 Okay, let's kind of step back a second. We were talking about selfishness and you know the other issue that has come out was the one debate I did about selfishness is the idea of the definition of selfishness and And of course, I ran as a whole theory of definitions and a whole and a real reason for why she used the word choose so two things I want to talk about why is one is why did she use a word that was controversial why that emphasizes the radicalness. And second, how do we decide on a concept like selfishness whether the definition in the dictionary is right or isn't right. Those are both good questions. And so one thing we should think about with her usage. It's not that she uses this word selfishness. Every chance she gets right and I don't think it's always the case that you have to fly in with the banner of selfishness is the first thing you say, sometimes self interest or egoism or rational. There are other words that are in some context the better word to use, but I do think it is important to fight for the word selfishness and there are two contexts of that. One is I always object to I never let it go by people using selfishness in a negative way. I don't always fight for the positive usage of it. But I never don't demure in some way or other from a negative usage of it, because I think that's what's really toxic. And there are lots of kind of polite or not being too much of a social justice warrior II for objectives of ways to demure from people using a negative usage of selfish. And I think of it in the same way that I would, you know, a racial slur or some other thing in a context where people can more innocently use them but still always to stop it. And the reason to do that is because the, and this will lead me into the positive reason, the negative usage of selfish, right, is that something's bad because it's self interested. It's bad because it's coming from a motive of wanting to fulfill the self in some way. And that is never true of bad things. And it's usually obviously untrue of the things that it's said about. So if someone steals some money or something in a situation where it maybe seems like they could get away with it. You could see, you know, there's a certain rationale to calling it selfish and why someone might think that he's doing it for himself. And then you can, there's an interesting point to be made about how it's not really so. But a lot of the cases are ridiculous. I mean, I once was listening to a radio DJ talk about smoking smoking kills you it destroys your lungs and you're going to die from it how could someone be so selfish to do that. I mean, you know, it shouldn't take much to say, politely, why do you say it selfish, the guy's killing himself and you just said he's killing himself. Surely whatever is wrong with that. It's not that the person is too attached to himself. And, you know, I think the way they hold it is, it's the short term, it's the pleasure, right. And it's the real purpose of life is to take care of your family and if you die. You know, people are going to, it's bad for the family, it's bad for the people if you die and that's, that's how they hold the whole mishmash. I mean, it's, you know, the, why would you think of yourself only as your immediate pleasure and that's the one thing I would have said, and as to the taking care of the family, if you're going to do some social welfare calculus. Right. It's probably better that more people smoke, they die early and in a quick, relatively quickly compared to other ways. It might be that, you know, the cost to the help system go up rather than down if people die of lung cancer. So it, who knows what the, you know, what the cost benefit for that. So, so there are these kind of obvious cases where the things that are said to be selfish aren't plausibly thought to either be benefiting the self or that the person is doing it because they're benefiting the self. And I think one should can just point that out. And even in other cases, I think one should, I always try to point out that the two things that the action doesn't really benefit the person. And that the person isn't really thinking about what benefits him in doing it. So Bernie Madoff and falling into the scam or this Elizabeth Holmes, the woman from that company, biotech company, who it seems your people at high hopes for the company, but she fell into some kind of scandal. They fall into these things, right? Something goes wrong and they don't want to address it and they don't, they're not thinking in that moment about what a plausible way out of this situation is to get back to where we can be living a productive purposeful life and making progress. They just think about what they're afraid of in the moment and how to avert that fear. Often they're thinking of it as much for other people as for themselves, their investors, their friends, their family, whoever else it is. But what's going on is whoever they're focused on, the issue isn't that they're focused on them versus someone else. It's that they're focused, which they may not even be, it's that they're focused on avoiding, denying, not facing facts, not understanding the causal situation rather than on trying to make and achieve something. I try to properly name the flaws and notice that they don't have to do with the self or a kind of over focus on the self. That I always do anytime that comes up and you can usually do it pretty quickly, just dissenting. Here's how I see it. As for why to use the term selfish, well, we don't have any positive or neutral term for acting in your self interest for thinking about what's good for you and trying to achieve it. We don't have a term for that. So it's, and it's not an accident that we don't have a term for it. We don't have a term for it because people don't think it's good. And they don't think there's such a thing as acting in your self interest other than doing it in ways that are pretty obviously when you start thinking about them, not good for you and not really motivated by thinking about what's good for you. And I think that second part is really important that they're not good for you to be a crook, a cheat, a drug addict, but also someone who is a crook, a cheater, a drug addict, didn't become one in pursuit of some vision of what's good for him. He did it for the same types of reasons that most people do most of the things they do. They don't think one way or the other about what the effects of this are going to be or about why they're doing it. It's not just the thing to do in this situation, or it feels like the past of least resistance. And as often as not, the thing that feels like the thing to do or the past of least resistance in a situation is self destructive, as often as not it's the action that altruists would praise as altruistic. It's doing what your parents want or whatever. So it's not just that there's the good versus the destructive there were all kinds of, I mean, the altruistic one is destructive, but there were all kinds of things that just feel like the thing to do in the past. Some of them end up in a proper context helping you. Some end up hurting you. Some end up helping others. Some end up hurting others. Some of the ones that help others help you. But there's, for most urges or desires or things that occur to someone to do most of the time, they don't occur as part of a view of what's good for me or if what's good for anyone else they just occur like here's the thing to do. And there's no word for acting in a principled way for yourself, doing things because they're good for you. That isn't one negative. And two, doesn't include all kinds of things that a few moments of thought should show you aren't really motivated like that. So you say, well, why don't we introduce a new word to do that? Well, because as soon as you do, you'll find op-eds in the New York Times or whatever, talking about how, you know, well, it's the Trump administration that's really doing that. Or Bernie Madoff who's really doing that, who's really acting self-interestedly or self-actualizingly yourself, whatever really. And the reason that you'll get that is the same reason why any new word that was introduced for gay people took on a negative connotation. The word gay was introduced to be a positive word. But when I was a kid, you know, people would say, you know, oh, that's so gay and I'd say things like that myself without thinking about it, right? Then the reason why was that people had a negative attitude towards homosexuality. So any word that means homosexual will have a negative meaning. And you can't just keep on introducing new words. At some point you have to say, yeah, this word has a negative connotation because you think something is bad that I think is good. And I'm going to take my stand at this word now and say, here's why I think this thing is good. And anytime you do that, there's going to be some issue of teasing apart aspects of the meaning or connotation of the word. And, you know, a dictionary reports on all the aspects of usage. If it's doing its job well, it distinguishes them well enough. So it'll say this word is derogatory and so forth. But, or this word includes this evaluation, but it'll treat it as an evaluation and we'll treat that as separate from the fact it's meant to pick out. But you have to kind of try to differentiate the things. And if you think of other cases of reclaiming words that have had negative connotations, some of which I think are good and some of which I don't think are good. They all have to, they all involve this. They all involve saying, well, being gay or being queer or being whatever doesn't involve some of the things that it often thought to and is even sometimes seen as part of the meaning of the word, it just means such and such. My favorite example of this, I do use this as an example, I don't actually agree with what the authors are doing, is there's a book called the ethical slot. And there are these things called slot walks where women walk around and say we're sluts and we're proud. And they say that what they're doing is, is what, reclaiming the word slot and slot as normally used means it's got to be a woman. You've got to sleep with a lot of partners, you have to have no discrimination, whatever, but the way we mean it, it could be someone of either gender, who is guiltless about sex, and, you know, she might only have one partner but she's, you know, throws out conventional mores about. Now, I don't think that's a good thing to do with the word slot because I think there is, as the authors who do this, don't think. There is a way to go wrong by being too morally wrong, by being too indiscriminate in your sexual partners, and that one, you know, needs a word for that. But whether it's separate for women and men is another question that's an interesting thing to do with use of sexuality, but I think there is a need for a word nearer to the conventional meaning of slot than they do. So it's interesting to me about that example and I think it comes up in any kind of case where you have a view that's radically different from the mainstream, and you want to kind of make clear that it is, is that you're going to have to take a word, and you're going to have to say, look, you use it this way. But the reason why you use it this way is because you think there's such a thing as having too much sex in defiance of sex with too many people who many different types of people in defiance of sexuality, and we don't think there's such a thing. And if you don't think there's such a thing, that word is not going to make sense the way you use it. And we're going to push this use it. And I think that's the same thing that goes on with using selfishness. I think there are times to forwardly use it in this way in times not to. But that's what's the kind of taking a stand and saying, we understand this word differently and we're using it in a way that's uncomfortable to you. And because, and that fits in a kind of oddish way with the conventional usage of it, because we want to call attention to wrong beliefs that are presupposed in the common usage and tease apart the aspects we agree with and disagree with. That's a confrontational postulate take I think it's the right one to take sometimes not always, but I think it's always right to that is if you think the objective assesses right as I do to object to the negative usage of it. Yep. No, I agree. I agree with all that. Absolutely.