was generated by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. And at the bottom corner, There's a little note that says it was generated by AI. Now it was based off of a David (03:57.93) It was, it's actually based off of a social media post that he wrote years ago. But, yeah, I, we took, we had spoken about how AI was able to convince people to change their vote based off of an ability that was chatbots. But what we, I guess what I didn't think about, or probably should have was that It would be weaponized and we thought we had the next cycle or whatever this was start to happen. Well, we didn't really think about the fact that there would be actual deep fakes made by the opposition of the candidate they're going against making certain statements and Holy shit, Rob, that's a interesting premise. Rob (04:54.804) you know, I guess psychologically, what, where we have found ourselves is, targeting white men, is, conveys a certain power, a certain Rob (05:20.6) thing that that they're shooting for. They want to attack white men. And, you know, I do find it fascinating at this point that white men are somehow feel vulnerable. And they do. They do. And we've talked about this. I mean, I can go back over the last year of us doing this, or near a year. We've talked about this many, many times, that white men feel vulnerable. I guess what is surprising to me is that we're still at a point where that conveys some power. There's a message in that. Hey, white guys, you're at risk. David (06:23.064) what you're worried about. the white men. and I agree. I I think that is a branching point from what we're talking from that. think what concern and absolutely, I mean, that warrants discussion. I'm still concerned or dumbstruck by the brazenness to create a deep fake of your competitor. Rob (06:26.506) no. Rob (06:32.012) Yeah. David (06:51.212) and put words in their mouth that didn't happen. he did use social media to say the first part, but then the extra context being added in isn't necessarily correct. And I know that campaigns have used videos of their opponents often saying the things they said, but... when you're creating the video, right? Like you're creating the imagery. You're not just using, just use a social media post. But to add the extra context, it does potentially change it. Now, on your part, just to be aware, here are the statistics. 89 % of domestic terrorism is conducted by males. 78.1 % of those of them are white. with a median age of 30 at the time of the attack. So 46.3 % regularly employed, 18.1 % long-term unemployed, 6.4 % underemployed. I mean, so it's not wrong. It's not incorrect. That is the demographic that is most likely to conduct domestic terrorism in the United States, which... makes a ton of sense because we have more white people than we have non-white people. So just that tracks. And of course it does. Rob (08:27.338) it does, but, you know, probability is the thing that gets lost on the internet very often that, we're still talking about a low probability event. They, they happen, they happen frequently, but I mean, it reminds me of folks who, you know, go to Google to say, you know, stomach pain and Google's really great at giving you possibilities. They're not, it's not great at giving you. probabilities and the probability of a white male doing something like this is pretty low that you know as a white male excuse me as a white male the probability that I'm going to conduct a terrorist event is virtually zero and David (09:21.43) I mean, I feel like you actually probably have higher risk factors than most. Knowing you personally, I'd say your risk factors might be a little bit higher than the average bear, but yes, the probability is still low. Now, but here's the thing. If we break down what was sad, which was, and I think this is where hearing it from Rob (09:30.102) All right. Rob (09:40.728) Okay. David (09:49.994) hearing it said does make it sound worse about what was said. And this is the genius or terrifying deviance of creating a video because what the quote is, radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country. And Rob (09:55.8) Yeah. Rob (10:17.474) Mm-hmm. David (10:18.604) That is factually correct. If the question was what demographic is most likely to commit domestic terrorism in the United States, the answer is white men. Now the word radicalized, might be questionable. I don't know the data. But white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country. That, Rob (10:21.23) Yes. David (10:48.008) is true. It is factually correct because the data shows that white males are the ones who have conducted domestic terrorism the most in the United States. Now what you hear I think when you see that is that radicalized white men committing domestic terrorism is the greatest threat to our country, which is not correct. and wasn't even said. But I think that's what you hear when you hear it. When you have the ability to read it and read it closely, you understand that that's a factual statement. Adding in the somebody whispering white men and then having him agree with that, which never happened, right? Like, which is not true. Or if it was, my guess is his social media statement said part of that. And then maybe there were comments within comments that maybe he replied to or something, I don't know, where maybe that's where they're taking the quotes from, where somebody said, so he said, so true, so true. But you see the problem here is that you're creating it like this was something that he put on video to say, and then you're hearing something different. Psychological, mean, whatever, truth or not, it's. Doesn't matter to us so much, but psychologically, holy shit, how fucking powerful. How powerful? Because even as you were talking, I was thinking, God, did he say that? Did he say it the way that I just, and I had to go back and look at it. And the answer is no, he didn't. He said the facts. He didn't say that this is the greatest threat. Cause even I thought that's kind of crazy if he texted that. Rob (12:26.487) What? Rob (12:35.798) Why are white men so fragile? Because that's really what we're talking about here is that they've identified a certain fragility in the identity of white men and they're attacking that. And it's not an effort to just like, hey, this is our policy. This is what we believe in. This is what we want. No, it is an effort. to make white men, you and I, and our ilk. David (13:11.16) Don't talk. I'm a beautiful 24 year old woman. You know that as you're you. So we're not. Rob (13:15.746) Yeah. Okay. I can tell. I can tell by your voice. It's yeah. Yeah, you do. David (13:21.62) Exactly. I look like Jessica Foster. David (13:28.62) and you look like a young Barbara Eden. Rob (13:32.59) my gosh, I'm... Yes. David (13:36.733) That deep throaty laugh of yours, Barbara. Rob (13:41.804) Yeah, yeah, yeah. But so why psychologically, why are white men so fragile right now? David (13:50.392) That's a good question. don't know that all white men are fragile. I do think that if you are living in a country that has been actively trying to undo generations of inequity that was leading in the direction of being a white male. And that has been changing. Now it's been changing not just through actions of the government. mean, there was affirmative action. There's been obviously DEI things. think recently there was a push by the attorney general of Florida to have the NFL. stop using the Rooney rule within the state of Florida. And the Rooney rule requires that at least two coaches, two people of color are included in coaching search hires. Now that was, and that was started because it was demonstrated 30 years ago that NFL coaching hires were predominantly white and that the entire system was skewed in favor of Caucasian coaches, which just happened to be male because most coaches in the NFL are going to be male. But when you have a league that is predominantly black and you have coaches that are predominantly white and there was no opportunity for black coaches to get even jobs. Anyway, so when you're looking at those things, that's a piece of it. But what I look at goes deeper than that because it's not just a system especially from a governmental perspective that's been trying to skew back towards everybody. It was that, and I've watched this firsthand with people, my family, everything else is that women and women and people of color and women of color to be included in that have been going to have been making David (16:18.776) active attempts to become more educated, more... capable, more better, you know, better resumes and they become more competitive in the workplace because they had to. In order for them to be considered for certain jobs, they had to be more qualified. I think the data shows that women won't even apply for a job until they're fully qualified for it. Whereas men will apply for jobs that they're only partially qualified for and try to pick up the slack, but that's been a cultural shift for decades. And now we're seeing the outcome of that, which is that being a white man. is not enough to be qualified for certain things. And I think that hurts when you grew up in a world where being a white man was all you really needed. mean, go look at, like watch, not a real thing, but watch Mad Men. It's just a white dude. Just, hey, look, I'm a white guy. Give me the job. And people are like, awesome, he looks good in a suit. Rob (17:36.846) Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I guess, I mean, when I think about this, there's a couple of elements and the obvious element is that we have achieved a technologic mark in which you can do such things. You can make these videos, can do deep fakes that are so realistic that we We don't have the capacity to identify. They're real for all intents and purposes. And if you're not really dialed in, you're not gonna identify the fact that they're fakes, they're completely generated fakes. So that's one part of it. that is a really significant, yeah, that's a really significant danger for us. David (18:35.384) Because we can. Yeah. Well, I think it goes beyond because we can. I think it's because the rules don't say we can't. And in politics, love and war, doesn't, which I'm adding the one in, it's when it all costs at this point. Rob (19:04.076) Well, yeah, there are no rules, there are no laws, there are no restrictions. So it's a possibility that we deal with every day. mean, every time you're on TikTok, every time you're on Instagram, really every single thing you look at, you have to make a conscious decision to ask yourself, is this a fake? So that's part of it. And then part of it is this shift that we exist at a time in which the dominance, the cultural dominance of white males is slipping. And I don't think the average, if you go just grab a white guy on the street and query him about what's going on, don't necessarily think most males identify this and they certainly can't step back and think about it in the bigger picture and the cultural flow and how societies work and how it moves from point A to point B. But what most white males probably feel at this juncture in a kind of a deep way is that they are They feel, and this is the challenge, they feel blamed for a history that's not really theirs. They didn't participate in it. They didn't do anything. They were not, they weren't slave owners. They are living, they're. David (20:50.91) I think that simplifies, and that's the argument that they make, and I get that, and that's an argument that is made. The only issue that I will take on this is that, yes, if the focus is on the slave owning and slavery, which hasn't been around for some time, now not enough time, and it was around for way too long, but it's... If we're going to, I didn't own slaves, therefore I'm not benefiting from this system. That's bullshit. It's complete fucking bullshit because the truth is they have been benefiting for their entire lives. Being a white male now, you have absolutely benefited from the laws, the rules, the way that the laws were written. You have benefited because if you've never, if you've been pulled over, Rob (21:26.54) What? Rob (21:37.516) most well Rob (21:43.829) Most David (21:46.74) and you weren't concerned that you might die in this interaction, it's because you're a white male. It's because you're a white male. No, I know you wouldn't know that. No, and I get that you wouldn't know that, but the thing is, and I think the ad is targeted towards a demographic. It isn't targeted towards white males. It's targeted towards older white males. Rob (21:48.845) But you You wouldn't know that. But you wouldn't know that. Rob (22:11.726) But still even the David (22:12.19) And older white males absolutely lived in a world where you could slap your secretary on the ass and that was considered just bad. That's what guys do. But that's not the world we live in now. I know, I'm sorry to break this to you Rob. You can't slap your secretary on his ass no matter how good he looks, okay Rob? But the thing is, that's the demographic and the truth is as... Rob (22:23.074) Wait, I need to refrain from this? Rob (22:36.63) Well, I'm gonna apologize to Donnie tomorrow. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Donnie. Eduardo. No, I refuse to allow him. He's not allowed to call himself Eduardo. He's Donnie. David (22:42.856) as Eduardo, it's Eduardo. As I get older, he just wears those tight jeans. As I get older, and why is he wearing jeans? It's not even a Friday. It's not even Friday. Why is he wearing casual? okay. So it's Eddie. And so on, as I get older and as the white men that I grew up with get older as well, Rob (23:03.448) haha David (23:12.6) I actually see this where they start to get frustrated because the jokes that they tell aren't appropriate anymore. You can't say the things that you're saying, but they still will. And then they get upset. Why can't I say that? Why can't I talk about that? Why can't that be the focus of that's you built your entire identity, your entire professional life, your entire world on this perspective. And now it's being Rob (23:25.773) You know. Rob (23:40.344) So, my- David (23:41.794) taken away. So I do see why they feel vulnerable. Rob (23:45.398) My boys, I have a 19 year old and a 16 year old, soon to be 17, and they are very sensitive, very sensitive to this kind of language, sexist language, to these kinds of jokes. They are super sensitive to it, and it strikes me every time they... You know, I consider myself reasonably sensitive to such things and reasonably thoughtful about such things, but they will call me out on certain things. Yeah. David (24:22.648) I bet they do. I bet they do. I have to edit your fucking speech on here sometimes, Robbie. I have to edit my own. But that's the thing is I have to edit my own because the world that we grew up in, it was more, it was okay to say certain things. And when things stop being okay, and you don't understand it, you don't, and you're, especially when you feel attacked, when something is not okay, then, Rob (24:27.114) Well David (24:52.716) then of course you're gonna feel you're gonna not like it. It's just that you and I are psychiatrists, so we're used to being more empathic, being more sensitive towards other people's thoughts and beliefs. And yeah, we still have the rhetoric of the 80s, the 90s. We still do that, but we will also edit ourselves in real time. And then when it slips, Rob (24:57.944) So there, David (25:22.008) I'll probably be embarrassed like, I didn't mean to say that, but I'm not pissed, right? Like, and that's the emotional difference is that I might slip up and use a term that is definitely not okay now, but was definitely okay when I was in the 90s. And I'm not mad that I can't say it because I understand the hurt because you and I have sat with thousands of people who have Rob (25:26.382) Mm-hmm. David (25:51.234) been traumatized and hurt by that kind of language. And we get it. We get why you can't say those things. Rob (25:59.052) Yeah, but for the average white dude, know, if you look across the United States, and this reminds me of when I was in college, I took a class on, I think it was, I forget, it was a requirement my last year. I can remember. But it was about, it was a synthesis class. In other words, you're supposed to, you know, bring all your knowledge into this class and it's it's But it was about nonviolent protest, but it really became it was about race relations and something that struck me in that class was because I was in a class with majority non white individuals and You know, I sat there and I listened to their perspectives and I listened to what they were saying. And it really struck me how there's a fundamental difference between perspectives that the average white guy that we're talking about, the average white guy, they live in homogeneous environments and they, they are not, they, they don't have much in the way of advantages to their mind. It's a homogeneous environment. It's a bunch of white guys. They are not benefited by being white from their perspective. Now in the grand scheme, in the scheme of the United States, we can all say that they are benefited, that there's an inherent benefit to being a white guy. But when you live in an environment where it's all white guys and you are competing against and participating with a bunch of white guys, it doesn't resonate. It doesn't feel right. It's not right. They are struggling to pay their bills. They are struggling to get jobs. They are struggling to take care of their families. And when you tell them, you're benefited by this, it strikes them at a core level because they barely are getting by right now. David (28:02.114) No, any we get? Rob (28:21.806) and for you to tell them they have had a benefit by being white. Their question is, where's the benefit? Where is the benefit? David (28:32.132) No, I get no and I totally get that I'm just I'm listening to the I'm my my brain just went into this time travel forward mode and I can just hear the people listening to this and my guess is what they're yelling is so fucking what because What their thing is just because somebody isolates themselves into a core demographic and doesn't see the benefit, it doesn't mean that they're not, well, that's, but, and they never left there, but they also. Rob (29:03.758) They're not isolated. They grew up here. They live here. They didn't make it, and they didn't make a choice. This is like, this is where I live. David (29:13.09) Well, that's not true. They did make a choice. They chose not to pursue higher education. they also, well, they did. They chose not to. No, they chose not to because everything we do is a choice. No, it's not. No, it's eight maybe, but everybody has a choice on what they do with their lives. And I guess, which is fine, but if I'm, because the fact is one of the things that people in that position have done Rob (29:19.726) David, you... you... you elitist bitch. Rob (29:32.718) Capability, buddy, capability. David (29:42.538) and have done for centuries is they have thought to themselves, and I think is, well, at least I'm not black, right? Like at least I'm not below this in their own mind because they know, they know that if they were in a different demographic, it would probably be worse because maybe they don't consciously think that. But again, when was the last time you got pulled over? Rob (30:03.768) Mm-mm. David (30:11.574) And we're thinking, shit, I may get shot by this cop. Rob (30:16.846) So growing up in an environment that is predominantly white, I would get pulled over because of the vehicle I was driving. I would get pulled over because of the clothes I was wearing. It's a different set of biases that exist in an environment that is homogeneous. David (30:38.488) I hear Allison screaming in the background. I can just hear her screaming. Rob (30:43.246) And I get that, I get that. But this is what we're dealing with. Hang on, shut your mouth for a moment. Just a moment. Yeah, you people. You, David. I mean you. I'm referencing you. I realize that from a large scale perspective, David (30:47.458) Well, okay, I guess, well, and I get, no, and I get that. David (30:54.604) What do mean by you people, Robbie? Rob (31:12.588) that these things exist. There is no doubt in my mind that cultural bias and race bias exists. there is no doubt in my mind that the nature of the United States and how we have developed that these things exist. What I'm saying is where the effectiveness of ads such as this exist is that there are these pockets and there were relatively large pockets in the United States of homogeneous existence in which, you know, there's not a whole lot of people of color around you. What you're dealing with is in a day-to-day existence is a group of individuals who look very much like you and you're struggling to exist. You are absolutely struggling. to make it day to day, provide for your family, take care of them, make money, et cetera. And when you hear these things about cultural bias, they don't resonate because you are struggling, I mean, at a core level to make it. And when you say, when in the big scheme, and it's true, it's true that there is a bias out there and that there is, These things exist, but not in these little subculture environments. They don't exist. That finding a job, making enough money, providing for your kids, giving them birthday presents and Christmas presents, that has nothing to do, nothing. But interestingly enough, this dynamic that exists in the world that when you're told you are privileged. These people don't feel privileged, buddy. They just don't. They're not privileged. They've never been privileged. They were born into poverty. They work the best way they can. They've never been privileged. To be told that you're privileged doesn't resonate with them and it makes them vulnerable to these kinds of ads. David (33:24.6) Well, it's... David (33:42.72) It does make them vulnerable. think though, and this will be my last kind of dig at that is that if you live in such a homogenous environment where it doesn't matter, right? I'm poor, I'm white, I'm struggling. Somebody telling me that I'm privileged, which isn't what they're telling you. What they're telling you is that there is another group who has been actively pushed down and that what we're trying, what is trying to be done is to remove those restrictions from those groups. It's not boosting them up. It's attempting to make it more even so that they have the same opportunities. Because in this, in a hypothetical race, you have one group that is three laps ahead of the other. when starting and said and then told, okay, you need to finish at the same time. But that's, and I get why they don't understand. However, and my argument, the argument I think would be if their environment is so homogenous that it doesn't matter because they don't see themselves as having an advantage, then why does it piss them off so much when you're saying, They just want to take away the restrictions from the other groups because if from that perspective, it doesn't matter. It's not going to hurt me anymore because the other group doesn't exist here. Because in my world, there are no people of color who are going to come in and take over because they don't exist. Therefore, I may not be advantaged because they're not here. Rob (35:20.055) It's the zip. Rob (35:31.937) It's David (35:37.084) I'm not in an advantage point because they're not around me to show me the advantage. So why does it fucking matter if the restrictions are being pulled from them from other communities where they are being disadvantaged? And that's the argument I think they would make is like, so you're not in the in group, but you're also not in the out group because the out group apparently doesn't exist for you. And so why are you, Rob (35:39.159) Yeah. Rob (35:44.12) You're- Rob (35:51.692) Well, but you're... Rob (36:03.006) You well because David (36:05.804) holding it against these people who live elsewhere? And the answer is yes, yes, psychologically. Rob (36:09.73) Psychologically, psychologically, psychologically, you're making very valid points, what I think, I think you're missing a really core, shut up! David (36:22.336) I'm right. It's because I'm right. No, I'm not, I'm not, no, no, no, I'm not missing it. I'm not, I'm not missing it. What I'm doing is I am taking into consideration what people who are disadvantaged, because there are groups who are disadvantaged, who if they're hearing this, they're saying, so the fuck what? If, because we are actively being put at a disadvantage, our, so our, Rob (36:33.132) No. Rob (36:46.093) I know. Rob (36:52.952) So, ho-ho- David (36:53.592) Our country is 57.5 % Caucasian. Our country is 13.7 % Black, 20 % Hispanic Latino, 1.4 % American Indian, Alaska Native, and 6.7 % Asian. In our prisons at the end of 23, it was 33 % Black, 31 % White, 23 % Hispanic, 2 % American Indian, Alaska Native. The only group that's very better here are the Asian population, because they're only at 1%. Rob (37:00.865) Yum yum. David (37:23.704) So if you're in one of those demographics and you are being actively held back, then you don't care that there is a rural community of only white people who are pissed off that somebody is fighting for you. Nobody gives a shit because they'd say, I know that's what he wants. Rob (37:26.745) for them. Rob (37:32.375) Right. Rob (37:47.244) David, that's why Donald Trump, but David, that's why Donald Trump was elected. and saying this doesn't matter. This isn't relevant. This isn't a thing. This, shouldn't be a thing is missing the point. This is why he was elected because these, these sub communities can't, they count a great deal. And what you're missing is. David (37:54.594) I know. David (38:07.18) No, but that's, but that's what. Yeah, no, they count more, in fact. Why? Because the rules skew in their favor because the states are gerrymandered so much to make sure that their votes count more than the votes of the people who live in those urban communities. And that's a part of it. Rob (38:25.827) What your- Rob (38:33.836) What you're missing, what you're missing, what you're missing, because you're a massive dumbass, and I'm going out on a limb here to tell the audience, our tens of listeners, Dave's a massive dumbass, what you're missing is the core of being a human, is that until your core, until your life is stable, until you have enough, until you can provide for your kids and you feel safe. You can't think on a big scale. We've never been designed to think big scale. This is not a human thing. We do not think big scale until the core. You can provide food and the basics for your family. And where we're losing this argument. I mean, why we have Donald Trump in the White House is because what really it comes down to is he made the argument to this population, he was gonna help them provide for their families. And if we can help them provide for their families, then they can step back and they can think big picture. They will do it. People aren't as dumb. as we want to, know, as frustrating as people can be, they're not really that dumb and they're not also that racist. They're just not. That if they are taken care of, if they can provide, if they can feel like a fucking man, if they can just feel like a man, I provide for my family, I take care of them, I meet their needs, then they will think about those sorts of things. And until they do, they can't. They just can't. David (40:08.471) No, I think... David (40:23.436) No, I- Well, I, well, I think, and I, I agree with you on some parts. One, yes, people are not as stupid in general as is suggested. People, people are much, are much smarter. I think having conversations with a, with a lot of people, I've always, I've actually honestly been very surprised at how thoughtful and intelligent people are on an individual level. I do worry sometimes that Rob (40:49.078) Yes, me too. David (40:56.896) they are easy to manipulate. And I think that's where, that's where I do, I agree. think the messaging from Donald Trump was, I'm going to take care of the poor white people. I think the messaging from the Democrats was, we're going to take care of the poor people. We're going to, it wasn't, going take, we're going to take care of the poor people. And I think the difference is that when, Rob (41:00.536) Terribly. Rob (41:13.88) Mm-hmm. Rob (41:19.022) Trans. Rob (41:24.814) It was... David (41:26.68) when you don't delineate the white versus the color, that's where people were hearing, Donald Trump wants to take care of the poor white people, which is me. But he hasn't, he never intended to, he wasn't going to. mean, the one big beautiful bill act was the biggest trend, Rob (41:48.93) No, never David (41:55.82) biggest movement of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. And the truth is he doesn't, he's a billionaire. The guy doesn't give two shits about poor people, but he does care about, no, why would he? But where, and I think where Democrats do fall short is they have the tendency to focus on the minority populations within that group. But the truth is they are, Rob (42:00.492) Absolutely. Rob (42:07.472) nor understand them. He doesn't have a clue. David (42:24.78) They are their policies. Their policies do benefit. Poor people, not not just minorities, but the poorer population. So if anything, you question why would somebody who has wealth want to vote for the Democrats who are going to try to distribute wealth more towards. The poor population. Which is the same argument. Why would why would poor people vote for somebody who's trying to distribute wealth away from them? Rob (42:24.984) and sub-minority. Rob (42:48.664) Well, so... David (42:54.412) And the reason they don't see it that way, they see it as them being protected as being white, but it's not about white on that front. It's about being poor. Rob (43:04.482) Something Martin Luther King, who is usually remembered only for the singular race relations and the rights of people of color, that's what he's remembered for. if you, yeah, I know. But if you actually go back to what he was saying, particularly in the latter, David (43:21.122) Wait, what? I've never heard that. Rob (43:32.342) phases of his time before he was killed. He was murdered, assassinated. Yeah, yeah, he was killed. He actually shifted his perspective in it. It wasn't as focused on purely race. was focused on poverty. David (43:38.072) assassinated. David (43:42.177) assassinated. Rob (43:59.854) He was talking about poverty and the effect of poverty and I'll tell you what poverty does poverty makes racism poverty creates racism that when you are at the bottom you will struggle to to to have any advantage any any friggin advantage and the the risk and this is this is this is Absolutely in our wheelhouse here. This is psychological when you are absolutely at the bottom, any kind of advantage, whether it be your skin color, whether it be anything, the people you know, your family name, the fact that you know the mayor, whatever, you're gonna grab those things. And Martin Luther King actually recognized that. He knew it, he understood it, that the greatest risk to racial equality was not just white and black. It was poverty. was if you can, if you can, if you can solve the poverty problem, if you can give people equal opportunity, give them that opportunity to feel like I'm a man or a woman, but I'm, I keep, I'm a man. So I keep saying, I'm a man. I have to declare it because apparently people don't All right. I can. David (45:23.948) I'm an adult. How about I'm an adult. Rob (45:29.026) provide for my children, I can make sure that they grow up safe, I can give them the things they need, I can give them a little bit extra, the special things that make them feel special. If you solve that, then all of a sudden, someone else's skin color doesn't count. It doesn't matter, you just don't give a shit. You don't give a shit if you are, can take care of your family and you feel like you are an effective adult. David (46:04.914) at to some extent, to some extent. Rob (46:08.908) Yeah, I mean, there's always those jackasses that have some some some you know, there's the white powered douchebags that have like a political agenda and you whatever Yeah, there's always going to be that subset a vast majority of people though. They don't fall into that What they fall into is that when when you say? There's white you know the There's an advantage to being white it threatens David (46:27.202) Yeah, I thought Rob (46:39.246) subset of poor white people who are like, where's that advantage? Where am I? My grandfather was poor. I'm my grand, my parents were poor. I'm poor. I'm do I'm doing everything I can. There's very few options for me. Where is my white advantage? David (46:58.936) Yeah. Well, and that's, and I, yes, too, but again, they're part of that is, I would take a second. Yes, you're right. And yet, and yet people, as did I, but yet people will still, because it's the difference between, it's the difference between looking at Rob (47:13.816) I know, I grew up in it. David (47:28.044) the individual and then looking at the bigger picture. And that's very much the difference. Now, when we go back to the AI deepfake of James Tallarico, James Tallarico, even in his tweet or whatever social media he used, he didn't say white people are advantaged. What the Republican Senate, whatever the fuck, Rob (47:31.98) It is. Rob (47:52.428) No! David (47:58.498) committee did was they imply. through they they used his written words to create a video that said that that implied that he believed that which is not the Democratic side arguing that argument. It's the Republican side telling everybody that that's what Democrats believe. which isn't accurate. Now it does play into psychology and it is an effective tool to get people to vote in a certain direction. mean, the truth, James Tallarico is a really interesting guy. He is a, is he like a pastor? He's very Christian. He's very Christian. He makes very Rob (48:34.413) Absolutely. Rob (48:55.843) Something like that. Yeah. David (49:00.824) strong religious arguments in favor of the democratic position, which is to try to reduce poverty, which is the same argument and increase equality, which is the same argument that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., because that is his title, that is his name, was suggesting. He's making those exact same arguments in that favor. He's a really interesting guy because if you are not a religious person, you might actually be kind of put off by what he says. Yet he makes compelling Christian based arguments for the democratic side, which is not what the Republicans do. But he definitely hasn't said, at least not in that tweet, he didn't say white men are privileged. He just stated the fact. that white men are more likely to commit domestic terrorism. Rob (50:01.87) There's a deeply Christian. David (50:02.69) What the sick? Rob (50:10.654) Something, I mean, personally that I guess I've always held is that one of the ways that the Democratic Party doesn't end up achieving, and at one time they did, they achieved a mass appeal based on, and it was really unions. Unions are what gave the Democratic Party predominance for a long time. David (50:35.181) Right. Rob (50:39.726) And that was because they held a belief that the general public felt like, all right, this does benefit me. This is positive. And then, you know, we had, starting in the 80s, a general push away from populist benefit. And this is the American way, is that we all want to believe we can be wealthy. We all want to believe we can hit the jackpot that the American dream of starting with nothing and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and achieving a wealth that is remarkable is a possibility. Everyone wants that. Everyone wants to believe that everyone, you know, when they're I don't care where you are in this country. I don't care how that deep your poverty is. you want to believe you can come up with that idea, that thing, that whatever, and you can pull yourself up. you know, unfortunately over or the reality, shouldn't say unfortunately, just the reality. The reality is, is that all of a sudden in the eighties, nineties, early two thousands, there was this shift in which all of a sudden unions became bad things. They became, they were problem. They created additional hassles. They weren't necessary anymore. didn't, know, businesses took care of their employees. The world just didn't require it anymore. Yeah. Back in the early 1900s, when businesses would work you to death and didn't give a shit about you, that's when they were necessary. Now they're just a problem. Now they're just something that sucks up money. and they don't really serve a purpose any longer. And it's, I guess it's unfortunate and it's the nature of the cycles that societies go through that this, we went from a society that was very pro-union to a society that was anti-union. And what we've achieved is an imbalance of wealth. Rob (53:02.678) significant imbalance of wealth in which most of the wealth lives with like like ten people there's ten people ten people in the United States that hold a vast majority of the wealth and We're making a shift and you know, I've talked about the book The the storm before the calm many many times on our podcast. I still hold it dear because I hope it's true. And basically it said that the 20s of right now when we're living was this confluence of both social change and economic change that creates chaos. And I think we all feel the chaos, but the book's prediction was that the 30s was gonna be reorganization. And part of that reorganization was a shift of the voting population that we are no longer going to vote based on race. We were going to vote based on economic status and what's best for us. Because for the last 20 years, maybe, roughly, there's been a shift to this white identity voting that doesn't actually benefit. these individuals. It's benefiting Elon Musk, it's benefiting very wealthy people, very wealthy white people, but what it doesn't benefit is them individually, but their identity, their white identity leads them. we can... David (54:28.984) No. David (54:34.21) So. David (54:47.544) Well, well, yeah, identity politics does, I mean, if you look at the numbers of, you know, the distribution of, if you look at the distribution of wealth compared to the population demographics, it does, it makes a ton of sense to go down the route of identity politics. Now, interestingly, it makes more sense to go down the route of identity politics if you're a Republican. It makes much more sense to go down the route of Rob (55:13.396) Mm hmm. Absolutely. David (55:17.4) economic identity if you're a Democrat. because of so the top 1 % of the population controls 31.7 % of the wealth. The next 9 % which is one that would be 36.4 % of the wealth. So 68.1 % of the wealth is controlled by the top 10%. The next Rob (55:45.07) 10%. David (55:46.232) The next 40 % of the wealth, the next 40 % of the population, 40 % of the population controls 29.4 % of the wealth. And the bottom 50 % of the population controls 2.5 % of the wealth. So the bottom 90 % controls 31.9 % of the wealth. And the top 10 % controls 68.1%. So if you're making, and honestly, the top 0.1%, 0.1 %? controls 14.4 % of the wealth. The next .9 is 17.3. So if you just look at that, from a voting, from a Democratic Republic perspective with an electoral college, it makes a lot more sense to target identity politics where 57.4 % of the population is Caucasian. Even though the vast majority of those people Rob (56:37.006) Absolutely. Rob (56:43.79) You don't want to talk economics. David (56:46.584) The vast majority of those people control almost no well. Well, that's what's interesting is that they do talk economics. They just talk fake economics. They talk about what they're, thank you, I'm done now, we're episode over. They talk about what their plan is to improve that life. Rob (56:59.886) Absolutely. It's a good one, David. It's good. It's good. Rob (57:09.88) Ha ha ha ha ha David (57:15.042) from the context of the identity politics, but the same thing is coming out of the Democrat. Now in this election cycle, though I think the critical error made by the Democrats was to focus so much more on the opponent and the opponent only, and not on the messaging, that was a big problem. But from a... Rob (57:15.234) Yeah. David (57:42.616) From a psychological perspective, I think a great book to read even to this day, whether you like the guy or not, Jonathan Haidt, think is fairly, he's controversial. He's controversial, but The Righteous Mind, he wrote in 2012, it does explain, it is excellent, and it also explains why Republicans have such an easier time. Rob (57:52.59) I love John O'Night. We need to get him on the show. Rob (57:59.47) It's excellent. David (58:11.296) speaking to their population because of the factors that come into play because from a individualistic standpoint, Republicans look at poverty as an individual problem. The issue comes down to you. Whereas from a democratic perspective, poverty is a systemic issue and it's not Rob (58:13.742) Absolutely. Rob (58:22.222) huh. Rob (58:38.488) Yes. David (58:39.508) necessarily your fault that you're in that situation. The problem being that if you're in that situation and somebody tells you that it's not because of you, what that implies is there's nothing you can do about it, which isn't really true. But if somebody comes to you and says poverty is an individualistic problem, you're not hearing it as I'm being blamed for it. What you're hearing it as is I can do something about it. and you're willing to help me. Rob (59:11.822) You you nailed it Yeah, you totally nailed it well, so so in that that is so Republicans tend to appeal to individualistic perspective whereas our Democrats the Democrats tend to appeal to this societal thing and As it turns out the Republican argument, which is individual actually appeals more to most of us that, I can fix this. I can do it myself. I have that option. Whereas the Democrats, they do tend to talk about societal issues, the big picture. Now, which one's right? Well, I'll tell you, it's a mix. It's not, no one is right. That it is societal and an individual responsibility. David (59:42.637) Yes. David (01:00:05.144) Yeah. Well, I it's interesting, I think is that when you when your viewpoint is from an individual, individualistic perspective, you you use that not as it's my fault. You use that as I can do something about it. Whereas if you hear it from a systemic perspective, all you're hearing is I can't do anything about it. And not the well, it's not my fault. You're just hearing I can't I can't. I can't. Rob (01:00:31.17) Yeah, I need to wait. I need to wait for the government to fix it. David (01:00:35.69) I can't do anything about it. well, and I do now in all fairness, that book was written in 2012. It was pre Donald Trump. I do think it projected his first win, but I think it really did. But I, but also I think there's a, I think it needs to be updated because the Republican identity has shifted so much compared to what it was. I mean, it is very different. The Republican party today is Rob (01:00:42.54) Yeah, it was. If it did. David (01:01:05.736) vastly different than the Democratic Party was before. think James Talarico actually does present many more arguments that would kind of apply to what the old Republican Party was anyway, which I think is Fascinating. So would be interested to see Jonathan Haidt do a new book that kind of talks about that and the way that the Republican party has shifted. I mean, at this point with the way things are going, people would probably argue that Ronald Reagan is a Democrat in today's world versus in the past. or compared to today's Republican party. But I digress. Rob (01:02:04.43) that actually fits more. David (01:02:05.546) I muted you. I muted you so we didn't hear you pee. So if I want to restart. Rob (01:02:09.654) no, at that moment in time, Ronald Reagan, you know, interestingly enough, and this is the march of time. Yes, he is identified as for many, many years, he was identified as a Republican icon, the benchmark. But if we go backwards in time, you know, I think he would have much more in common with today's Democrat, Democratic Party. than he would with today's Republican Party. And that's the shift of time. The shift of time is that, I mean, if we go back to 1980, 1980, and look at the platforms of the Democrats and the Republicans, and then to now, one thing that I think would be struck by is the fact that the Republicans no longer have a platform. They don't exist on a platform anymore. It is the ever-changing whims of their leader. Whereas back then, if we go backwards, the Republican platform wouldn't line up perfectly with the Democrats' perspective, but it would line up more. vastly more with today's Democrats than it would with today's Republicans. David (01:03:42.998) Yeah. Well, I think though the strength of the Republican party today is just that they, because there's no platform to fall back on, there's no requirement to stay within it. Right? Like if you're, if the only job, if you just have to agree with one person with whatever and then make arguments to support his currently held belief, which changes Rob (01:03:59.33) There are no rules that makes it easy. Rob (01:04:05.07) Yeah. David (01:04:12.362) in a sentence, it is actually a lot easier as long as everybody's in line with that and as long as they see that. Rob (01:04:18.446) Well, it's not a sentence, it's a truth. If it changes within a truth. and you know what? mean, psychologically, gosh, does that so freeze them up? when, you know, if we go backwards in time when there were platforms, and these are our policies, this is what we believe in, it created a certain cognitive dissonance when you. David (01:04:22.018) There you go. That's truth. Rob (01:04:46.974) Stepped away from that you you it pulled you back. It was the gravity that pulled you back Pulled the party back to the this is what we believe in and one of the most freeing things that in today's Republican party in particular, is that they are free of any kind of Gravity, they have no gravity. They have they have David (01:05:11.704) You know what it is? Is that there was a black and a white way of thinking in a platform. It had to be this way or it had to be this way. And to deviate from it, even in the consideration that maybe what you said wasn't 100 % right, created a lot of anxiety. It created a lot of hardship within the party because you would be faced with raw data that showed what you were saying was not all black or was not all white and yet you still had to defend it as if it was. It was the sole truth. Whereas a party that operates not on a set of platform, a set of principles that we can all agree with, but rather through the personality structure of somebody who very much lives in the gray. does free you up to never have to argue for something that was said yesterday. You don't have to make the argument that something that was proved wrong yesterday, today or tomorrow is right because you're willing to shift to wherever the fuck you need to be for it to make sense now. It would be helpful if that was centered on ethics, values, morals, hell even the Constitution, which it's not. It's set on the whims of a personality. And I think it strengthens the party in their ability to consolidate their viewpoints, whereas the Democrats are very much struggling from the fractured nature of where they live, which is different silos of belief. Rob (01:06:46.35) Mm-mm. David (01:07:10.998) which makes it hard, especially when some conflict. Whereas as long as you are willing to ignore that humanistic drive to cement yourself at least in a viewpoint, and you can now submit your viewpoint into just the faith in one. And that's where it's cemented, rather than saying, I believe in the Constitution because that's not what this is. Clearly it's not what it is. The Magan does not believe in the Constitution unless it benefits them. So the belief structure and the focus is only on, I believe that what he says is right. Now I will point out that, or maybe I shouldn't point out because I'm a gentleman, that that's what every, I'm a gentleman, Robbie. I'm a gentleman, Robbie. I'm a gentleman, so I'm a gentleman, Robbie, so I'm not gonna point out that that is how. Rob (01:07:50.552) Mm-hmm. Rob (01:08:00.15) Everybody, David, you know, at his core, he's a gentleman. David (01:08:10.164) every cult has ever functioned in that the belief structure goes along with whatever the cult leader is saying, not evidence surrounding them. So I do think it's a really dangerous model, but it is profoundly, profoundly strong. It is, if you were going to run a political party, Rob (01:08:12.856) Mm-hmm. David (01:08:38.048) and all you wanted was for you to be, was for you to be successful in it, this is the most, this is the strongest way to do it. I cannot think of a party that would be stronger than this because this requires fealty and identity to be focused solely on one person and one person's belief structure. What I do wonder, Robbie. because I do wonder is like any great cult, once the leader is no longer the leader because they pass whatever, they ascend to the next level, the cult typically dies. Rob (01:09:24.991) said David (01:09:31.768) the rest of the, because you don't have that primary focus and it's very difficult for somebody to take on that perspective. Well, there's been some, mean, with like the, the hell bop comet, that doomsday cult, had two leaders. So one of them died and the other one was able to kind of take it on, but through communication with the other leader at the next level. Rob (01:09:32.375) It does. Rob (01:09:40.405) Impossible. David (01:10:00.93) but normally wants to cult. But, Rob (01:10:01.098) And they have a followership of about, what, 100? David (01:10:07.596) Yeah, they did. Yeah. Well, and yeah, exactly. Now that's the question though. So without Donald Trump anointing the next leader who can hold, who can hold, no, who can't? Yeah. What happens to that 30 % of the Republican party that has the 100 % approval rating for him? What happens to those people? Rob (01:10:18.636) Which he won't. He won't. He can't. Rob (01:10:36.749) Well. David (01:10:37.24) when the leader, because he's almost 80, right? Like he's almost eight years old. He's not going to live forever, I don't think. So, I don't think he'll live forever. I'm pretty sure he won't. I would assume that he won't. Even modern science isn't going to keep. But what happens to that 30 % of people? They disillusioned in wandering around like. Rob (01:10:48.642) can make a reasonable guess. No, no, you won't. What? Rob (01:10:59.71) No. So from a treatment standpoint, so like if we were treating somebody, and I often think of it in these terms, is that I definitely have individuals who come to me and part of their problem, the vast majority of their problem, is the fact that they don't have an ethos. They are not following a set of rules. that they have established. Now, it's not my job to tell them what the rules of life are. It's not my job to tell them what their ethos should be, what is right, what is wrong. But those who are bound by a core ethos, a belief structure, this is right, this is wrong, they tend to do better than those who really it fluctuates based on what feels good at the moment. When you fluctuate based on what feels good at the moment, that's the path of substance abuse. That's the path of addiction. That's the path of chaos. And what we currently are looking at in the Republican party, at least, is that a good number, a good number, 30%, a solid 30%. Um, are comfortable with the fact that they don't necessarily have an ethos. Um, they fluctuate with what feels good. Eventually that those, those chickens come home to roost. Um, that that's a problem that they will eventually have to sit with. Um, at some point at some time, and yes, um, when I play this out in the next, um, I don't know, decade, um, that Issue is going to be significant. They will be a party that has so deviated from a platform from a policy from a from a belief structure to the point of being what is it that this Leader wants at this moment what feels good to them? And that that actually it feels good. It feels good if you're that 30 % it actually feels good to just Rob (01:13:21.4) just flow with whatever because you're not held, you're not bound. David (01:13:25.72) Well, you can't be wrong. You can't be wrong. I think that's the key from your perspective is if all you need to believe is right is whatever this person says, there's no. Rob (01:13:40.406) Yeah, today we're anti-war, we're the peace president. Tomorrow we're at war. And it's, you just... David (01:13:48.15) and we're still the peace president. Rob (01:13:50.51) Right, cuz cuz David (01:13:53.888) awarded. We've got awards. We got a Nobel Peace Prize without our name on it. That's true peace. got a FIFA statue. I mean, they are the, I think, premier source of identifying peace prizes is FIFA. I always think about what FIFA will do when I think about who Rob (01:13:58.83) It's on my wall. I own that. The FIFA folks, yeah. Rob (01:14:11.982) ridiculous it's so silly my god David (01:14:23.192) You should get a peace price. Rob (01:14:23.854) they're gonna come up with another award that gives him like you're the war president. You, yeah. David (01:14:31.404) The best at it though. so, but I think, that's, but yeah, when you follow, when all you need to be right is to say whatever he says, and there's no deviation from that, you're good. That's a great, but that is a really safe way to resolve anxiety that you might otherwise have because there's conflict when you say. Rob (01:14:43.917) Mm-hmm. David (01:14:58.804) I really like this person as a leader, but I don't agree with them all the time. That requires me, which will happen. Rob (01:15:04.928) At some point in his... Well, it has to catch up at some point because I mean, and this is again, this is this is taking the the body politic and pulling it back to the human. fundamentally, politics work best when it actually flows with our own psychodynamics and our own our own existence as humans. There is no human that can tell me. that can with straight face and tell me that when they are flowing with whatever the desires, the moment are that they end up feeling good about themselves. That what makes us feel good about ourselves is when we have purpose and we have an ethos, a set of rules and then we live by them. And yeah. Sometimes we have to adjust. Sometimes we set those rules, you know, too restrictively or we, we, they're not restrictive enough and we have to adjust, but we feel best as people, as individuals, when we are doing the things that fit with our core priorities. And right now I could not tell you what the priorities of our, our, prevailing, you know, Rob (01:16:38.51) the administration as we are, I don't know what their priorities are. I don't know what, every day it changes. Every day something adjusts, it is different. It is unsettling. It feels pretty good because it's kind of like what it is when you're like three or four, when it's like, I want ice cream. I want this. I love you this much. I love you zero. There's a certain freedom to that, but it's not an adult perspective. It's not an adult. David (01:17:14.339) Well, and you'll see kids go through that struggle with their parents as they try to find their own identity. But these are adult humans who have already found their identity, but they found their identity in that belief structure. And I mean, it would be much easier for all of us if we just went through our lives assuming that everything that our parents did was amazing, right? Like this goes back to psychology. When you're little, you just think that everything they do is right. Everything they say is amazing. And it's a real struggle when you start to gain your own identity and you start to see like, oh shit, grandpa's racist. Oh, he's really racist. But I didn't realize that until I was 25. He used to say that shit all the time when I was younger. I thought it was hilarious. But that's... But that's yeah, that's the maybe, and that's the growing up and figuring out who you are. Now, it is fascinating when you do that and then latch onto a new part of that. And I think with the numbers, it means that like 23 million people are gonna be very, very lost at the end of all of this. Rob (01:18:09.388) I really liked him. David (01:18:36.536) The good news is I think that's less than 10 % of the population. So that's probably, you know, gonna be a lot more work for you and I. Well, 30 % of about 77 million is 23 million ish. And so, it's, know, and that's, yeah, it'll be a big deal. Anyway, I think we've talked this to death. We meant to talk about three things. We talked about one, it got interesting. So, oh well, great. Rob (01:18:42.67) I'll be. Don't be. Rob (01:18:51.022) There'll be a reorganization. Rob (01:19:01.858) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha David (01:19:06.316) Do you have a prescription that came out of this, Robbie? Rob (01:19:11.546) you know, I guess maybe this is, is my thing. I don't know if it's prescription, but, you know, I think we all do need to, make an effort at, not just thinking, globally, nation nationally. but we also have to have a perspective on the individual that the individual counts. And in fact, they count more, they count more because fundamentally the national perspective is one thing, but if we're not really dialed into what the existence of the individual is, we're going to miss it. So, it's easy to set back and say that all the folks that followed Donald Trump or the racist hillbillies are dumb, but they're not. It's not the reality. The reality is that they really are just struggling to survive and take care of their kids and feel good about themselves and feel like they're achieving their job as a mom or a dad or a partner. so we've got to step back and think in those terms. rather than sort of the logic that often guides folks who are thinking in terms of, you know, big level politics. David (01:20:52.056) Yeah, I think there's maybe that's the area where people can. help themselves a bit more is the difference between the identity versus the systemic issue and realize you're making, well, you're making, you're arguing with one another over two totally separate things without, without spelling them out, without understanding that because again, one person is, is arguing from a individualistic perspective and the other person is arguing. Rob (01:21:07.726) Nicely framed. David (01:21:28.32) systemically and since that's not spoken, it does create more strife. Whereas I think if both sides can. Art can understand that and maybe even communicate their perspective and then see the other persons. It would lead to much more understanding on those issues, but it's hard to do that in soundbites. It's hard to do that in echo chambers. My prescription is that if you are finding yourself going through Ericsson's stage five, which is identity versus role confusion, for a second time in your life, which Erickson did talk about there being another stage of development later in life. He started, as he began to age, he started to realize that people go through a system, which is basically just a mirroring of their first system. But if you're going through an issue with identity versus role confusion, an industry versus inferiority where you're trying to latch onto a consolidating. perspective, a great thing where you can just agree with it and lazily sit with it. And I'm going to say lazily because if your belief structure is such that you say whatever it is that I believe is infallible and can do no wrong, whether that's a person, whether that's the Constitution, whether that's the, if you can't look at something and see it for the fact that it is indeed imperfect. David (01:23:15.576) Try again, my friend. Work a little bit harder in your belief structure to realize that nothing is perfect in this realm that we call Earth. I don't know if there is, except for Jessica Foster, she is perfect. That's it. Rob (01:23:40.366) All right, we're in agreement with Jessica Foster. She's perfect. she's also, Jessica Foster is also AI generated. David (01:23:46.656) and Barbara Eden on I Dream of Jeannie. David (01:23:53.538) She's not real. Rob (01:23:55.278) I don't think she is. David (01:23:56.588) God damn it. All right, well I gotta go get out of socials. Make some changes, delete some stuff. All right, well, I think that's it. So thank you so much for everybody sticking around, listening to us. Hopefully this was listenable. All the hate mail that you have towards Robbie, go ahead and send it towards Robbie and not me. Rob (01:24:13.848) Hopefully. Send it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Send it directly to me. Barbara Eden is, she's magical. So I think we can all agree with that. And her little twitch that she did when she, yeah, no, that was bewitched. Yeah, and she closed her eyes. David (01:24:33.016) the nose was bewitched. No, she did the... Okay. yeah, she she blanked it. Blanked. Rob (01:24:43.758) Super cute, super cute. Just the stuff of, yeah, just amazing. David (01:24:55.722) Alright, keep it in your pants, Robbie. We gotta go. Thanks everyone. Hit like, subscribe, share with your friends. We appreciate you. All ten of you. All tens of you. All tens of you. Until next time, from Cube That Music, and we are out. Rob (01:25:07.297) All 10 of ya. Rob (01:25:14.424) We're out.