All right. So I'm looking at your comments. All right, I've got another suggestion to make the world a better place and it's called the clarification rule. You know the rule where if you drop something on the ground people say, oh, five-second rule. They pick it up and eat it. Now of course there's no science to the five-second rule, but it does make life better, right? Because people don't want to think, oh, I dropped something on the floor, now it's ruined and I can't eat it. So a lot of people will just tell themselves this little story. A five-second rule, it didn't count.

Now science has debunked that. The five seconds has nothing to do with anything. But is it a ten-second rule if you're really hungry? It's a ten-second rule, not a five-second rule. Somebody says there is science to it, but I believe I have seen stories saying there's not. But in any case that's not the point.

Here's the rule I suggest for politics. If someone says something provocative and maybe there's some ambiguity to it or maybe people think there's no ambiguity to it but it's very provocative and it's very, let's say, upsetting, here's the rule. That when you ask them to clarify, that you accept the clarification. That you report the first thing as something puzzling and you need more information, and then you report the clarification as the truth.

So if a politician says, hey, I'd like to kill babies and eat them, and then the news says, oh my God, he says he wants to kill babies and eat them. And then you ask, did you, you know, in the subsequent clarification or another interview somebody says, we thought we heard you say you wanted to kill babies and eat them. Can you clarify that? And then the politician says, oh, I didn't mean that. I meant I want to take care of babies and feed them. The rule should be that's the story. The story is what they said with the clarification. The first story should not be what are they thinking? You know, let's read their mind. Let's figure out what their dog whistle is all about. Let's just forget all of that because that's just guessing. Let's just ask for the clarification and then once it's given, that's the news. Good. And then you report, okay, this politician says this, the clarification, not the original thing. The original thing is just people being confused.

Somebody says, has Huckabee accepted Papa John's CEO's clarification? I didn't know a clarification he made. I think his clarification was he was talking about the word as opposed to using it, talking about the N-word, that he was talking about it and not using it. Now as you know, if you've been in this world more than 10 seconds, that doesn't count. The rule is that you just don't use the word.

Now I know what a lot of you say. Damn it, I live in a free country and in my free country I will use any words I want. And I hear you. It's a free country. But people are also free to treat you differently for the word that you've used.

Now my take on that, specifically the N-word, is that it's one word. It's just one word. And you do have a very special case going on here, right? There was only one slavery situation and there's only one word that's sort of the banned word. Is that a big deal? Are you giving up your freedom because you know that some of you would not ever, not all of you, can't use that word? I'm gonna say that that is such a small thing to ask that I'm happy to give it. And I would think that anyone would be happy to be kind and considerate over this one tiny, tiny issue.

And arguing that it's okay to use the word because you're just talking about it instead of using it, don't go there. Just do not go there. There's nothing productive there.

Somebody says giving an inch, they take a mile. That's, I'm gonna add, thank you, I'm gonna add that to my list of bad thinking. A slippery slope. I'm writing something now and I needed examples of bad thinking. The reason the slippery slope is bad thinking is because it literally applies to everything. There is nothing that you could not apply this slippery slope to. Hey, I'm giving a Periscope today. It might last 45 minutes. Oh, that's a slippery slope. What happens if I start giving Periscopes for hours and hours and then I starve to death? It could happen. As soon as you started giving Periscopes it's like, oh, first one's 10 minutes, then it's 20 minutes. What happens if I keep giving them until I stop eating and I die?

All right, slippery slope is not thinking. It's just not thinking. And so if you think, oh, I see a slippery slope here, I've made a decision based on the slippery slope, you have not been engaged in any form of mental cognition of any importance.

If you give a mouse a cookie, that mouse will want a full cake. Banning words regardless of context isn't thinking either. Here's the thinking. It's a very, very small request by specifically the African-American community, who I remind you if you're American especially are on your team. That's the important part. They're your team members. Your team have asked you for a tiny, tiny little piece of good manners. Is that a big deal? Put it in perspective.

Well, there are lots of racial words you shouldn't use. I agree. Somebody says you believe that. I don't know what you're talking about. But if you would like to ask me what it is that I believe. So I think somebody's saying do you believe that if you let them ban one word that they won't go and start banning more words? Of course they will. Of course they will. Will it matter? No. Will somebody try to, somebody said watermelon. You know, what if they banned watermelon? Well, depending on the context, are you using the word? It could be offensive.

That's good coffee. Should your team forgive you for using the word? Should is one of those words that are never interesting. When people say somebody should do something, that's either useless or it's lazy language or lazy thinking, maybe both. But there are things, just things that if you do this you'll get a good result. If you do this you'll get a bad result. To say I should be able to do this thing, what does that mean? The reality is if you do that thing you're gonna get a bad result and nothing will change that. Your use of the word should is useless talk. It doesn't mean anything.

I'm gonna get provocative. It's time to get provocative. I'm gonna give you a little psychology test and I want you to all play along. All right, are you ready? It's a little test. We're gonna do this in public. I don't know how this will turn out, by the way. But I want you to know I'm gonna ask you to picture a person who is a Trump supporter and then a person who is an anti-Trumper. And don't pick a famous person. So not a politician, nobody you know. I want you to conjure up in your mind your best picture of a Trump supporter. You can put this person in any kind of clothing you want, but it has to be, you know, in your mind somebody who's not famous, nobody you've ever seen before, but a generic Trump supporter. And just hold it in your mind for a moment and remember what you're thinking. I think you've all got it. Now you're thinking of a generic Trump supporter. Give that person some appearance, some clothing, but get a picture.

Now do the same. Picture an anti-Trumper, or it could be a Hillary Clinton supporter, but an anti-Trumper. Actually let's make it somebody on the left specifically, not an anti-Trumper because that would include people on the right. So somebody on the left, a Democrat. Now picture them. So picture this person's clothing, picture their look. Maybe add a face. Yeah, you might put some accoutrements around there, you know, some glasses or whatever if necessary. Now picture that person.

Okay, does everybody have their two pictures? Here's my question. What was the gender that you imagined for the Trump supporter? So that's my first question, everybody. What gender did you imagine for your Trump supporter? Give me your gender Trump supporter.

I'm seeing male, male, female, male, male, male, male, female, female, male, male, male, male, male, female, male, male, male for both, male, male, male, male for both, male, male, male, male, both, female, male, male, male. So obviously this is not the kind of test that you would get all the same answer, but I think it's skewed male.

Now if you're, when you imagine the female or I'm sorry, leading the witness. Now did you imagine a female for the Democrat? How many of you imagined a female for the Democrat? There's a little delay in the comments so it's hard to tell. It's hard to tell. Male for both. So a lot of you, it's okay. So the new answers are coming in. So female for both, female for both.

All right, so it's a little hard to tell. It could be that the Democrat was either way. All right. So here's the basic test. Obviously they're all individuals and you were all over the place. Some had male for both, some had female for both, some had all kinds of combinations.

Do you think it's true that there's sort of a male bias for the Trump side, which doesn't mean that only men like it, et cetera, nothing like that, versus a female bias for the Democrats? Now part of it is the leadership choices, right? So the Democrats are very female-centric in terms of actual and potential leaders.

Somebody said they anticipated the question so you're ahead of me. It was a very non-scientific question. Yeah, it feels like it's starting to feel like if you could project into the future it makes you wonder if the, and I think there is a male-female difference already, right, in terms of voting. Don't most, didn't most women vote Democrat and most, the majority of men voted Republican? Not by a gigantic majority, that's true, right? But I'm wondering if that trend will continue and accelerate until you have two parties, the male party and the female party. I wonder. I wonder if that could be a thing in the future, 10 years from now.

All right, that's just speculative. Yeah, there is a male bias in my audience probably. I think that's true. So we did not learn anything today scientifically. I just wanted to try that test and to see how stark the differences were. They were not nearly as stark as the hypothesis would have suggested. So maybe that's good. So maybe that's good.

No controls in my experiment. You're right, it is very non-scientific and you should not make any judgments based on it. Yes, and obviously there are tens of millions of female Trump supporters and tens of millions of males supporting the Democrats. That goes without saying.