oh have you checked the source. They were not saying your facts are wrong. They were not saying have you considered this. They were not saying here's the fact check. They were saying what can I say that will make this guy not want to spend another second on X and want to get a high-powered rifle and do something bad. And then they would pick that. It's very obvious that there were like five things on the list and that it was somebody's job to sit there and when it goes bing they know I've gone and they quickly go to their list. They go, oh Adams, five things, marriage, divorce, I'll pick number three. It was very obvious because nobody else was doing it except the first comment of everyone that was a political post. And if I posted something that was just interesting or fun, nope, don't show up.

So these were not political actors and I could tell they were not political in 2016. I have to admit I couldn't tell. I just thought there were terrible people on the internet because there are terrible people everywhere. I thought whoa some of these are more terrible than others. But once I understood that it was from — I guess that's the name of the guy who organized the trolls for the 2016 cycle. So we knew actually after the fact after 2016 election we knew who hired the trolls. We knew the budget. It was exactly what it looked like. What I couldn't tell then is whether some of the people were just organically bad and some of the people were paid. But I couldn't tell which are paid and which are organic. But this last cycle the paid ones were just so obvious. So every time they did it I would just respond "paid troll." And how many times did you see me do that? Because it was almost every day. Paid troll, paid troll. And it was always the first comment anyway. I'm glad they're gone. It's really different on X now.

Heather Mac Donald was doing some writing recently and I forget what publication but talking about how men and women generally differ and how they prioritize safety and inclusion versus accepting conflict. And goes to point out that there may be some evolutionary reason where men handle conflict differently from women. And the observation is this. I've made the same observation which is that men can fight and go at each other like crazy but if they find a reason to agree and work together they can almost instantly get over it. Like the past just goes away and we shake hands and we apologize and we accept apologies and we say oh well that was an ugly moment we had there together. Glad that's gone. And now we're friends or now we're allies or co-workers, whatever we need to be.

So the thought was that men knew that their best survival mechanism was to not turn every enemy into either dead or you stay an enemy but sometimes just get them on your side and then you have an extra person on your side. So having an extra man on your side is going to keep you alive. So the thinking is that we're just evolved. The men are easier to say all right I'm over it, let's move on. And that women would be less likely to get over it and sort of keep it as a permanent source of at least mental conflict. So in other words when men hear a provocative speech they might enjoy the debate, enjoy the fight, and also be able to get over it instantly. Whereas women if they go online and they see a debate they might also be drawn into the debate but they're not enjoying it and they're not getting over it. So it's a whole different approach.

So the point of this is that there might be a male warrior hypothesis that might be hardwired biologically that fits with my observation. So my observation is that men can get over disagreements pretty easily.

All right. The LA Times owner was doing an interview with ex-CNN star Oliver Darcy. I didn't know Oliver Darcy got fired from CNN or did he quit? He was terrible on CNN but he's went on his own now. So the LA Times, as you know, has some rich owner who didn't want to endorse Kamala Harris. He wanted to try to find some middle ground where he thought newspapers should be. So he got a lot of pushback from that. And apparently one of the new things he's doing is he wants to change up his LA Times editorial board and he's hired Scott Jennings. So Scott Jennings, the viral superstar on CNN, the Trump-supporting guy who embarrasses the other clowns at the table on a daily basis, it was selected to be part of the LA Times editorial board. So good job Scott Jennings. Again another Scott doing well.

But apparently the billionaire owner of the LA Times ended the call because Darcy just kept giving him a hard time about hiring Scott Jennings. And apparently Darcy ended up going full TDS and the owner of the newspaper and his handler whoever it was was like we're done here. Basically they just dismissed him as not even a serious character which was the right thing to do.

Now I should tell you tha