Tangle - Suspension of the rules. - Isaac, Ari, and Kmele talk Jimmy Kimmel, Trump's UN speech and the Trump administration's posture overall.

Episode Date: September 26, 2025

Isaac, Ari, and Kmele talk about free speech being restored with Jimmy Kimmel's return. They then get into more detail about Trump's UN speech and his stance with Ukraine which then evolves into a deeper conversation about the Trump administration's general posture over all. Last but not least, some very Vermont oriented grievances. You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75 and Jon Lall. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Coming up, we revisit the Jimmy Kimmel cancellation and uncancellation. Trump's U.N. speech, his Ukraine comments, lots of chatter about what we make of the whole Trump administration's general posture towards everything. And some very Vermont-oriented grievances. It's a good one. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and good evening, and welcome to the suspension of the rules podcast. I still don't have any good intro for this. We've really got to nail that. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, Tangle's managing editor. I'm here with our executive editor, Ari Weitzman, editor-at-large. Camille Fosser and gentlemen. Oh, yeah, sorry. I'm...

And the executive editor, Ari's managing editor. That's your name. He's gone mad with that. Well, I was just about to say, no need to fear. Free speech has been restored in America. Not when I'm executive editor, man. It's going to be different. Times are changing.

You're submitting a story about Jimmy Kimmel here? I saw Jimmy Kimmel deliver a tearful opening monologue. Last time we were here, I was being. subtly accused of being an alarmist about free speeds for worrying about his show being canceled and then a week later he's back in the chair which I will say surprise me I thought they were going to keep him on ice

I didn't think the show was canceled permanently but I thought that they would keep him on ice for a few weeks or maybe a few months even so to have him back in I guess less than a week is that right I think it was maybe less than a week and he delivered a little bit of a defiant monologue. I don't want to say, I mean, to me it felt he didn't apologize, which I don't know that he had to.

I think what he said on the air was gracious and correct. I mean, he got emotional talking about this young man being killed, I obviously can relate to. He made it really clear that he, you know, made, put forward a message of unity and positivity right after the shooting and just said, we shouldn't live in a country where, like, the joke I told last week ends with me getting kicked off the air. Kind of directly called out the FCC and Trump and, which I appreciated, honestly.

So I don't know. I'm curious. I mean, I'm, you know, I want to just get. right into it. I guess I'm wondering how you guys think our conversation, which was from Saturday, has aged in, you know, less than

a week, and what you made of the kind of return to TV for Mr. Kimmel. Yeah, I mean, I'm I don't know that I'm surprised, but it was certainly not a foregone conclusion that his bosses would

actually maintain the current situation. and actually keep him on the payroll as opposed to dump him and do what it was very clear the Trump administration wanted done here. The Trump administration not only via the FCC, but also explicitly from the president himself's mouth, wanted to see Jimmy Kimmel off the air. We're happy when it seemed likely that he wasn't coming back. And subsequent to his return have been amazingly critical.

They even suggested that they would go after other networks. I think the important detail here isn't so much, you know, whether or not the network decided to keep Jimmy around. It's that the government was clearly making a focused effort to punish someone who was openly critical of them. And they were happy to use threats of kind of the FCC coming in and policing content. But they were also, it seems, willing to go a different route, which is to do the job. and to make it pretty clear that if you want your mergers to go through, if you want generous treatment in a bunch of other contexts that could impact your business, it's probably best for you not to be associating with this kind of person. And we've seen that example over and over

again. And the fact that they failed here, at least for the time being, doesn't make any of it any less serious and worthy of our concern. Even if the network had never suspended him, if the government had only brought pressure, that would be enough to justify. by concern, consternation, and the conversation about this. And that was true under the prior administration when they were making similar sorts of noises about policing content in different contexts, whether it was on social media or stuff that was being aired on Fox News.

You know, I think one of the things that is true about, just the answer, not to like completely skip over what he said there, Camille, but to completely skip over what you said there, Camille, and talking about what Isaac's prompt was of like, how do you think our coverage has changed or aged, since then. I think it's worth calling out that like Will's take age pretty well. I think he got a lot of hate for that from some of the people who responded to this new thing that we're doing in the newsletter of having a staff dissent where a member of our editorial team will submit a

different opinion than one that you're expressing in the take. And Will was saying, look, I think we're kind of going overboard. I think with the reaction to this as being a threat on free speech, like it's no one's saying like this was something that looked good. It didn't look good that we had the head of the FCC making an overt threat and then a talk show host having his show pulled. But he was saying if you couch this in context or if you just try to take a broad view and ask, is free speech under threat? Like it was a private company making a decision. Again, yes with coercion, but it was the private company still making its decision. Government coercion is something that has happened and happened under Biden. Again, to a different

degree, but I mean, we'll probably talk about that, too, the way that companies are saying they felt like there were pressure to make certain statements about COVID in the Biden administration. And lastly, that he had not been canceled. He had not been pulled from the area at that time. He'd been suspended. Will was saying we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. It's very possible that he may just return to the air later that day returns to the air. I think it's worth like referencing just because this is a thing that I've been trying to do too. When we try to say, this is a thing we are critiquing, and we are critiquing the administration for making a coercive push

towards a critic of their administration and punishing that person for speech. That's what happened, and no one's saying, I don't think any of the three of us are saying, like, that's okay or we're fine with it. I think we're just trying to, like, value rate it and just say, you know, is it better, is it worse than things that have happened before? Are we looking at a Reichstag fire here? and Will's like, we aren't. And let's just like remember to keep our heads cool as we're criticizing.

And I think that was a really good point. Yeah, I mean, a lot of people wrote into me like, do you feel dumb now? Has your position changed? Like, you clearly overreacted. I'm like, I don't think I overreacted at all. The fact that Jimmy Kimmel was able to meet with these ABC Disney executives and compel them to put them back on the air,

I think that's a good sign. and I think that's like a healthy sign of where we are, where like the free speech culture is, which I talked about last week. It's certainly an encouraging sign for me. Also that he was able to go on the air and say the things he did. I mean, I think it would have felt different

if he came back and had some sort of apology, acquiescence. I mean, I think he could have apologized for what he did. I honestly think he probably should have for just like the way he communicated his point that like I do think it was a bit inflammatory and unnecessary and I think an apology would have been a gracious thing to do but if he had come back and sort of like

you know bent the knee quote unquote like really kind of done the dear leader thing and like apologize and made it like it the show presented in a way where it was very obvious that he was like protecting the name network and making sure Trump would let it go and whatever, that wouldn't have felt good to me. So the fact that he came back, he didn't apologize, he was pretty, he called out the obvious

thing that happened, which was like the FCC tried the pressure his network into canceling him. And he made a point of saying that this, like, this is a real threat to the very foundational thing that makes our country what it is. All wrapped up in what I thought was, clear, genuine emotion about what happened to Charlie Kirk. All that stuff felt pretty good. I'll just say one more thing, too, like,

for some reason we always land here at the end, and we always come to this conclusion at the end or this realization at the end rather than talk about it in the very beginning while it's happening. But, like, it is always the stric-sand effect in our country. I mean, he had the, it was the most watched night of television that Kimmel's show has ever had.

The YouTube video of his monologue is the biggest, most popular video he's ever had. It's like the fastest way to martyr somebody like this or to make somebody like this as views popular or to amplify their platform is truly to try and cancel or silence them. the successful number of real quote-unquote cancellations I think are like you can count them on one hand it's maybe like Milo Yanopoulos comes to mind like there are very few people who I think have been like cancelled or you know thrown out by the quote-unquote mob or whatever it is

and then actually disappeared most of them who face that fate it ends up popularizing them in their views or makes them more powerful some way and I think like this like yeah this strides and effect of just drawing attention to the thing you're trying to pull attention away from I mean it yeah it's

it was pretty predictable and I'm like almost a little embarrassed I didn't predict it beforehand I think I would want to quibble a bit by saying like it never never really gets canceled Louis Sieghe got canceled pretty hard

and especially during the Me Too movement I think there were a lot of people who were in the entertainment industry who had that come for them but I think maybe to adapt that point and kind of yes and it I think that a lot of the way cancellations have preceded from that

general movement have been less successful when it's not tied to something where it's like an actual backlash against some real like I mean sexual abuse is real crime. When it's not against like a real crime where victims

are coming forward and making statements and we're just canceling people for things they said, then yeah, I think the Streisand effects at play. I think that's a good thing to call out there. And I wonder if I don't know if this is what you're saying, Isaac or not. Maybe it's not, but it's like to a much, much

smaller degree, it's kind of like what happened with Charlie Kirk's views. Like if somebody, like if you're shooting at somebody, it's the ultimate way of trying to cancel them. trying, like, you know, sorry for the bluntness there, but to try to, like, attack them for their views. And in the aftermath of that,

I've never seen so many Charlie Kirk quotes and discussion about what he said. So when he, I think that's a really good example of, like, how that amplification can happen to. Yeah, I think it's genuinely inspired some conversions. Right. Right, right, his traffic went up, conversions. Also, like, the chapters of his organization exploded across the country. I think it's a great example. I mean, it's a blunt and, like, terrifying one. But also, by the way,

I mean, Louis C.K., I mean, he got a stand-up special, like, two years after his sexual misconduct allegations, and it was hugely popular. And I don't, I mean, I would say, I would even make the case that he's almost an example of the same. effect. Like I think he's managed, the initial impact was real, but he's still insanely popular and sells out stand-up shows across the country and has made it like part of his story now in a way that's probably been advantageous for him. I mean, it's a different kind of, you know, he was attacked and quote-unquote canceled for like an actual transgression first like being bad or speech or

inappropriate, whatever, which feels a little different. But even in that case, I think he has actually benefits in some ways. I mean, I think the benefits, I don't know if we want to turn the podcast into a big Louis CK discussion roundtable,

but I think that the benefits have probably, I mean, very strongly been outweighed by the cost. He was at the top of the comedy game at that time. He had a show on HBO. He was hosting Saturday Night Live a bunch. He was his comedy specials were insanely popular. And now, like, he's gotten more niche traffic.

He's not going to be host. Maybe he'll come back and host SNL, but, like, he was canceled out of hosting of, like, those big prime time positions for a while. His show was taken off the air. Louis was a huge show, and that was lost. I think, like, when, again, like, you're right, he's able to make it part of a story

and still have some commercial success after, you know, just a couple years of losing, like, the heat that he had. But the heat that he had was, like, comedian at the top of the game. When you lose those prime years, it's kind of big. That's like a quarterback tearing his ACL twice when he's 27. Like, that's kind of huge.

It kind of is, but to remove the focus from Louis narrowly and to perhaps sort of return to this broader conversation about, like, the FCC, even in the monologue, it was suggested, well, look, my family members in this part of the country cannot watch us tonight. So I guess they'll have to catch us on YouTube. The degree to which all of this, like from a regulatory standpoint, is a bit silly. And like in the extreme, is hard to overstate. Like these shows can exist and be produced almost anywhere on shoestring budgets

and reach tens or hundreds of billions of people at this stage. there is a sense in which the government lost the ability to do the amount of censorship that it would really like to do a very long time ago. And it keeps trying to reassert itself in different contexts and you have the kind of cultural dynamics of quote unquote cancel culture. But even those things are pretty limited

in their possibilities and their effectiveness in terms of bringing about the change that one imagines the people who are employing the censorship whether it be kind of publicly performed or kind of privately carried out. I don't know that the censors have a great track record. Like at the end of the day, you can excommunicate Baruch Spinoza

for offering up ideas that people deem like too controversial. And his excommunication ultimately doesn't, it has some impact in the short run, but in the long run, we know his name and we don't know his censors. And that story can be replicated in so many other places. So I do think in as much, is there is great consternation about the kind of determined effort to engage in censorship

and perhaps even some relief in the moment that this particular act of censorship didn't really go the way folks planned. I also think it's worth keeping in mind that if you care about particular ideas and you want to see your values win out in the culture, you want to win the culture war, you probably won't censor your way to victory. You won't actually be able to change the culture in a durable way to the extent you're just, depending on those tools, you imagine you can take over the school board and then infiltrate it and only pollute to school with propaganda, you're probably not going to win in the long run. So I do think adopting a better philosophy and choosing better weapons is actually better for

those people as well. So if you're on the right and you feel like we've been mistreated for so many years, they were doing all of this to us and abusing us, using the same weapons as them probably won't work out very well. for you. That's a great point. Have you guys... Have you guys seen Louis C.K. recently? Look at this guy.

Physically, no, I haven't. Which is kind of my point. He looks like he's aged. He looks like he aged 30 years. It's been a long five or six years, dude. The COVID years along. I just had to check in the New York Post headline. Louis C.K. felt free after he was.

sexual misconduct allegations emerged. A beautiful thing, in quotation marks. That feels like an unfair out-of-context quote. Apparently, he went on Theo Vaughn's podcast and said that, and he looks like he is 85 years old now. Yeah, I think that is a fair assessment of the state of play. I mean, Camille, you made another good point, too, which I really hadn't meditated on much.

It's just, it's almost like it's harder now than it's ever been to take people offline or to remove their ability to megaphone, which is a great thing. I mean, truly, like the platform stratification, fragmentation, whatever you want to call it, it's kind of both in a weird way. There's like all these layers. It's kind of a both in a weird way. There's all these layers that people, content creators, hosts on TV shows, whatever, can reach you now.

And it's, yeah, it's, you know, Bill Simmons, the pod father, he did a show about Jimmy Kimmel's cancellation, despite, you know, mostly talking about basketball and football. And him and Jimmy are friends. He's like longtime friends. He has Kimmel on his podcast all the time. And he's, it was interesting. I listened to his episode

the day that it was announced that Kimmel's show was coming back and he had clearly recorded it the day before and he was basically making the case like why would Jimmy Kimmel even go back to ABC like he was like I haven't talked to him about this but if I were him just go to YouTube use the attention to launch something

and you know basically like this is a moment that you can just kind of platform yourself, which I don't think he totally, you know, he obviously did an attempt. He just got back on the show, and I think the relevance of his return is the reason why the platform is so valuable.

But I don't doubt for a minute that Jimmy Kimmel could have built a different audience but a substantial audience, you know, outside ABC. And I think it's a good thing that people like him are safer from, you know, like a single force, blunt force cancellation or pressure campaign like this. That's probably a part of our ecosystem that promotes a lot of healthy free speech that maybe I didn't give too much credence or space to when we were talking about this last week.

We'll be right back after this quick. All right. Well, while Trump wasn't focused on canceling late-night TV hosts, he actually had some pretty important other business this week. Though I guess importance in the eye of the beholder, I mean, I've wrote about this today. I think the United Nations stuff is increasingly unimportant. I'm not entirely sure what the U.N. does anymore or why it matters. I mean, I think it's a nice symbolic grouping of nations who all are sort of pretending to agree to live by some world order

that none of them actually live by or follow. But nevertheless, he gave a classic Trumpian speech at the United Nations General Assembly, which spent a not insignificant amount of time of him focusing on the fact that the escalator broke down the moment he stepped on it and then his teleprompter wasn't working which is, you know, I mean, objectively funny.

I think the escalator video, in case you haven't seen it, it's worth looking up and watching. It literally looks like a magic trick. Like he steps on to the escalator and the moment him and Melania get on, it jams to a halt. In his speech, he said something like Melania was, you know, she's okay, but it was like this sort of dangerous, scary moment where like it was almost a very bad incident.

Trump has been, you know, putting all this on the UN. There has been reporting now that it turns out that maybe it was a White House videographer who accidentally bumped the emergency stop, while running ahead, trying to film them getting on the escalator. So not UN sabotage necessarily. The president call it sabotage? Yeah, triple sabotage, actually. Triple sabotage.

It's interesting to things that are like... Triple sabotage. The things that are interesting are like that we want to talk about when we're talking about it compared to the stuff we want to write about. Because like in the take it was like, we want to get past this and get right to the meat. but when we're talking about it together, it's like, did you guys see this? The escalator, the teleprompter?

This triple sabotage crap, damn, unreal. It is, I mean, it is funny. I do think, it's definitely funny. There's also, like, there is something that is just, there are so many little moments that are perfect encapsulations of him that came out of this, like,

six-hour news cycle about the UN visit. the escalator stopping, and Trump's mind is immediately like the UN tried to sabotage my visit. And it's like a cons – I mean it's like – it is a conspiracy. It's like he immediately goes to some like globalist lib set us up so they would jam the escalator and we'd fall forward in front of all the cameras. And then it like comes out that it was his videographer bumping the bumping the bus. and it's just like totally ignored. They're just like, no, it was sabotage. And you're like, okay.

Like that is like this perfect encapsulation of just the, like the way. And these, some people are running with it. Like some people on the right are like, yeah, the UN tried to screw them. The teleprompter thing I don't have an explanation for except the teleprompter's break. But who knows, maybe that was sabotage. And then the actual speech itself, I mean, uh, you know, it's him just spending 10 minutes talking about all the peace he's brought to the world and why he deserves, you know, a Nobel Peace Prize

and the fact that he's ended all these wars that no other president could end and basically saying like he is the president of peace. And then in, I mean, literally minutes later in the same breath, he's just talking about how he's going to blow, you out of existence referring to like the people on boats in Venezuela's

Venezuelan waters says please be warned that we will blow you out of existence if that's what we're doing. It's like you know what do you even do I don't even know

how to write or characterize this stuff so I don't know I'm curious how you guys felt if you caught moments of the speech or got to read the transcript what you thought of it

but it's sort of like a pick your you know pick your poison, I guess. If you're on the left, everybody just focused on all these insane things he said. And he said some insane stuff. Like, you know, claiming that London is trying to enact Sharia law

and all the European countries are going to hell and, you know, trashing renewable energy, making all these ridiculous claims about why it doesn't work when actually this is like the best era ever for solar and wind. But then he also said some really beautiful stuff.

Like, I mean, like there's there's stuff in here when he's talking about ending these wars that the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up with their mothers and fathers

because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless and unglorious wars what I care about is not winning prizes it's saving lives I'm like hell yeah brother preach it

you know I don't know I never know how I feel when I get done watching one of these I mean we're talking about when we talk about Trump oration, I think the thing that I've always sort of fallen on is I'm going to almost edit out the stuff that's off the paper. And I'm going to listen more to the stuff that he puts in the

margins when he's riffing and going off cuff. I think a lot of the criticism that led to Trump being popular in the first place is that retail politicians are products of a design team. And when we see Trump reading from script or from teleprompter, we're seeing more design team, design statements and products that are meant to sound good and feel good. But when he delivers them, he's just like, yeah, I'm getting through it. Here's the thing. Here's the oration about ending wars, not caring about a prize.

But like, I don't know how much stock I put in that. The thing that I'm interested in is when he goes, and you know, Europe, you really need to be tougher. If you actually cared about peace, you would stop buying. gas from Russia, I buy it from us anyway. Talk more about the global alliance that we're looking for. And by the way, UN really terrible at ending wars. I've ended wars. I've ended in many wars. You should be ending more wars. That tells me more about what he's thinking and how I should be responding to him than the stuff that he's saying that like flows off the page.

You know what I mean? Yeah, I do think that there's something about the aesthetic critique of Donald Trump, which is still a thing. It's his delivery. It's the way. It's the way. he dresses the kind of repetition, engaging openly in this mockery of his political opponents, even that walkway that has the various pictures of presidents now and Biden's there depicted as an auto pen. This is the administration. And I do think that there's something of that Obama-Tan suit dimension to some of the criticism and coverage of this administration and always has been. But the appropriate thing to do is what Ari is describing in my estimation, to try and understand this person in the way that the folks who are actually voting for them

understand them, to try and actually ascertain what their aspirations are likely to be, what their focus is, where the commonalities are, like, beyond the kind of superficial, absurd nature of things, because our politics is often quite absurd these days. it's still important to try and decode what their goals are and how practically they might be trying to achieve them and to comment on that stuff specifically, not merely to be distracted by the icing and constantly obsessing over the fact that he is different

and he talks in a different sort of way in a different sort of cadence. Yes, it's true. And it may even be something that's important and consequential in terms of policy outcomes, but the nature of the policy focus of the administration really ought to take priority and certainly for people in the media we have to be confident

that we're doing what's necessary to kind of decode the administration and understand it. In the best terms, which is not the same really as like a kind of steel manning, but best in the sense that it's actually meaningfully informative to a readership to read a piece of analysis about Trump's UN performance.

If all you talk about is, the escalator, you're probably doing it wrong. If you're foregrounding with that firmly, you're probably doing it wrong. Right. And like that's something that we've brought up a little bit. But I think we're also kind of responding to two like polar opposite things when we're talking about the icing around Trump. Like on one hand, what you're just saying is the way he delivers his remarks and his style. And the thing that I was talking about was like the things that we have traditionally

seen as icing around politicians, which are the content of the speeches that are written for them. I think both of those are kind of like more ornamental aspects. I think that's right. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. Can I ask something? I mean, okay, like the... Not convinced. He's not convinced. Well, prove me wrong. I mean, something like the auto pen picture being up on the wall in place of Biden's portrait, I... I... I don't. I don't. get the degree to which that isn't important. But then I see that, and I'm like, actually doesn't matter that, like,

the most powerful people in the world have the sensibilities of a fucking eighth grader. Like, that feels important. You know, like, I'm like, that, that actually feels a little bit important to me. So I get, I don't know, like, how do you guys, like I get, we're in the era of the troll and it's like, Elon Musk post,

memes and he's the most powerful man in the world and whatever. But like I see that and I'm just like I get why it's like if you're like a total own the libs MAGA person I get why that's funny but I'm also just

like dude these guys are deciding whether we like bomb people or not. It's just like are you going to act like you are what you bring to the table you know so are you like serious people or is this in? And I don't know, that feels actually meaningful to me in some way that I can't, like, totally let go of.

I have, go ahead, Camille. I'll take us a little off topic here. Okay. Do you want that? No, I'll make a little diversion, but I'll come right back. So what do you want to do? I'll try to keep it succinct. I think I totally understand where you're coming from, Isaac.

I would agree in general, and I perhaps would frame it this way, that norms are important and valuable. they give us a sense that we are kind of speaking the same language and understanding the world in a similar sort of way that we have similar touchstones and frames of reference. And politicians conducting themselves with a certain kind of gravitas and decorum in these important contexts when they're making decisions about consequential matters

of life and death, when they're talking about their political opponents. Certainly, if anything, you know, the last couple of weeks with the Charlie Kirk Affair has reminded us of the importance of not, perhaps, and not all of us to the same degree, but engaging in, like, extremist kind of apocalyptic rhetoric, that that can be consequential. I agree with all of that. I also think that there's another dimension of it. Actually, I think we talked about this briefly last week, which is that sometimes those trappings, those, that decorum, that sophistication can actually be obfiscatory, can make it harder to see

the ways in which the government is perhaps doing things that it shouldn't be or kind of proceeding beyond its bounds. They're still being respectable, but they're perhaps doing something. They still sound respectable. They look respectable, respectable, but they're perhaps doing something that is less respectable beneath the surface. And I think it's definitely important to talk about that kind of change in attitudes and tendencies with respect to the way that we approach politics, the fact that it's become,

the meme has become more important, that official U.S. Twitter accounts, are kind of producing the kind of video slop that you would expect from, you know, someone who's following Nick Fuentes on the internet and not to attribute foul motives to them. I'm just talking about internet culture. But, you know, that's also just maybe it's the case that 4chan has kind of won the culture,

and that is where we are now culturally and socially. And things mean something different than they did before, however uncomfortable that may make us in our advancing ages. And I'm not sure how much of that's the case, but it does seem to me that that's a strong possibility. Yeah, and that's actually kind of similar to the point I was going to make, which is that I think, I'm going to start with a question that's a little off topic, but it will become on topic very quickly,

which is have either of you seen the sort of back cataloged Daniel Day Lewis movie, the Ballad of Jack and Rose, came out like 20? years ago. No. It's about he's this former hippie who lived on a commune on an island and so some slight spoilers for a ballad of Jack and Rose people who were planning on watching this 20 year old movie.

He's on the island with his daughter. All his hippie commie friends grew up and they're no longer hippie commune people and they moved off the island. So now he lives there kind of with himself and a developer has moved on to the island and it's building all of these like cookie cutter McMansion, mini McMansion-style houses, and it's driving him nuts

because he's this environmentalist guy, and he's this beautiful house that's built into the landscape, and he just starts to, like, bulldoze the houses down. And he's fighting this developer the whole time because he sees the way that he's building houses is morally repugnant. And at the end of the film,

one of the things that this main character comes to realize is this thing he sees and still kind of sees as a moral issue. He says, I guess it's just a matter of taste. And that's something that has stayed with me because, I don't know, I think I have like a borderline moral ideas about things that actually could be reduced to taste when other people see it differently. And one of those things is the way that, like this comportment idea of Trump, like putting the Biden portrait of the auto pen in the hall of presidents, I look at that

and like, that's embarrassing. That's not befitting the respect that I would want that office to uphold. but I think it's kind of a matter of taste and I know that that feels a little belittling like I'm seen in ground that I don't really feel like for me I don't think it's a matter of taste but I think for the people who want the office to be something else it is a matter of taste and this idea that you're saying

if the internet culture is kind of winning it's winning at least part of the moment and we have to make room for it I think I agree with that I think like it's not the way I would want the office office to be comported. But at the end of the day, as much as I can rave about that, it is still ultimately a preference, which is frustrating. But I think that's my viewpoint as well.

And you can still vote against it. You could cast a ballot against it. You can raise holy hell about it in different contexts. But just keeping in mind that cultures change, the music the kids are making these days is not appealing to me. I guess. I mean, I guess the thing that I'm wondering is like... Born into death. And not to totally derail this because I want to get to Trump's Ukraine comments in a second.

But, like, is it popular? Are we... I mean, all three of us seem to have some sort of sensibility and maybe we're just, like, out of touch and we're in this, like, elite media bubble or whatever would people like us get accused of being. But, you know, I see the Homeland Security account publishing, like, Pokemon graphics

and got to catch them all, you know, cut up with videos of them deporting people. And I feel like, gross. But, and I say it as somebody who's like, you know, I think I have actually pretty middle of the road view. use on immigration stuff. And then Theo Vaughn even, you know, they used this clip of him like, you know, joking about somebody getting deported.

They put it at the top of like a deportation video on Theo Von who's, I mean, a comedian who's like whole shtick is like, I'm a dummy and I'm going to interview people and has gotten ridiculously popular doing that bit. He responded like, yo, just like take this down. and I did not, like, I don't approve of, like, this video being used or whatever. So I'm like, okay, cool. Theo Vaughn thinks this sucks. Like, I'm not, he's like the archetype person that this kind of thing is supposed to appeal to.

And maybe it's just because he's the one being used in it. But yeah, I'm just like, I guess I'm curious what you guys think on the question of whether, you know, Trump does the auto pen portrait for Biden. and they do the Pokemon cut up for a video where they got to catch them all and then they're just deporting people. Do you think that stuff is actually resonant and popular with a big chunk of America?

Or is it just like the super online right that's sort of being degraded in that particular way and then it's pissing off the super online left and that's the only thing that really matters? I mean, the super online left just has a different genre but it's kind of the same sort of energy. So they do a version of this. Gavin Newsom has been trying to ape Trump

in virtually every way over the course the last couple of months. And yeah, you know, is it popular? I think it's popular with that extremely online crowd. I don't know that it's particularly popular with everyone else, but it also doesn't really get everywhere else necessarily. The people who are perhaps most inclined

to dislike this stuff don't live online. exclusively and aren't going to get served this material. And in some respects, the kind of algorithms are helping them ensure that they're channeling that kind of slop to people who are most likely to endorse it and get excited. And energizing your base is a huge part of the equation. I don't know that the Mondami videos that go viral in that New York City, the mayoral race are genuinely more hard. generally more wholesome. But the people who they appeal to are a particular kind of cultural

ilk. And a bunch of other people are going to be put off by him pouring potato chips like on the street and stepping on them and eating food with his hands. And I don't even mean that in a kind of cultural way. There's just a kind of performance that may or may not wash for lots and lots of voters. And I think it's really the same thing for the most part with the way that the Trump administration is messaging and presenting. It is a bit odd to see Theo Vaughn, however, get caught up in some sort of scandal. Like my read on Theo Vaughn, especially after the interview he gave to Trump on this past weekend, was that he was coding MAGA.

It's not a great look when someone who's prominent supporter of yours is placed in a position where they have to be openly critical of you and distance themselves from you. On a policy, they might even support. I don't know. This is sort of a microcosm of the broader question of I don't know how I would place Theo Vaughn because what he does is a lot of it's performative. So I really don't know how much he's trying to communicate and code one thing and then be another. I think he's just really good at being friendly and like riding with whatever somebody else's joke or stick is.

That's why he's just the charming guy. but the question of like how do we interpret whether or not this stick is popular amongst people either on the online left or the online right or just offline that's so hard to say I think a lot of us all we can really do is speculate it's tough to get good polls and surveys anymore if there's any online survey you can bet

that it's going to be a huge proportion of trolls trolling is sort of working its way into actual acts of violence now too. It's become mainstreamed. I don't know how much we wanted to talk about the ice shooting, but the inscriptions and the bullets, what we know about the shooter there just seem like another one of those online nihilists. And it's really, really hard to say how significant of a percentage that is versus how significant percentage the left or right is and get a sample of who's performing and whether or not they represent people offline in those categories

and how big the offline component, like what's going to actually get to people who are just trying that live their lives. We're all gassing. And to a certain extent, that's our job. It's kind of our job to make those calls and say how much is going to seep in and how much isn't. And to that end, like I'll play ball. I was like with the question of, you know, how much does this matter? Is this something that's, is it really popular what this, what Trump's doing and say, like,

the re that I've had on Trump and the stick for a couple years is that it, motivates people who otherwise wouldn't be voting, which is a score, it's a win, and it doesn't matter to the people who would be voting for something else. So in that regard, it's a good political calculus. And until I get something that proves that outlook otherwise, that's going to continue to be my outlook.

Yeah, man, there's a lot there. I mean, first of all, I mean, I do think we should talk about the ice shooting, by the way, but it's a I just don't know that there's enough information yet I just saw Clint Clinton Clinton's sign published something claiming to

have the motive on the shooter um yeah I mean I guess my my overall view is that like he's bringing people into this sort of perspective you know like he's he's garnering

adherence to this kind of whatever, semi-degraded politics, where it's becoming interesting and cool and funny and whatever to kind of have this sort of callousness and troll thing. And I do, like to answer my own question, like, I do think it's popular and I think it's getting more popular, which is kind of what sucks. Like Gavin Newsom doing the Trump bit is, I think, effective in some ways. also like a worrisome sign that they've just like, it's sort of like seeding the case that you can win people over

without getting in the mud with him, which might be right. I mean, it might be like part of the efficacy of like Trump's messaging style and why he's so good at what he does. But it doesn't, to me, bode well for the future in terms of where we're headed. It just makes me think like we're all going to get there at some point. And that's going to be the way that we get people's attention. So that makes me want to ask you a question then. Can you put your finger on exactly what it is about the way his messaging is working or the use of these memes, the TikTokification of our politics?

What is it that bothers you so much? What is it that bothers me or what is it that I think's working? What is it that bothers you about the fact that this is working? Why do you think it's likely a bad thing? It's a good question. I mean, I sort of, I think I view it the same way I view like somebody being miserable at their job. Like when I go to like the post office and the person I interact with is just like they clearly hate that they work there. and they're just like pissed off

for the sake of being pissed off and they're miserable for the sake of being miserable and I'm just like I guess that's one way to live you know and then like I'll get the different person like I'll go and have the opposite experience where it's like this guy has a job

maybe he's like a I don't know yeah post office worker is a good one like maybe it's not the most interesting best job in the world I don't know. I've never been a post office worker, but they're choosing to find this joy in it. And when I interact with them,

they're like intentionally nice and patient and helpful and thoughtful. And you leave and you're like, God, it's so awesome that people are out there doing that. Like, I see, it's like, yeah, you could choose to just be a prick in this line of work, like in politics. And I think it's like,

It's not like it doesn't work for some people. But you are making a choice that's very clearly a decision to do something that is like the, it's not the high road, it's the low road. And I just have like so little respect for that, I think. I'm just like, oh, you know, like I, it's what pisses me off about a lot of the people in this, like the kind of like Matt Gates type on the right. and then to some degree it's a little bit different

but like the Jasmine Crockett's of the left or like it's less popular in the actual elected officials on the left it's much more popular in the political punditry of the left that's just kind of this like sneering condescending tone I'm just like

yeah I guess you could like that's one way to make your point and you could choose to do that So I see the auto pen stuff and I'm just like, you know, the portrait or like somebody put together this video for the home DHS's social media posts or whatever. And it's like somebody like went to CVS and got the picture of that auto pen photo printed out and then like bought the frame for it and like sat down the office and frame that thing and then, like, put a nail on the wall and hung it up.

Like, we wasted an hour and a half of somebody's job, like, day who I'm paying to do this thing. That's just like, yeah, like, that's just like a crappy way to live your life, I guess. So I just like, yeah, it just makes me, like, I'm like, oh, I just have so little respect for it, I guess. It's, I don't think that's quite pinpointing it, but it's sort of like what comes to mind for me. Yeah. The thing to keep in mind is that person who is doing that and who is kind of constituted in that way to even think to do that, they could be doing worse things.

So maybe that's limited, of limited consolation to you. Yeah. There it is. Sure, yeah, that is of limited consolation to me. But I appreciate the thought. I mean, that's totally fair. Like, I guess, yeah, it could have been a picture of Hunter Biden naked with a prostitute or something.

Maybe they could have done that. Honestly? That would have been way worse and totally in bounds. Really? I mean, this joke's funny. That could happen next week. Yeah. Let's be honest.

It's true. A little bit of subtlety. Yeah. Yeah. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, well, there was some real news here, I guess, which is this Trump-Truth social post on Ukraine. We've been all over this topic here at Tangle,

obviously covering everything that's been happening in the war for many months. And then also I think we've devoted a lot of space and time to Trump's views on the war in particular and I guess what we could now call his evolution I will say I thought months ago that there was very little chance that we would be in the place that we're in right now

I never really was of the position or took the position that you know Trump had abandoned in Ukraine completely because he always seemed to leave the door open for some sort of reconciliation with Zelensky or peace deal and he never really pushed Putin that hard and I always thought there was more room for something to happen in that space.

But I'll say the post that I read, which I think he posted yesterday, it might have been the day before, it genuinely surprised me and I was a little bit like a little bit like jaw game at the screen it's not long so I'm just going to read it really quick and then I want to discuss it with you guys

Trump said after getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine Russian military and economic situation which like that alone just that right there yeah great start I mean that I was like Oh, he's, he's like conceding that he has spent time studying this issue and he now fully understands it and maybe didn't before.

It's like a weird, very un-Trump-like implication. And after seeing the economic trouble, it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe, and in particular NATO, the original borders from where this war started is very much an option. Why not? Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years of war that should have taken a real military power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia.

In fact, it is very much making them look like a paper tiger. When the people living in Moscow and all of the great cities, towns, and districts all throughout Russia find out what is really going on with this war, the fact that it's almost impossible for them to get gasoline through the long lines that are being formed and all the other things that are taking place in their war economy where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has great spirit and only getting better. God, really long run on sentence. Ukraine would be unable to take back their country in its original form, and who knows, maybe even go further than that. Putin and Russia are in big economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act.

In any event, I wish both countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO and do what they want to do with them. Good luck to all. The floor is your guys. I would love to hear some thoughts. I'd just like the way that you pitched and framed that to us. It was like, go.

Yeah. Great. I'm glad that after campaigning on I know exactly what to do, I'm going to solve this coming into office saying, I'm going to solve this. This is going to be done in two weeks. and then six months later saying, hey, I think I just learn more about...

I think now I understand this, and I think I have a good idea here. It's like, let's do the thing people said I should be doing. I got it. That as a way to start is, yeah, it's great. Peak stuff. But the interesting thing that I'm... The trend that I'm drawing from this

is I see another... You know what? I'm going to push... every chip I have in here. I'm not just going to send Ukraine the weapons they want. I'm not just going to recommend that Europe does sanctions and tariff, Russians, censor their economy. I'm going to say Ukraine should get all of their territory back. I'm going to say Poland should shoot down Russian fighter jets.

I'm going to put everything up. How much of it is a bluff? I don't know. Based on my record, you could say all of it, but you don't want to test me this time. And, like, the thing that I see is not just the, I'm going to put this all here, but this idea of I'm going to have this huge line. I'm going to say, this is my line, and I'm going to tow it until you give me something. And then I'll negotiate. I haven't, I've been very good.

I haven't said, I told you so about this once, but the Venezuelan boats, where I said we'll probably see a couple more boats get shot down, that's happened. So the terribly grim thing to gloat about, so sorry about that, immediately embarrassed. But the thing that that shows me, though, is I think he's, like, that tells me one, that my read of the situation, like that's data that reinforces what I thought, if it's a prediction that's coming true, to what I expect going to happen next with Venezuela and Ukraine, is here's where I'm starting. My negotiation position is high. willing to tow this line, at my own detriment, perhaps. So you should play ball with me.

And then if you do play ball, that I'll get something, then I'll give away something. But I don't want to just give something for free. So this Ukraine position's great. But I think up until the moment that Russia gives some ground in any way, then we'll become a different position very quickly. I've been reading Art of the Deal. I think that's what it sounds like to me. I'm aware of what the art of the deal is.

I'll say that. Yeah. Yeah. No, that sounds right to me. Great. That's the only time I think I've ever gone that response from Camille. I love that. I think that's right.

I have nothing to add. I'm sure. That's not true. I'm sure of it. I mean, yeah, I guess I wonder how fickle it is. You know, like I want, I haven't made my position, I haven't been ambiguous, I would say. I don't, I think a lot of people, you know, from Tucker Carlson to like some serious academics who I'm sure know more about this topic in raw form than I do, I think they've complicated the issue to the degree that like you can spend hours to.

talking about who's at fault for where we are. And it's always been really simple to me. Like, Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine when Russia wasn't under threat. There was no plausible threat to Russia. Nobody was going to try and invade Russia and initiate the fall of the country. People just built up their borders because they were worried that Russia would do exactly what it did to Ukraine. And so I've never really lost the plot.

or deviated from the plot of, like, Putin, bad guy, Zelensky, complicated guy, doing the right thing for his country. So I guess I'm just like, I hope this sticks, and I really want Trump to take this position, and I want him to like live in and act on this view of the war. Not necessarily that, I mean, I think it's a little dangerous to think, okay, we're in it until Ukraine can win back all of its territory. because I actually don't know how possible that is, but I'm glad to see him clearly understanding that Ukraine is the side to support and that Russia actually looks quite weak. I mean, the paper tiger thing,

that's something I have been beating the drum on since the beginning of the war is like every time we were going to do something, you know, send long-range missiles or new air pitchers, it's like Putin's, like, don't, if you do this, like, there will be consequences. And then everybody's kind of like, you know, shaking and terrified. And I'm watching this, like, these guys are struggling in a war with Ukraine.

Like, why are we worried about, you know, Putin's response to us sending defensive? And then we'd finally do the thing. And then, of course, there's no repercussions for it because, like, frankly, I don't think they're very capable of much. And I don't want to get like arrogant and comfortable here. But I think it's, I think that is being borne out. Like if they can't win a war with Ukraine in three and a half years, you know, and it's basically a stalemate on even the borders, like the front lines of the war moving, I'm not particularly concerned about, you know, Putin as a threat to NATO or the United States. I just don't really see that as a real thing.

So I hope that Trump holds this line. I think it's important for him, too. I'm just like, you know, he has one conversation with the wrong person and all of a sudden he does another 180. I'm sort of like, how likely is that 20%? I don't know. Which, like, is a not good thing. To be clear, you know, it would be helpful if the president had some ideological rigidity

on something like this or... Ideological consistency, maybe is a better word, or like a clear North Star, because it's really hard to game plan if you're a European ally or Ukraine when it's just like, I literally don't know where he's going to be in a week. And I don't know how anybody could say that they know that confidently right now. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it would not be the most surprising thing to have ever happened if the president were to formally reverse himself. Although it does, as already described, feel like a kind of opening bid in the way that he often operates. So I would concur with all of that and also concur that to the extent there's anything at stake in this conflict, the thing to keep in the

forefront of our minds is you had a sovereign country that had plenty of defects that was invaded by a neighboring country who happens to have an absolutely awful record in virtually every imaginable way. And it is a good and just thing for there to be a coalition of people who are willing to assert confidently and loudly. And in a way that's consequential, that's unacceptable. We don't do that. And being able to have these different countries make determinations for themselves,

it's like, oh, we're going to enter into an alliance with another country. Entering into an alliance is not an aggressive act. Like, it isn't. In and of itself, like, that's fine. And that's all that, you know, is really alleged with respect to Ukraine and Russia. You don't, this notion of a kind of sphere of influence that must be respected, eh, within particular parameters. I think in this instance, it's pretty clear who the aggressor is.

And I think it's pretty clear, like, where it makes sense for the United States' loyalties to be, given the kind of constitution and priorities of the nation. And it just is interesting, though, in that statement, the careful calibration of language there by the president, who's not necessarily known for that, where Europe and the EU and NATO all get name checked as the entities that could help finally bring an end to this and help Ukraine win everything back. and, oh, yeah, we'll sell them some weapons. It just further highlights the transactional nature of this administration and his commitment to at least rhetorically, abiding by what he's been saying all along with respect to not getting the United States drug further into this conflict.

He's willing to push the envelope in other places like Venezuela where he thinks he can, but they're trying to be a little bit more careful here. Also, has anyone checked on J.D. Vance? How's he doing in light of all of this? says the reconciliation. The pit bull is still on its chain, I think. You'll bargain your up when the time comes. Have you said thank you, Ari?

I'm sorry, I haven't. I'm saying thank you now. Thank you, Camille. Thank you for raising that. Can I just say, actually, the calibration of the Trump post, I find, like, refreshing and awesome and I'm fully supportive of the framing that he's putting down.

Like, this is not a problem that the United States is going to solve alone. And I fully endorse the view that with NATO's help, Ukraine can win this war. I think that is the perfect line to take. Like, that is the line that he should be taking. I'm 100% on board with that. And I think it, you know, for all the whatever, the things we've been talking about on this show in particular, being critical of Trump about his approach and semantics and like, you know, our tastes and whatever, he has gotten results on this issue in particular.

NATO countries increasing the amount of money they're putting toward defense, the way that they're supporting Ukraine in particular, I think he has strengthened the alliance in tangible ways for the future, despite the fact that, like, what it took to get there, created a lot of stress and tension. I think the current NATO Secretary General would say that. So I think all of that is good. And I am happy to see Trump speaking in those calibrated terms. And I think he's right, by the way. Like I, this isn't, you know, like, it should be clear. When Trump says NATO has to do X, Y, and Z, that does or could potentially include U.S. forces. Like, we are part of NATO. NATO doesn't Army, he's talking about everybody, but like, you know, if we want to put 2,000 jets in the air

to go help Ukraine, like 50 of them might be from the U.S., but the other 100, 1,500, whatever, better be from Europe. And I think Trump's position there to take that tag, it's right and it's directionally correct, and I'm happy to see it. Because I don't think this is a war we want to get dragged into. But as a member of this alliance, I think it's a war that like we should be clear is worth fighting in some regards if X, Y, Z lines are cross or if Russia doesn't back down or whatever, you know. And I'm happy to see him saying that. I think a big important part of the world is at threat right now. And it's a good thing for Trump to be speaking this language. That's totally true. I think that's really worth saying.

And I'm glad you brought that up, as if we just take a step back, as we've been talking about tone, delivery a lot. And to a certain degree, when you set up and you just give an address to the UN General Assembly, that's a lot of what people are going to listen to. But when we look at, when we zoom back and look at results, it's true that NATO's arming more, that we're seeing better commitments from the U.S. towards NATO, that it looks like we're getting more support from your European allies right now. That's great.

A question that I kind of want to pose to you, Isaac, is if something were to happen, just hypothetically, if NATO and, sorry, if Russia were to have a drone, like, crash into a civilian building as it's flying over Poland or attack Lithuania or any number of things that could be seen as a direct, like, okay, that's an over-the-line moment that's going to require some response from NATO. what do you think would be an appropriate U.S. response as a NATO member state? I mean, I guess it depends. Like in a realistic war game scenario, my understanding is that we obviously have U.S. bases across Europe, so we would be part of some contingent that's responding to something like that. I think, to me, the important part is that, like, a door just open for us to justifiably go destroy part of Russia's Air Force in particular. And I think we would be justified in doing that and we should do that.

A, because I agree with Trump that I think there's a paper tiger thing going on. B, because the most important advantage that Russia has over Ukraine right now is its dominance of the skies and C, because I think we could probably do it with pretty limited repercussions. Again, like, I am... Putin's not crazy.

I think there are things about him that maybe are maniacal, but like the caricature of him as being like this totally unhinged, self-destructural, person like I don't I don't think are real I think he's a calculated individual and I think he probably understands the limitations of his army more than anybody right now so what's the U.S. role in that I don't know I guess it would depend you know like how many U.S. soldiers are in Poland and how many of them are actually getting in a F-150 and going on submission but like I'll tell you right now, if something like that were to happen,

if the NATO line got crossed in a real intangible way, I think it would be a huge, huge mistake to not respond with force. And I'm pretty pacifist. I'm not some neocon, but like the whole point of the alliance and the treaty is to say like, this is a big, bright, red line and here's what happens when you step over it and nobody needs that lesson more than Putin right now in my opinion so um i would trust that like i mean i pray that we have the kind of advanced military advantage that i think we have that we could respond to something like that by attacking a

few russian air force bases and doing serious damage to their ability to attack ukraine from the sky and cross into European territory from the sky, and that we should do that. And if we responded that way, I'd probably write supportively about it. Yeah, that's a strong answer. Do you have a different answer or response to that, Camille? I mean, I would generally agree. I mean, I think the context I might add to that is that we have recently had a slate of reports of drone incursions and various NATO.

countries. And today you've got Sergei Lavrov, who posted something about Europe essentially being at war with Russia via proxy in Ukraine and very strong intimations and even outright assertions that NATO member states ought to be shooting down these drones when there are incursions. I mean, all of that suggests that conversations around this are very relevant right now. and that we are obviously just going to need to pay a lot closer attention to what's happening and the shift of perspective from the President of the United States, at least rhetorically, and at least right now, is potentially very consequential. So for all of the conversations we've had about aesthetics and everything else,

like this is a very much a live ball, Europe had been kind of the loudest and most defiant voice. but this particular change suggests that there's more of a unified front than there has been for a while with respect to the United States' position and the potential outcome of this conflict. I think the only thing that I would add here is that a lot of, maybe this caveat goes without saying, but a lot of it depends on what the manner of the incursion would be in this case. If there were a direct violation of some NATO member states, sovereignty or direct attack or some, like, accidental drone crash. That would matter a lot.

And I would hope cooler heads to prevail on that circumstance. But I agree about the idea of, you know, we should continue to try to push a hard bargain with Putin. And if an opportunity, like, sorry, if not an opportunity, if there were some attack that arises, like that would potentially require a military response, that would be the time to try to make a targeted military strike in using our Air Force and try to regain air supremacy.

I thought that was a really good point, Isaac. So I'm going to take that opinion. That's my opinion now. I mean, yeah. And honestly, I don't think it's probably, it's probably not a particular popular point. I mean, I think I'd be curious to see how our audience would respond to that

or the country more broadly. I think a lot of people would be resistant to the idea of like, respond with force and risk world war three like it'd just be all that kind of talk again but yeah I just I don't I don't really know what other option you have that in the long term is sustainable

so I say it that is my answer and I say that with like no illusions about the seriousness of the implications there and what that can mean about the future I really hope Putin doesn't screw up but if he does

yeah I think it's like sometimes the big dog has to be the big dog and that's us and like I think you got to flex every now and then and like I it's unfortunate that's how the world is

but I do think that's like a pragmatic and realistic view about what's appropriate all right well look we're well over an hour Ari we had a whole segment teed up to talk a little bit about the response to your take on the on the Tylenol pregnancy autism piece do you want to just speak on

that for a couple minutes before we get into our grievances yeah and I can even make my statement here pretty short and just leave a little bit for you too to respond if you felt like you had something to say which is the last time that we talked about autism a bit we had or at least when I was Isaac was out so I was feeling a lot of responses from breeders at that time and and we got a lot of comments from people saying that it was one of three things. One, that we were promoting something that was offensive in that it was suggesting a eugenic stance

saying when we talk about profound autism, like these stage three, level, sorry, level three, like very severe, required, constant support throughout your life kinds of autism. When we phrase those as like problems to be solved, that it implies something eugenic. Also got responses that the increases in autism rates are 100% attributable diagnostics and also got responses saying that we're too forgiving towards Kennedy.

Road of Take that was sort of anticipated some of those responses, but was relatively similar to what we'd said or what I'd said a couple months ago that was similar and just said like this is we're seeing level three autism cases. rising. Yes, autism is being diagnosed more broadly, and that's corresponding with a large proportion, the majority even, of the cases of autism that we're seeing, but it's not all. And I think it's fair to say we should look for causes for these increases in the most profound autism cases. And the responses we got were pretty supportive. It was a very different tenor than what we got six months ago. There's one Reddit post where people are asking,

is this really the case and trying to poke holes in the argument, which I want to get to you later today, but in general, the kind of response that we got was different, and I thought that was pretty interesting, and I wanted to see what you guys would think about that. I mean, I was pleasantly surprised by the response to the piece. I thought on the whole, this topic is at this intersection of so many really kind of combustible things like pregnancy, autism, the sort of medical lane, like the, you know, COVID, what you're putting into your body, RFK Jr., MAHA, like there's just all these sort of landmines to step on.

I felt like the thing that sort of drew the most feedback or criticism from our readership had almost nothing to do with the topic itself or what you wrote. It was like, it was people saying that our format probably shouldn't be applied to scientific questions like this, which I thought was pretty interesting. And then started this whole like robust debate in our comment section about whether that was true or not. So, yeah, I mean, I was fairly surprised that it got, I mean, I thought it was a great piece. And I, you know, I didn't write a staff to center anything because I didn't have

any like clear major objections but um yeah it it did catch me off guard a little bit just how positively it was received which i thought was awesome um because when you read about something like this online or you log on to twitter or instagram it seems like all there is these people fighting in the comments so um you know maybe it's just how we broke it down and explained it uh but it yeah it didn't feel like a major diversion from some of our past coverage of RFK or autism that has generated much more backlash. So I don't really know what to make of that, to be honest. It's a little bit of criticism for the headline, too.

I'll add. That's also something that happened. But yeah, sorry, go ahead, Camille. No, just say briefly, and these are things we can talk about at a letter date. It is interesting that this is kind of the first big thing that RFK has done that a lot of people were deeply concerned about. And it's interesting that it seems to be a lot less dramatic than you might have expected. And I'm curious about how that process unfolded behind the scenes.

You had some high-profile firings and protests and the sense from within the bureaucracy. And for this to be the outcome is just genuinely interesting. And actually, I'll leave it there because we've got to get out of it. of here. And I'm putting something on my calendar in two months. I'm going to look back and see what's happening with Tylenone Autism. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of this. Oh, for sure. Yeah, I definitely don't think we have. All right, let's play the music, John. We'll cue up the grievances. The airing of grievances.

Between you and me, I think your country is placing a lot of importance on shoe removal. Who wants to go first today? I'll go first. I miss you guys. You were all hanging out here with me and all my friends are gone. It sucks. Everyone was just up in Vermont

for the staff retreat. It was a great time. It was a lot of work and it was a lot of us running around and doing stuff and was packed to the gills with work and hanging out. But like, I've got some friends up in Vermont.

I'm not like all by myself here, but it was really, really great to have all the co-working team, co-working in an actual physical sense. And I'm having like a chemical withdrawal from you guys. not being here anymore. It's sad. I miss you all. No, it was

a lot of fun. Vermont is beautiful. My very first time there and immediately, immediately felt the magic. Ari and I took a walk in the dark at night, in the woods and stargazing. A starlit stroll. Yeah. Yes, wonderful. Wonderful place. I will, I will be back.

Good. I don't know if I'll take the seven-hour train ride, though. I'm just saying. It was a ten-hour train ride for me. Awesome. Oh, that's fine. Yeah, I flew home, and in the middle of my plane, I'd, like, opened my computer and did five minutes of work, and the captain came on and announced that we were beginning our descent into Philadelphia,

and I said, I'm never taking that train ever again. Yeah. I'm crazy. It's funny, my grievance is actually tied to Vermont, too. It's like almost an inverse. It is, yeah, sorry, I know you're particular about how that words used. It was like Vermont was so good and the co-working space that R.A. works in was so beautiful that today I arrived to my co-working space in Philly and now it's like depressing. And I was like, this place sucks. Where's all the trees? Where's the lake?

like why don't I live in the Vermont co-working space which like Ari's in this insane co-working space that's just like there's like trees growing inside the building it's like the Lake Champlain's you know plaster you can see it every window you can see it there's a cafeteria there's a gym there's like cat free coffee and then like a cafe if you want to buy a fancy coffee and yeah I don't have any of that here

and I walked in and Audrey I said it to Audrey and Lindsay they're both here today in the office and I was like God it's kind of depressing you after being in Vermont and they were like

we were just talking about that yeah so yeah that's my grievance for the week you spoiled us rotten I was going to try really hard not to mention the Bipak discount

but maybe I just did I'm just going to leave alone that's a good one I'll leave it alone. I mean, this is the thing. I forgive Vermont. I had such a wonderful time and the place is so beautiful that I forgive Vermont. Apparently at the co-working space, they, in addition to hosting us and being wonderful,

you got to pay for a day pass when you're visiting, unless you're a bi-pac, in which case you get in free. And I think plenty of people will look at that and say, oh, you know, how nice. Like, how nice for you to not have to waste an extra five or $10? I think it was $10, maybe $5. I don't know. I didn't have to pay. So there's, is 35? Yeah, for a day pass, yeah.

Wow, unbelievable. So they really are digging in there. I think it's presumptuous. And I don't know. For someone to look at you in your face and actually, here's what I would say. Imagine someone walks by you and you're just on your way to the office or something. They say, here you go, man. God bless you.

And they just hand you like a dollar or some change. and they walk off. They put it in your cup. In your coffee cup, they perhaps still has macha latte in it because they imagine that you need their help. There's something inherently degrading about that. Inherently. And I know it isn't intentional. I know what their aspirations are, but this is the problem with the crude, abstract philosophy that gets you to the point where you see Camille walk in the door and you say, ah, God, what he needs is more free stuff. He can't possibly afford to pay. But everybody else, the lighter hue, you pay full freight. You shut up. I don't like it. Yeah. I don't like it. It was an especially funny juxtaposition to leave the

co-working space with you where you got your free Bipok pass and then have your brand new iPhone arrive shipped directly to the restaurant we're eating at or whatever. Yeah, the only person on the whole trip to have the latest iPhone arrived three days after it was released to the retreat was Camille Foster. Well, it was supposed to be there the day it released. How's that treating you, by the way? It was delayed in shipping.

Yeah. So it is treating me. It's treating me. I know. I know. You're right. It's treating me fine. I actually have to go pick up a case for it. I mean, there are definitely things I would complain about, but, you know, modern technology.

I think it's more camera than phone, and that's probably a good thing. Yeah, my brother-in-law got the iPhone air And he just says it's the worst product He's ever bought from Apple He can't stop complaining about it I'm not surprised to hear that He said the batteries dies instantly

And like nothing loads the way it should And he hates he's like, I can't believe I fell for this It's been pretty funny He'll like send a text and be like I open an app so I have 82% battery left And then five minutes later down to 74%. Like, I guess I'll talk to you guys later.

So, yeah. It's, you know, Apple sometimes misses, but it's rare. Yeah, yeah. I haven't touched it. I mean, I saw it in the store and just not interested at all. It seems like one of the worst products they've made in a while. I imagine there will be lots of returns. But that happened to the Vision Pro.

And I think, as you guys know, I am a big Vision Pro stand. I take the damn thing with me everywhere, even to Vermont. can confirm that happened yeah all right all right fellas well good hanging with you guys wish we were back in person but we'll do it again soon soon yeah thanks for hosting us again all right yeah it's wonderful time see you later our executive editor and founder is me Isaac saw and our executive producer is john wool today's episode was edited and engineered by dewey thomas our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback

and associate editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign them for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com. Thank you.