Zootopia and the Price of Reconciliation

In this episode of The Bottom Turtle Podcast, Dr. Ray reflects on the movie Zootopia and its message of transcendence and reconciliation.

As a movie, Zootopia is very competently made and it uses well understood themes to great affect.  As an allegory for racism, Zootopia proposes the provocative idea of predators and prey living side by side as one in the sprawling metropolis known as Zootopia.  As a symbol of transcendence beyond base instincts that would otherwise require the two to be separated by a barrier/border to protect the prey, Zootopia represents how societal and technological advances allows us to move beyond our less evolved selves. 

The settings and themes of this movie are perfect for reflecting on our lived reality. Not just merely in terms of overcoming racism, but asking fundamental questions about societal norms, structures, and barriers.  Like the movie suggests, do we have borders that are outdated or due to past prejudice, or are the borders we erect necessary to preserve the vulnerable from potential threats or predators? Any act of accepting an idea is a potential for letting something inside the border that is better left outside.

Given this setting Dr. Ray poses some provocative questions of his own.  He asks what does true reconciliation between predator and prey look like?  What is the cost to achieve such a thing and what can go wrong if the reconciliation is based on naive or shallow misunderstandings of the need of the border?  This is what he accuses post-modern thought of by labeling it as failed Buddhism.  Whether or not social movements to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism by placing it into children's content is truly due a sober analysis of unjust borders, or is there some justification for these borders?  He uses the example of how one feels about the idea of recreating the Disney movie Aladdin but with the heterosexual romance replaced with a homosexual romance.  Is that good? that's for the listener to decide.  And finally, he reads his poem "The Ultimate Adult" which explores the nature of sin and how we must all pay for the cost of tearing down borders and reconciliation through carrying the sins of others. 

So join me if you're interested in a surprisingly deep dive into Zootopia.  Peace.

link - Disney executive not-so-secret gay agenda clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvlwzJ3aEuw

If you enjoy the podcast, please support us by leaving a review, rating the podcast, and/or telling a friend.  

Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast, and leave a review on our FaceBook page at: https://www.facebook.com/thebottomturtle/

If you have any questions or ideas you want discussed on the show, leave us an email at thebottomturtlepodcast@gmail.com 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

In this episode, Dr. Ray reflects on the movie Zootopia and its message of transcendence and reconciliation. Welcome to the Bottom Turtle Podcast. Hey everybody, uh welcome back to the Bottom Turtle Podcast. I'm theoretical physicist Dr. Shannon Ray, and I just got done watching Zootopia and I find the movie really interesting. For one, I can't believe that this Zootopia movie came out in 2016. It blows my mind that the second one came out ten years later. Like this movie's ten years old, it's just mind-blowing. But um, yeah, I watched it for the first time recently, and it's a movie that's much deeper than I think people understand. And that's because of the central narrative, the central thesis of this show is the idea of the unification between predator and prey. Like that's actually perfect. It is the unification of predator and prey so that they live in harmony as one, which is a fascinating idea. Because the entire point of civilization is to create a border between that which is dangerous and that which is allowed to be inside the border, so that which is safe, quote unquote. Because essentially, um, that which is you're not gonna let something inside the border that's gonna harm you or dare or harm you. And this concept isn't just in terms of physical borders of countries or societies, you know, border between the wilderness and a city or a village, it's it's not just physical borders. This notion of a border is consistent with an identification of self on its own. So for everyone who listened to this podcast, you know, I say I I one thing you have to realize about this podcast is that I'm saying the same thing over and over again. And I'm I'm just I'm not saying anything. That's what you have to understand. It's a giant algebraic unitary transformation, it's a symmetry transformation. I'm not saying anything, I'm not doing anything. And so that's why you will hear the same stuff said over and over again. And so when I say that this border concept goes beyond physical borders, it goes into the idea of an identity at all. Uh, it's just the idea of information, constraints. It's a vector in the space of concepts and the space of spirits and the space of configurations. And so um your identity is based off of you know mentation of representation. Your physical configuration changes, and that changes your vector in the space of spirits or the space of concepts. And these physical physical configurations are constraints, just like putting um memory on your phone. I'm recording this on my phone, and this recording is going to be saved as memory on my phone, putting the phone in the configuration consistent with holding the memory of this recording. And so this constraint is a border, and the things that are included are things that are are configured, are things that are consistent with the constraints. So when I'm talking about my identity, I have my identity as a physicist, my identity as a black American, as identity as a male, identity as a father, um, identity as, you know, just keep on adding these constraints that point to a Shandon in the space of uh concepts, and this is my border. And so whenever someone comes to me to share an idea or a concept, then I am asking whether or not to let this spirit associated with the concept into my identity. Is this thing safe? Is it allowed to be within my border? Or in the case of like my sense of vulnerability, when it comes to my vulnerabilities and my weaknesses, do I just project those out into the world, or do I keep them hidden behind a border so that people can't exploit them? You see what I mean? It's like what thing, what are your deepest, darkest secrets that you're not willing to tell other people because it would leave you vulnerable? Um, how often when you go into a crowd, do you keep yourself guarded about who you really are and what you think and how you really feel because you don't want to uh experience the negative consequences of being judged by others? So you create a border. And so this notion of creating a border that keeps out the predators and keeps what's vulnerable inside, it's it is ubiquitous, it is everywhere, it's eternal. It's it's it's it's a thing that exists for all scale sizes and for all time. Because it's just the very nature of information itself. This is the this is what I'm trying to say. And so when you when you watch Zootopia from that perspective, and you see that the thesis is something like the unification of predator and prey, which is the unification of that which is outside the border, um, the predator, with that which is inside the uh border, the prey or the innocent, then you see that this is actually a thesis or a story that will cut deeply into our comp into the our psyches, deeply into the nature of existence itself. And it tells you something about the zenith or the ultimate state of like a liberal spirit. Because when you watch the show, it's clear that it's making an allegory between uh like th things like racism or prejudice based off the past. You have this idea like the show starts off with the bunny putting on a play in which she just she describes the history of um relationship between different animals. They had two different categories, predator and prey, and that back then they were less sophisticated and they were and people and the um animals were controlled by their base instincts. But thousands of years later, they have become more enlightened and they've overcome their uh base instincts. So for one, you have something like a removal of border due to our enlightenment or our sophistication or our development, right? Uh maybe in the past, when we were all being ruled and governed by the natural law of our instincts, then these borders were justified. But now we have overcome them, and so these borders are not necessary, and those who maintain those borders are just due to ignorance and prejudice. So that's that's that's the that's the idea behind the show. And so with that idea, you have the like the liberal ideal of tearing down a border to let the predator inside. Which is to say that there's this ultimate desire for unity, right? There's an ultimate desire for unity. Because in the predator and prey dichotomy dichotomy, you have something like an inside and the outside, a self and an other, and you want the other to become part of the self. So you can you can see how this maps on to things like homosexuality or transgenderism, is that the rules of the past marginalized these identities. And the idea is that these ide that that for whatever reason people saw these identities as dangerous or something, you know, you know, some something that you should have a border around. Um, and this is actually something like I remember reading something about Michel Foucault, who is like the father of postmodernism and the basis for a lot of woke ideology and a lot of this whole divide culturally that we're having. He's like the um the granddaddy of them. And a lot of his ideas were based off the ide were were based on the idea that rules or constraints or marginalization of homosexuality was never justified. And that what people do, this is the postmodern critique of people appealing to objective reality to create a border, is he saying, like, you know, what people typically do is they say something like, there's a natural order to things. This the reason why we are putting a border between transgenderism or homosexuality is because it's inconsistent with some sort of objective natural order. So that they they appeal to objective reality to justify the border or constraints that are being placed. And so the postmodernist response is something like this is never really sincere. This is just an appeal to the objective to uh exert one's power or control. This is this is what the postmodernist like position is. And so what we have is a clear notion that this idea of the natural order of your objective as justifying the erection of borders. And in Zootopia, you can see that clearly predator and prey, like the predators have the predators have to eat meat. I actually don't know how, I don't know if or how that movie or the world of that movie uh reconciles the fact that some predators ha can't survive have to eat meat. So I don't I don't know if they ever address that problem. But uh, you know, that that show is is a is a kid's fantasy world where the subversion of natural order is just done through the imagination of the people who created it. But some animals they have to eat meat. Like I don't know how they they get around that, but uh maybe in the Zootopia world they became sophisticated and they're able to artificially engineer meat that's just as good as regular meat, and so the predators never have to actually eat meat. I don't know. But the point is that there is a desire for freedom naturally and instinctually, constraints feel like oppression, and the nature of reality can be oppressive and it can constrain our freedom. And this idea that we can become so sophisticated and enlightened that we can overcome the natural order seems to be at the core of a lot of the conflict culturally that we're dealing with. It's something like there's always an accusation that anyone who thinks there's justification in marginalizing certain identities for any reason simply do that based off of some sort of prejudice or ignorance, and that labeling certain things as dangerous is due to like your lack of enlightenment, and there's almost like just this denial that there is any justification. So so where am I going with this? The central theme here is the idea of liberalization, which is to remove all borders, so that you end up with the ending scene of Zootopia, where you have a gazelle who is a pop singer, and she's on stage dancing and singing, played by Shakira, and there are tigers that are her backup dancers. And it's interesting because the tiger is like when they're dancing, they're dancing in a pretty effeminate way, uh very non-threatening way. And the very last scene of the movie is like the gazelle in the center with four surrounded by four tigers, and they're all like you know, but the gazelle's neck is really long, so at any moment those tigers could just like eat her neck, but they don't, right? Because the thing that was once a danger and a predator hasn't brought inside the border, and you can trust it, right? Like that's the goal to bring everything inside the border. But the problem with this is that if you misidentify a predator as being safe and you bring it inside the border, then the ending scene of Zootopia would be quite different indeed. It would be a hot bloody mess with the gazelle dead everywhere. Right? And so you can't do this willy-nilly, and you certainly can't believe that you can just conceptualize your way out of the true dangers, the true objective nature of reality. Because that's when you become foolish, that's when you become uh prideful and hubris to think that you can just bring anything within your borders without consequence, rejecting any true danger that might exist. And I think that that's when the liberal ideal starts to go off. When the liberal idea starts to say that the only reason why anyone would have a rule is because people are prejudiced and ignorant, while denying someone's legitimate concern for why there should be a border or separation. And like, just go off on a little tangent. It reminds me of a conversation I had where I was talking to someone who, you know, thinks in this way where they're like, there is absolutely never any reason, there was never any reason, or there's never any reason to marginalize things like homosexuality or transgenderism or gender ideology or any of that stuff. And this manifests in the belief that putting homosexuality in children's content for like babies and children is perfectly safe, and that there is never a justification for not showing homosexuality to children. And in this sense, I asked him about like Aladdin. Like, what if Disney remade Aladdin? But the main romantic and the main romance of the movie, instead of it being between Aladdin and Jasmine, say it was between Aladdin and Ahmed or something, or Jasmine and you know, give me some Arabic feminine name, I don't know. But it's between two boys and and two girls. And you put that as a show that you show uh a movie that you make that's designed for children who are like three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, you know. And then ask yourself, is this perfectly safe? Because if you adhere to this worldview in which there's absolutely no justification for creating a boundary between these things, then homosexuality is perfectly safe and should be should be allowed within the border and should be right next to our most vulnerable population, which is our children. And I'm not making a judgment about this person's position. I'm just saying that this is this person's position. And the position really is something like, and the only reason why anyone would disagree with this is because they're prejudice. There's there's absolutely nothing within reality that would that would say that there's any justification. And I also believe this is the same about trans identity and gender ideology, too. Like, no, gender ideology should be taught to children in schools, however, young, whatever. There's nothing wrong with this, you know? And so that's something like the liberal ideal is this desire to ultimately tear down borders to make a unification. But this thing has to be done responsibly, you know? It has to be done responsibly. And I think of it in terms of something like uh Vegeta and Dragon Ball Z or uh what's his name? He A and uh U hockey show. These characters, like, and and I and I'm not trying to compare Vegeta to homosexuality, so you know we've we've moved on. I'm just saying like the homosexuality thing was something like food for thought, you know, think about it. How would you feel about having a gay Aladdin for your children? And also, I just wanted to mention that there's a clip of a Disney, I don't know if she's a Disney executive, that she's someone who's who has power over what content gets created, and she's talking as a as a black woman and she's talking about her uh not so secret gay agenda where uh her goal is to sprinkle queerness into Disney content. And um maybe I can find the audio and put it in this episode, or I can uh give a link to the uh uh to the clip so that you can watch it. But it's just a matter of just thinking to yourself, okay, like, well, um, are you okay with that? Are you someone who listens to that and is like, oh yeah, no, I completely agree, or you're something someone who listens to that and thinks, uh, you know, I don't know. And then ask yourself, like, well, why do you think that, you know? But anyway, so yeah, so moving on. Um so think of characters like Vegeta uh or he from Yu Haku Show. And those who don't watch Dragon Ball Z or doesn't watch anime, Vegeta was a character who uh came to kill everybody. He's like this evil, you know, uh marauding um conqueror who would blow up entire planets of people without any thought about it. He's just like this heartless monster, essentially. And he came to enslave Earth or like kill everyone on Earth or whatever, and so the Dragon Ball Z characters, the good guys had to come and protect Earth. But eventually Vegeta becomes a good guy. And so within anime a lot too, there's always this idea of um the villains becoming good guys and what it feels like to have that which used to be a powerful villain now on your side. And I will say that I do think that this is a a better desire outcome than, say, the hero that goes and slays the dragon who's been terrorizing the village. Instead, you have the hero that goes and doesn't slay the dragon, but comes back and has the dragon on your side. Now the dragon works for you. Like this is actually something that's pretty desirable. You know, a hero that can go out um beyond the border and bring the predator that the border keeps out and bring them to your side. This is this is a desirable thing. But to do so, you can't just simply say that the predator, you can't just simply deny the nature of the predator and then let the predator into your borders. This is naive and it's dangerous. Um, and then if you go around accusing others who recognize danger of the predator or the um uh the nature of the thing that's outside the border, and you're like, hey, wait a minute, uh, we should not let this near our children, or we should not let this thing uh within our borders, and you just uh show shoot them down and say that they're bad or immoral because they don't agree with you, then you might be actually the person that's causing harm. So you can't just declare we are so sophisticated and we move beyond anything, and we're not shackled by the nature of reality anymore, and we can just transcend and reconceptualize reality in however way we want, and all borders are are unnecessary. Like that's just madness. And so the sophisticated version of this can be understood in terms of our own psychology, and this is something that I talk about all the time too is it's in the nature of sin. It's the idea of the Jungian idea of incorporating the shadow into oneself. How do you reconcile with the parts of yourself that you don't want to look at, that you hate, that you think are disgusting? This is also the this is also the thesis of K-pop demon hunters, right? You you look at the parts of yourself that you don't like. Um some people they hide away from them by by um you know by protecting them from other people so people don't see them. Some people they hide away from them from just denying their existence and creating delusions to protect their mind from themselves. Um incorporating that nature which is outside that is predatory or scary or sinful into oneself is a necessary process to become a whole person. And this is why, like I've said in past episodes, like when you look in Buddhism, it is the idea. I mean, if you in Taoism and Buddhism and in these different religions, it's the idea of good is bad. But how do you say good is bad in a way that's responsible to where you're not just letting in evil or you're not just justifying evil, you're not just justifying sin? Like there has to be a way to incorporate these things into yourself, to reconcile with yourself, to reconcile with your very nature, to reconcile with the nature of reality in a way to where these things are not in conflict with each other. And in things like Taoism, I think, from a video I watched by Alan Watts and um and others, that this is understood through the idea that there is no good without bad. It has to do with the idea of breaking symmetry. You know, if you if everything was good all the time, you'd have no reference for bad. If everything was bad all the time, you'd have no reference for good. It's the reference between good and bad that has one ex that allows you to be to perceive or experience the other. Without bad, there is no good. And so you can actually see how there is something like a necessity for one and the other. You know, it's the the yin and the yang, which again is something that I need to understand more, but I think that this is consistent. It's something like the yin and the yang. You look at this negative aspect and you think of it as being bad, but in reality, it's not separate. It's not separate from good. And this is the this is the thing is that when you are trying to remove boundaries, like in the case of Buddhism, because I think Buddhism is the responsible way of doing this. It's like, like I said in the past episode, I think that postmodernism has failed Buddhism. Uh, postmodernism just tries to do this by denying the nature of reality itself, denying that there is anything of a called objective truth, and just a Accusing anyone of having any position that doesn't just that doesn't validate someone's identity as being oppression, essentially. Like that's just, you know, that's just that's that is an immature way to approach this. The sophisticated way is to recognize, like, um, like in the uh uh uh what's it Saguna Devasutra where it says, you know, the the state of Buddhahood is found directly in the Kleshas, this directly in the defilements, because if it wasn't in the defilements, then you wouldn't have equanimity, you wouldn't have that, you know, the state of Buddhahood has to be, you know, or to the Tathagata has to be the thing that is the invariant from which all the things arise. So the nature of one has to be the nature of the other. And so this is also the foundation of Christianity as well. There's something like we all have a sinful nature, and there needs to be a process for reconciling that sinful nature within oneself. And I know that I've discussed this in the podcast before, especially in my conversations with Ryan. At the moment, I don't have the spark that is allowing me to see the structure so that I can communicate it. Because I don't know if you guys know, like I've told said in the past, that when I when I do these recordings, I am it's almost like something appears and I'm just reading off what's being told to me. Like it's not, and I have to, in other words, I have to be in a correct mindset to where it's just it's just flowing out of me as opposed to having to think it through. So right now I'm I'm in the thinking through process because I've articulated this a million times before in my own head and my own writings. So like trying to shift my mind again to be back in that spot where I can have it flow out of me easily is uh not the easiest task at the moment. Maybe if I just sit with it for a little bit, then I can uh conjure this uh spirit or this state of being to communicate it to me. Matter of fact, let me read a poem to you guys to see if that jogs the state of being that I'm looking for. Okay. To have your innocence killed is to become an adult. Reality is the ultimate killer of innocence. God is the ultimate killer of innocence. The ultimate adult is God. To repent is to want to align your will with God's, to become more like God, to become more like Jesus. Jesus was the ultimate Lamb, pure of sin, and for us to become like God, we needed to see and experience the sacrifice of ultimate innocence. We need our sense of innocence to be shattered. No better way than to claim that we are responsible for the torture and death of ultimate innocence. For us to believe, we need to see ultimate innocence, our ultimate innocence sacrificed. We can no longer claim a lack of responsibility. We are adults now, who take responsibility for our actions, who want to become like the ultimate adult, to repent and become like God, like Jesus, to sacrifice ourselves to others and pay the price of sin. To respond with love to our enemies, to those who harm us with their sin. No room for judgment. We are all sinners after all, meaning we all hurt each other. There is no escaping it if we want to be in relationship with each other, to have an identity, because there is no self without relationship to others, but the dependent origination principle. We are contingent beings, we are earthly beings, we are temporal beings. We are born and we die. We are made of dust, the five aggregates. Therefore, if we want to be a self, we must carry the burdens of others, the failures of others, the delusions of others, the harms of others, the harm from our parents. We must take those burdens and carry our crosses for the ones we love. To accept them even with their flaws like they do for us. Nobody is perfect, everyone is a sinner. So everyone will make you hurt. But love endures that hurt. It forgives and sacrifices even though you're innocent. To take on the responsibility and burden of others, to cancel their debt even though they don't deserve it, to show the ultimate act of love, to sacrifice yourself for others even when you're innocent and they're guilty. Don't feel special because you do this. You are also full of sin and you hurt others. This is a burden we all must carry together if we are to be one, to have one identity, to repent, to be more like God, to be more like Jesus, the ultimate adult. So, yeah, so um as a Christian, this is what you basically live your life as. This is like the foundation of your life. It's the idea that you can sit in someone else's sin and take on the burden of their sin, which is to say that they're going to treat you poorly, they're gonna hurt you, they're gonna accuse you of things, they're going to do things that harm you and are are are and that are and are painful and you have to be able to sit and hold that, continually sacrificing yourself to them until the love that you show them becomes so apparent that the nature of their sin becomes evident and then they come to know their sin. This thing that they hide from, right? Because it's it's a thing that's outside of their mind, outside the outside the border, because they don't want to know that nature of themselves. And it's precisely because they don't come to know that nature of themselves that it continues to act, that they think that they continue to act and it continues to act in a way that harms the people around them. So the more you you get on your cross and you take that, the hope is that the person will eventually come to recognize the nature of what the what they've been doing. And when they do, and they truly are able to incorporate that with that within themselves, and they're able to look back at all the harm they did, they're probably gonna feel a lot of pain. They're probably going to say to themselves, like, oh my goodness, how could I have done this? Because that's the whole point. They avoid it because they don't want to reconcile, they don't want to acknowledge this negative nature of themselves. If it was something that was easy to incorporate, they wouldn't have created this whole elaborate delusion sin process to avoid it. So when they come to actually encounter it and come to actually like accept it, they're going to have to take on all the judgment, especially if they're if they're someone who consistently judges others of sin, all the judgment they've levied on on someone else, and all the judgment that comes from the truth of what they've done, they're gonna have to take that burden on. And when they see that the person standing there, that they've that they or the person or the people that they've harmed are like, ah, I love you. No, this is this is this is what is this is what we have to do. Like, I love you. I did that out of love. You don't owe me anything. I'm just happy that you're out of your sin state. And then you're like, oh my goodness, they they took all of that and they forgive me. You break down, you I can imagine you'd break down crying if it's the case that you've truly come to understand like the nature of your sin. Like, how much debt do you owe this person? This person's just like, nope, your debt is white cleaned. That's the nature, like that's the whole crucifixion, that's the whole thing. And it's saying something like the adult is the one who takes on that burden. And so I'm saying all of this because it's something like if you condemn the nature of sin that you see in others, and you think of it as not worthy of being loved, of being held, and you totally condemn it, then how could you possibly reconcile with that nature of sin within yourself? To become whole, you have to be able to hold that part of yourself and come to the conclusion that it's it's not worthy, like that because of its because of its natures, it's not worthy to be hated or destroyed. Like you have to replace your judgment and hatred with like grace. I don't know if this is tying as well into the zootopia thing as I was hoping for. But the point is, is that to be whole, you ultimately have to, in a responsible way, find a way to incorporate the outside with the inside. And and do it in a way that doesn't justify sin, that doesn't justify evil, that doesn't ignore its nature, that thinks that you can be free just by rejecting reality, to not become resentful because of the nature of the constraints or the rules. And like the like the state at the end is something like you and Vegeta are like friends now or something, like you guys are on the same team. The old the goal is that ending of Zootopia where you have the tiger and the Gindagazelle right next to each other. But this reconciliation has to be true and it has to be real. It can't be fake like the postmodernists do. And so it's something like and this is what it seems like like something has to pay the cost for that reconciliation, and it seems as though the thing that pays the cost is innocence being slaughtered. I do think that the nature of sin itself is one that harms innocence. Like just imagine somebody who is in a state of delusion and lying to themselves, and as a result, they don't take care of their children, or they don't take the steps necessary to protect their children or take care of them, and as a result, the children are vulnerable, left unprotected, exposed to predators, and the innocent child did nothing to deserve it, but they pay for your sin as their parent who's supposed to watch over them, as a society that's supposed to watch over them. A person who's in a relationship with another person, and that person is in denial about who they are and how they behave and how they act and how they harm others, and they're and they refuse to acknowledge the harm they're causing the others, and the other person is like legitimately not responsible. Maybe, maybe this person, maybe someone's is acting like that because of some sort of past trauma, you know, whatever people are complicated. But the point is that you know, hurt people, hurt people. You've heard that phrase. People who have experienced a trauma in the past tend to reenact that, harm other people. But if you love that person, then you're you're like, I'm I'm I will hold, I will be there for you, I will hold this for you until you're ready for reconciliation, and you'd hope that they do the same thing for you. And so it seems as though the price, like the the the ones that pay for sin are the innocent. Because again, if you're not living in the truth, you're not living in reality, then you're not gonna have the proper borders, you're not gonna have the proper structure, you're not gonna have the proper sight, you're not gonna have the proper spirit to defend against the things that you should be able to see and defend against. And as a result, those things and those people, including yourself that you're responsible for, are going to pay the price. And this includes your own self. You know, yourself is is is is as a singular being, is made up of a collection of spirits that are in relationship with each other. Uh go back to my episode Minds and Computer Algorithm Algorithms, I think, where I we elaborate on that. You are a composite being made up of a bunch of subsystems that are in relationship with each other. And if one of the subsystems isn't doing the responsibility of doing their job, then the other ones pay the price for it. And so that's why that ending scene of Zutopia is so perfect, because it's like, yeah, you better you better be right about putting that gazelle and them tigers together. Because if you're wrong, if you're wrong. Anyway, I think that's all I got. Uh talk to you later. Peace.