Episode 1840 Scott Adams： If Democrats Tell The Truth About Trump, It Makes Them Look Like Monsters
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
145.08688
Summary
On today's show, Scott Adams talks about the mid-term elections, college censorship, and why he thinks Sam Harris is wrong about his views on the election. Plus, a new update on the DeSantis campaign.
Transcript
00:01:58.740
Now, why did nobody see this coming? How can the
00:02:06.660
get away with it? They can't, apparently. Apparently
00:02:09.220
it's the most obvious thing you can't do. So while
00:02:14.120
DeSantis had been on this long winning streak of
00:02:45.800
terms of speech. They can certainly change what
00:02:56.140
it looks like colleges will get to say whatever
00:03:03.180
situation again, because there's an update. So as
00:03:08.160
you know, famous rational person, Sam Harris, some
00:03:23.880
laptop was suppressed by the left as a conspiracy
00:03:28.520
basically, and that it probably made a difference in the
00:03:31.920
election. And he thought that that was fine because the, there
00:03:37.500
had been similar, you know, laptop related things. Hillary's,
00:03:42.400
what's, Wiener's laptop, you know, was a factor in the first
00:03:46.560
election with Trump versus Hillary. And so Sam Harris was
00:03:50.840
saying, well, if Trump lost because of a laptop thing, but maybe he also won
00:03:56.780
because of a laptop thing, it's not the biggest thing in the world. And it's
00:04:01.360
probably fair because, in Sam Harris's view, Trump is so dangerous that
00:04:08.320
gaming the system a little bit was probably appropriate in terms of,
00:04:13.060
specifically in terms of that laptop thing. Now, of course, people got on him
00:04:18.860
and said to him, does that mean that you would justify the election being
00:04:25.360
rigged? Which is the obvious next question, right? And so he wanted to, to
00:04:32.400
tell us that he did not think that. So here's, here's his full answer. He said,
00:04:38.660
there's a podcast clip. Now, here's what you should listen for. I want you to
00:04:43.880
listen for the specificity of his answer. It's a little too specific, all
00:04:50.940
right? But wait for it, see if you catch it. So it's a, it's a
00:04:54.780
multi-part tweet. He said, this, there's a podcast clip circulating that
00:05:00.760
seems to be confusing many people about my views on Trump, which is
00:05:05.620
understandable because I wasn't speaking very clearly. So for what it's
00:05:10.180
worth, here's what I was trying to say. All right. So now I, I'm a proponent of
00:05:17.260
forgetting what he said before if a clarification is being offered. So forget
00:05:23.860
about what he did say. He's got 48 hours, according to my 48 hour rule that I've
00:05:29.180
made up to clarify. And if he does try to clarify, you should just take the
00:05:33.860
clarification. Don't, don't try to beat somebody up about what they said if they've
00:05:39.340
already clarified. All right. So I'm on board with him so far. Let's look at the
00:05:44.020
clarification and sort of ignore what he said before. I like that as a standard,
00:05:48.940
even if you think maybe it causes people to lie or backtrack or weasel or
00:05:54.120
whatever. But I think we should just keep that as a social standard. If somebody
00:05:58.880
clarifies, just take the clarification. All right. So he goes on. He said, I was
00:06:05.900
essentially arguing for a principle of self-defense. Interesting. So the idea here
00:06:11.080
is that Trump is dangerous and therefore our citizens would have a right of
00:06:15.320
self-defense. And then he goes on where there's a continuum of proportionate force
00:06:21.640
that is appropriate and necessary to use. So again, I think he's going back to if the
00:06:27.440
Wiener laptop made a difference in one election, maybe the Biden laptop makes a
00:06:32.740
difference in the other direction and that those would be roughly equivalent. I think
00:06:36.580
that's the argument. I've always viewed Trump as a very dangerous person to elect
00:06:40.900
as president of a fake university, talking about Trump University, let alone the U.S.
00:06:47.420
And when he became a sitting president who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of
00:06:52.040
power, I viewed him as more dangerous still. However, I've never been under any
00:07:01.980
So here he's saying that he's not under the illusion that he's Orange Hitler, which is
00:07:09.740
interesting because when I talked to him on his show, he did, he did allude, he did make
00:07:14.900
a Hitler, Hitler analogy with Trump. So I guess the Hitler analogies are not to be taken
00:07:21.200
seriously. Okay. So he doesn't compare Trump to Orange Hitler. And then on the podcast,
00:07:31.980
he goes on, I was speaking narrowly about the wisdom and propriety of ignoring the Hunter
00:07:37.480
Biden laptop story until the election. I've always thought that was a very hard call,
00:07:43.220
ethically and journalistically. But given what happened with the Anthony Wiener laptop in
00:07:48.620
the previous election, I think it was probably the right call. Now here's the part you want
00:07:54.020
to look for the specificity. All right. Look what he says. And then what he doesn't say.
00:08:01.260
All right. So watch for what he doesn't say. This is the important part. He goes on. Nothing I said
00:08:07.820
on that podcast was meant to suggest that the Democrats would have been right to commit election
00:08:14.200
fraud. All right. So what he's saying is that he didn't mean to suggest that Democrats would have
00:08:32.140
been right to commit fraud. He didn't mean to suggest it. Does that mean he doesn't think it?
00:08:38.760
Because that's different, right? It's one thing to say I didn't mean to suggest it,
00:08:46.300
which is an interesting way to say it. How about I didn't mean to say it? But, you know,
00:08:54.620
what I do say is this. If it was confusing, I change it. But interesting. He didn't mean to suggest it
00:09:01.760
doesn't really give his opinion about it, does it? I didn't mean to suggest it is very different from
00:09:08.760
that wasn't my opinion. Am I wrong? I feel like when you say I didn't mean to suggest it,
00:09:17.100
it means I didn't mean to say it. It doesn't mean he doesn't think it. And we don't know what he
00:09:23.560
thinks, right? I'm not putting a thought into his mind there with my imagination. I'm just saying
00:09:30.200
that he didn't specify that it wasn't his opinion. He simply specified he didn't mean
00:09:38.580
to suggest it. Slightly different. You can imagine them being the same, or you can imagine
00:09:45.800
that he meant them to be the same. But they don't sound exactly the same, do they? Sound a little
00:09:51.320
different. And he says, nor do I think that they did that. Now, whether he thinks they did that or not
00:09:59.320
is irrelevant to whether they did that or not. But didn't mean to suggest that it would have been
00:10:07.060
right to commit election fraud or other illegal means. Didn't mean to suggest it. It feels like
00:10:14.180
we still don't know if he thinks it would have been a good idea. Like, why not tell us directly?
00:10:21.980
Because here's the thing. If it's not a good idea to rig an election to keep Trump out of office,
00:10:27.720
why isn't it? Why isn't it a good idea? If you believe what you say about his danger,
00:10:34.800
it would definitely be a good idea. I would do it. If I believed what they believe,
00:10:39.700
I would rig the election. Would you? Would you? If you were keeping a monster out of the office,
00:10:50.500
or yeah, I think he actually compared Trump to an asteroid barreling toward the earth. Because if
00:10:56.700
you imagine, let's say you imagine from the left point of view, if climate change is going to, you
00:11:04.120
know, destroy the world in some some fashion, and you think Trump's going to make climate change
00:11:11.460
worse, it's kind of like an asteroid coming toward earth. All right. And somebody says that if you
00:11:20.300
break the law, they'll do it to you. What about that argument? If you cheated on the election,
00:11:26.580
they'll do it to you. How does that deal with the fact that everybody who can get away with it does
00:11:35.480
it already? I mean, we live in a world where everybody who can get away with stuff does it.
00:11:41.200
It's just whether they think they can get away with it. That's the only thing that limits people.
00:11:46.100
In the real world, that's it. If they thought they could get away with it, pretty much everybody
00:11:51.740
would do it. Pretty much. Now, you think you're the exception. Okay, I get it. You're the exception.
00:11:57.840
And people in your family are awesome. No, people do what they can get away with. That's the world
00:12:03.880
you live in. Now, getting away with it includes God watching you, right? If you're a religious person,
00:12:13.000
you believe God will judge you. So that might not be getting away with it. In your own point of view,
00:12:19.120
that would not be getting away with it because you're being watched by God. But if you didn't
00:12:23.600
believe God was watching, and you didn't believe anybody else was watching, and you didn't think
00:12:27.260
there was any chance of getting caught, you would all rig the election. I know you think I'm wrong,
00:12:34.000
but I'll give you my opinion. It's just an opinion. I can't prove it. So it's just my view of the
00:12:41.080
world. 100% of the world would rig the election if they thought they were saving the world.
00:12:46.100
If they thought they were saving the world, 100% would rig the election. If they thought
00:12:52.720
they could get away with it, nobody was watching. No God was watching. Your conscience, well,
00:12:58.920
your conscience, I guess you still have that. Yeah. Now, I accept that you don't agree with
00:13:05.160
me. I accept that you don't agree. But I'm positive. I'm positive in my opinion.
00:13:15.180
Very rarely am I this sure about an opinion, but I'm positive about this one. Now, you could say
00:13:20.920
there would be some exception, right? If you took a million people, yeah, you could get somebody to
00:13:26.420
not do it, definitely. But the ordinary person would save the world if there was no risk.
00:13:34.960
That's what I'm saying. Now, the ordinary person might not destroy the world for their own benefit.
00:13:44.700
That's true. I can see that they wouldn't destroy the world just to get a little extra gain. Some would,
00:13:51.120
some wouldn't. But everyone would break the rule to save the world if they thought that's what was
00:13:59.700
happening. Everybody would. The exceptions would be so rare that you wouldn't even discuss them.
00:14:05.980
It would be crazy people, stuff like that. And so I want to see if I can get somebody to say,
00:14:12.820
say right here in the comments, under this scenario, that you wouldn't break the rule,
00:14:19.160
because, you know, the rules are the rules, and we're a rules-based people. But you wouldn't break,
00:14:24.900
tell me you wouldn't break the rule even if you thought it was the end of the world.
00:14:30.040
It's the end of the world if, unless you break the rule. Would you break the rule?
00:14:35.940
How many would break the rule to prevent the end of the world? You would not. So there are people
00:14:42.700
on here who would not, who would not break a rule made by humans, and they would let all the humans die.
00:14:50.460
You would let all the, there are people actually saying that on the locals platform. Yeah. And,
00:14:58.880
and people are confirming, yep. People are saying yes. They would let the entire world die,
00:15:04.620
because following the rule is more important. You're actually saying that, right? I'm not
00:15:11.260
misinterpreting you, right? Yeah. Yeah, there's, so there are actually a number of people
00:15:19.860
who would destroy the world to, to protect themselves, because that's what that is. Yeah,
00:15:28.800
if what you're doing is, is not breaking the rule, because you can't break the rule,
00:15:32.920
that's really protecting yourself at the expense of the entire planet. And there are people saying
00:15:38.760
they would do that. They would protect their own feeling about, you know, being a protector of rules.
00:15:44.820
More importantly, that all of the people who have ever, who are alive, all 7 billion of them.
00:15:53.300
Yeah. Now, am I supposed to take you seriously?
00:15:59.220
How can I take that seriously? Because you're, you're either lying or you're so stupid that you
00:16:06.140
wouldn't be able to log on and have an account. I mean, are you lying? No, nobody would do that.
00:16:13.500
Unless you were like mentally ill or something. Yeah. Now, remember, my, my situation is that,
00:16:23.240
you know, the world is going to be destroyed. It's, there's no question about it. And you would
00:16:26.780
still do it. Now, if you were uncertain whether you were right, that would make sense. If you said,
00:16:33.100
well, I don't know if Trump's, you know, the, the end of the world, but I worry about it. In that
00:16:38.900
case, I wouldn't break a rule. Would you? Suppose you just had a suspicion that things would go wrong
00:16:46.060
with some candidate. I wouldn't, I wouldn't throw an election in that case. I'm not even close. I'm
00:16:53.480
talking about, you're sure that this candidate is just going to destroy the world. You're sure of it.
00:16:59.020
In that case, sure. I would break any rule there was. All right. So the people who were saying that
00:17:08.300
they would not break the rule, even at the risk of the entire planet, now I'm seeing the real
00:17:14.200
thinking is being revealed here. They don't believe this set up. So in other words, they rejected the
00:17:19.320
hypothetical that there could ever be a case when there would be any danger because of who got elected.
00:17:25.640
Right. If that's what you're saying, then you're not good at answering questions. So that's the
00:17:31.380
problem. Right. The reason that I ask hypotheticals is to force you to clarify your thinking. If you
00:17:39.820
refuse to clarify your thinking, that's a message too. That says something. All right. But here's the
00:17:49.320
problem with the Sam Harris opinion. And again, I guess I would be speculating and reading some minds
00:17:57.920
a little bit here. It's a little bit unfair, but it's hard to avoid. How can you be honest
00:18:05.220
in this situation? And Sam Harris, I don't think he has the capability of just lying.
00:18:14.280
I think it's sort of beyond his framework. Because first of all, I don't think I've seen an example
00:18:22.180
of it ever. I don't think he's even been accused of lying, has he? Like ever? I mean, it's pretty
00:18:32.120
amazing when there's a public figure that we can all sort of have some familiarity with. And as far
00:18:39.200
as you know, that person has never tried to lie to you. You could disagree with them all day long,
00:18:44.720
but they haven't tried to lie to you. Right. So I don't think that Sam Harris is lying. Do you?
00:18:52.700
No evidence of that. But what do you do if your honest opinion is that somebody is so dangerous
00:18:59.660
that bending some rules might make some sense, if that's his opinion? You really couldn't express
00:19:05.560
that, couldn't you? Because it would be so damaging. Suppose you were a person who only
00:19:11.820
tells the truth, and it's really important to your, I don't know, your psychological makeup,
00:19:16.840
your brand, your legacy. It's just real important that you tell the truth all the time. And I think
00:19:21.940
Sam Harris is probably the best example of that. His entire, you know, being is wrapped around
00:19:30.100
rationality and being honest. So how does he deal with the fact that if he believes
00:19:37.500
what he says about Trump, it does make perfect moral sense to rig an election. But I think that
00:19:46.440
it's so dangerous to say that, because that gets taken out of context, of course. Of course,
00:19:54.060
it would be taken out of context. And of course, it would be used as evidence that it was rigged
00:19:59.920
when we don't have proof of that. So wouldn't it be really dangerous for Sam Harris to be honest
00:20:07.440
about the hypothetical? That if you believe that Trump was as bad as he believes, and you have the
00:20:14.960
ability to rig the election, then maybe it wouldn't be the dumbest thing in the world.
00:20:19.260
I don't think that they can say out loud what they're actually thinking. Imagine having a point
00:20:27.700
of view that you're afraid to say out loud. It's common to all of us, I think. But I think the
00:20:37.220
problem is that they actually can't say their actual opinion, because it would be, it would sound
00:20:44.920
disgusting, even to themselves when they said it out loud. So if you have an opinion that you
00:20:50.620
can't, a political opinion that you can't express in public, that's a problem.
00:21:00.860
He's afraid of being canceled? I suppose we all are. But anyway, this is more interesting than any of
00:21:08.180
the other people in the news, because you know, well, you don't know, but a strong assumption
00:21:15.800
he's not lying. So think about how interesting this is. The reason he's such a good discussion
00:21:22.800
case. Not lying, not stupid, not under-informed. When do you ever see that? In all of politics,
00:21:34.640
when do you ever see not lying, not stupid, and not misinformed? And then he has a different
00:21:45.240
opinion than I do. Now, you don't know it, but I can know it of myself. I'm not lying. I think
00:21:54.280
I'm smart enough to be in the conversation, and I think I'm well-informed enough to be in
00:22:01.000
the conversation, too. So how do you explain, of course, this is me complimenting myself here,
00:22:07.720
but how do you explain two people who are not lying, they're both smart, they're both well-informed,
00:22:13.860
and have completely different views on Trump? How do you explain that?
00:22:21.760
Well, the explanation I would give is that one of us is experiencing cognitive dissonance.
00:22:27.300
And then how do you tell which one it is? Do you remember my trick for doing that?
00:22:34.220
What's the trick for seeing who has the cognitive dissonance? The trick is if you can take the other
00:22:41.520
side of the argument and give a full-throated argument for it to show that you understand it.
00:22:48.140
But if you can't do that, you're probably in some other kind of a mental situation.
00:22:52.680
Now, I believe I could take Sam Harris's argument and completely explain it. I don't know if he could
00:23:00.300
do that with mine. Probably could, but I don't know it. And that would be interesting, wouldn't it?
00:23:07.260
How would you like to see the two of us, you know, say, talk, split screen, and we just do that
00:23:14.040
exercise, where I try to take his point of view and explain it as well as I can, and then he tries to
00:23:19.540
take my point of view and explain it as well as he can. Do you think we could do it?
00:23:25.740
Here's the interesting thing. I'll bet we could. Probably could. I don't think I've ever seen it
00:23:31.060
before. I've never, actually, I've never seen it. I've never seen anybody do that before. It would be
00:23:35.960
fascinating. But I suspect also maybe we might think the other one hadn't quite nailed it, you know, maybe
00:23:42.820
left something out. But we'd probably end up pretty close on that. All right, here's my theory. I think
00:23:51.040
that, in my opinion, it looks obvious that he's experiencing cognitive dissonance. To me, it looks
00:24:00.940
obvious. But it might look obvious to him that I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance. And how would
00:24:09.620
you know who's right? You wouldn't, really, unless you do that exercise. And we might both pass that
00:24:14.860
as well. So here's what I would say about that. Before Trump was elected the first time, I think it
00:24:29.540
was a reasonable fear that maybe he was as bad as the worst, the worst impressions. Right? You
00:24:38.260
didn't know. I didn't know. In the first election, it wasn't impossible that he could have turned
00:24:44.600
into some kind of monster once he got in office. It wasn't impossible. I didn't think it would
00:24:49.240
happen. But it wasn't impossible. So four years go by, and it doesn't happen. The one thing
00:24:56.700
that many of us would disagree with Trump is how he handled the losing. If handling the losing is the
00:25:05.420
only, you know, major thing that justifies their opinion, I feel like that's clearly cognitive
00:25:13.100
dissonance. So here's the part that I would like to see Sam Harris respond to. What would be his
00:25:20.620
response to the fact that a Harvard study showed that two-thirds, at least two-thirds of the people
00:25:26.560
who were at the protest believed that they were saving the republic? They honestly believed the
00:25:32.600
election had been rigged, and not necessarily because Trump told them. They felt that from the
00:25:39.040
moment they saw the result. It wasn't because Trump told them. Everybody saw it. So how does he explain
00:25:45.900
that two-thirds of the people there, genuinely, in their deepest feelings, felt something had gone
00:25:54.060
wrong and they were there to fix it, to actually repair the republic? Not to overthrow it, to repair it.
00:26:00.440
Why would two-thirds of the people there who believed they were there to repair the public, or more,
00:26:05.980
I think? Why would you imagine that Trump was not one of those? Because the majority opinion was that
00:26:14.520
something was wrong and they need to fix it. It was the minority opinion that nothing was wrong and we
00:26:21.760
need to overthrow the country anyway. Yeah. Well, why would you imagine that Trump would be signing on to
00:26:30.140
the dumbest of the opinion when the smartest one is just right there? It's right there. People thought
00:26:36.320
they were saving the republic. How do you rule that out? You can't. Now, today's live stream will be a
00:26:47.960
little truncated because my Dilbert career is in great jeopardy at the moment, so I'm spending all my
00:26:54.740
time trying to fix that. Problem is, I've been drawing for, I don't know, 15 years or something on a
00:27:02.820
Wacom tablet in Photoshop, and I think Photoshop either changed how the program works, or there's some
00:27:12.280
setting, or I've got a bug, I don't know, but I can no longer paste something and then draw on top of it. I mean, I
00:27:21.620
can manipulate some things so I can get it done, but the manipulation would take too long. I just
00:27:26.420
couldn't use the tool if I had to do that. So I've published my problem on Twitter for everybody to
00:27:36.320
give me advice. What do you think happens when you ask for a technical advice? Let me tell you.
00:27:42.940
They will tell you to reboot, which I've already done. They'll tell you to make sure you have the new
00:27:48.140
version of the software, which I've already done. They will also look at the screen that you give
00:27:53.400
them, and they'll say, oh, your problem is that you have that icon pressed, even though the picture
00:27:59.700
shows it's clearly not indicated. So some will hallucinate that there's a lock that's set when
00:28:06.060
it's not. You can see it clearly. Others will tell you, Scott, why don't you Google it? Now, you could
00:28:12.600
Google all day long. You'll never find a technical solution by Googling. Have you ever found a technical
00:28:18.940
solution by Googling it? I've tried. I've tried about a billion times. When you do it with consumer
00:28:28.060
software, it might be different if you're programming. You know, a developer probably does find answers,
00:28:33.500
but if you're just using a commercial piece of software, what happens when you look for your
00:28:37.480
answer online? It's all different versions. What happened when I asked people, they sent me
00:28:44.100
screenshots of exactly what menu I should select. Do you think there's any chance that the screenshots
00:28:51.020
that people sent me actually exist on my software? Of course not. It's a different version that they
00:28:56.800
solved. It's either for Windows or it's an old one or something. Then somebody will say, well,
00:29:02.760
have you tried the Framajan blah, blah menu? And I'll say, I would try that if it existed,
00:29:11.180
but mine does not have a Framajan menu. I don't know what you're looking at. So basically,
00:29:17.500
all of your technical help is going to be read the manual, what doesn't help, Google it that
00:29:23.120
doesn't help, reboot that doesn't help, update the software that doesn't help. And then there's
00:29:28.360
always this one bastard. There's always one bastard who says the only thing you can do
00:29:34.680
is delete all of your software and reload it. I'm not going to do that. I will sell my computer
00:29:42.940
before I do that. Because you know it's just going to be problems. Yeah. So the problem is that when
00:29:48.880
I paste a layer, I can't draw on the layer unless I send it to background. And I didn't ever have to
00:29:56.160
send it to background before. You should be able to write on the layer you just pasted. That's just
00:30:01.760
basic. Yeah. So if I have to change to a new software, there's going to be a big learning curve.
00:30:08.940
I've got a deadline I'm up against. So here's the problem. I don't know that I can solve this
00:30:14.360
problem before my deadline. And I don't know that it's solvable because the solution might be to stop
00:30:21.020
using Photoshop and use something else. Now, some people said, why don't you contact Adobe
00:30:27.120
technical support? I would never even try. I'd never even try. Do you think there's any chance
00:30:37.000
that's going to work? Yeah, it's not a welcome problem. It's definitely not a welcome problem.
00:30:42.360
It's definitely a Photoshop problem. No, it's not going to work. Have you ever tried to get
00:30:48.940
technical support on the phone? That's not a thing. No, you'll just be sent through the phone
00:30:55.560
trees and then it'll disconnect. And then you get somebody who started yesterday. Yeah. And it would
00:31:03.520
take me probably two hours even to find a contact number. I mean, I'd Google it. It'd be the wrong
00:31:09.720
number. I'd try this. They'd tell me that I got to use the other number. Yeah. Customer service isn't
00:31:16.340
really a thing that happens anymore. So there's not really any customer service from a tech company.
00:31:23.500
Right? I mean, you could try, but it's just going to be a waste of half a day sitting on hold and then
00:31:30.260
getting nothing. What would Dilbert do? I don't know, but I know what Dogbert would do.
00:31:40.280
Dogbert would make it a huge public problem. So the Adobe has to fix it for me. Because it's
00:31:50.040
probably, here's what I think. I think they did it intentionally. I think it's an intentional
00:31:56.820
change to the software. I think. I don't think it's a bug. I think it's intentional. Now it could be
00:32:03.420
that somebody requested it because there's some advantage about the way they're doing it.
00:32:07.060
So I think somebody benefits from this change, but it makes it useless to me. It would make my job
00:32:14.640
so hard. I don't know if I could even bother doing it with the software anyway.
00:32:25.420
Yeah, you can't really reinstall the old version because it's a subscription service.
00:32:29.900
Yeah. If I tried to do that, it would take longer than I have. So I'm either going to have to miss
00:32:37.940
my deadline or a miracle has to happen. Brush mode behind. The culprit is brush mode and behind.
00:32:52.460
Well, I don't know what that means. So most of the people would give me, all right, so here's a good
00:32:59.040
example. The culprit is brush mode and behind. What do I do with that? I don't know what to do with
00:33:04.560
that. Those are just words. Brush mode and behind. What's that mean? I know the layer needs to be
00:33:12.940
unmoved, but I don't want to move the layer. That's the problem.
00:33:27.760
But most of your advice is going to be for a Windows. That's the problem.
00:33:36.040
Even compressing, even flattening the layers, you can't draw on it.
00:33:44.660
Now, there's lots of things I can do to hack it, but it doesn't just work.
00:33:54.680
You can't debug it, pick up the pen, draw, debug it, pick up the pen.
00:34:01.260
You can't get closer to drawing or you can't even use it.
00:34:10.900
So what happened was when I paste a layer, I can't draw on the new layer.
00:34:17.620
And don't say that I got something locked because nothing's locked.
00:34:27.720
Now you're saying a two-finger click on the trackpad.
00:34:31.500
But when you tell me Windows commands for my Mac, I don't know what to do with that.
00:34:54.840
Make a backup of the coot, erasing install over.
00:35:00.520
I'm not going to erase my whole hard disk and reinstall all my software for this one bug,
00:35:10.720
If you think it's a bug, that's a whole different problem.
00:35:15.480
This appears to be a software change, which maybe I can unchange with some kind of a setting,
00:35:36.580
Now, the problem with this is that I'll get so many suggestions that I won't know which ones are right,
00:35:45.580
and I could pour through the wrong ones all day long.
00:35:52.940
I don't think there's any kid that could solve this, honestly.
00:35:56.480
I think that maybe Adobe just made a change and there's nothing I can do about it.
00:36:30.120
Google, how to revert to previous software versions.
00:36:32.660
No, I'm not going to revert to a previous software version.
00:36:40.080
I'm going to fix it with this version or some future one, but I'm not going to revert.
00:36:47.140
Because that's just asking for a whole bunch of new problems.
00:37:03.380
So there's nothing else I can do today except work on this one problem until it's fixed.
00:37:08.680
So that will be all I'm going to do until that's fixed.