If you believe that the world is flat, it's obviously false. Any thinking person will conclude that this is a ridiculous, crazy thing to believe. And yet, having a group of flat earthers in our broader society, provided that they're not given power over NASA or something, adds texture and richness to our culture, even if they're totally wrong. And so what we're having is we're trying to align a discourse rationally within these strict ideological bounds. It actually ends up breaking this great proliferation of culture. Some of it which is good, some of it bad, some of it's crazy, some of it's insightful. But I think that the real calculation that we have to make is not even a free speech issue. It's not really even about censorship. It's about power and the distribution of power. If you stack up all of the people who have been kind of nuked from orbit online, on the right and then on the left, you have a graph that looks out like this. And so you have to then say, well, why is that? Who's making the decisions? How are decisions being made? And who are they going after? What views are they trying to suppress? And so, again, getting it out of the realm of the abstract debate and into the realm of a political analysis gets us to this uncomfortable point. This was happening during Trump. Trump was president, and this was still happening. And so we have to figure out why this is the case and go and disrupt it. And look, I think that you want to have more views, more opportunities, more subcultures, more quirky people, more people that are way out there. My old naked neighbor in Topanga, let the guy speak, agreed. If he believes that we have to have live water, and it's like the average person is not going to be persuaded and the view is not correct. But the broader culture suffers when everyone is fearing that if they step outside of the box, that they're going to get crushed. And conservatives, we get all worked up about it, because, look, every political faction has their fringe. We have fringe people in our coalition or on the outsides of our coalition. But you have to figure out what's harmful and what's relatively harmless. And a lot of these folk beliefs and superstitions, if you take them not to condemn people as stupid or ignorant or uneducated, but you actually talk to people and try to get a sense of why do you believe this? It's usually because they feel a sense of powerlessness and even the WeF kind of thinking, they want to believe that there's someone out there that is calling the shots, that is the problem, that is controlling the society, because they feel that just by identifying a single point, they have a sense of understanding, a sense of power. I actually don't think that that's the case. I think it's misleading. I don't think it's the right way to look at it. But I try to also forgive people to say people are entitled to their superstitions. We all have superstitions and we want a society where superstitions are eradicated. But you actually end up getting rid of a lot of the texture and a lot of the variety of culture. When you try to have a hygienic treatment of culture, you treat culture like a disease, like a petri dish culture. And look, I think, like, go as far out as you want. Like, go wild with it, you know, be respectful, follow the rules, you know, maintain some core commitments. But, you know, I'm always fascinated with those characters. I lived in Topanga, I lived in Berkeley. Like, you meet these people all over, you've lived in these kind of places?