Tangle - Your criticism, my response.

Episode Date: April 8, 2022

Every once in a while, a newsletter we publish generates enough feedback and criticism that we feel it's necessary to follow up on it. In today's special Friday episode, we address feedback we received after our episode on the controversy surrounding Disney and Florida's so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill. You can read today's podcast here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. Today's episode is a special Friday edition. I'm doing something I usually don't do. I am recording a Friday edition for the pod because I'm responding to a bunch of reader feedback and criticism. And I thought, you know what, this is probably pretty important to put down in some audio form. I also decided to unlock today's Friday edition for all subscribers, not just paid subscribers,

but free subscribers too. Please, if you are listening to this right now and you are not a paid Tangle subscriber, please go do that. There is all sorts of awesome content that you don't get by being just on the free list. You can become a member at readtangle.com slash membership. While we do have a couple ads on the podcast, we really don't make that much money off of them. And subscriptions are truly the only way that Tangle really grows and can fund itself and stay independent. So yeah, please just consider doing that if you've been holding off. Make today the day. It's Friday. I know you're slacking off at work anyway. Take 30 seconds. ReadTangle.com slash membership. All right, let's get into it.

So every once in a while, a newsletter or podcast we publish generates enough feedback and criticism that I think it's necessary to follow up on it. The last time I did something like this was after I defended Joe Rogan and Spotify's decision not to de-platform him. That newsletter and podcast drew a ton of outrage, mostly from the left, as well as plenty of emails from readers informing me they were unsubscribing and would no longer be consuming my content. This time, I carved out a fairly strong position with the left, and the readers who wrote in upset and told me they were leaving were largely on the right, though quite a few angry liberals wrote in too, it should be noted. As I said a couple of days ago, my priorities with Tangle are the following. One, make sure you see a wide range

of political views from across the political spectrum. Fundamentally, this is about getting everyone out of their bubbles. Two, make sure the information you consume here is accurate and vetted. And three, when giving my own opinion, be as honest and as fair as I possibly can. Sometimes, even when I try to be honest and fair, I end up landing strongly on one side of the eye or the other. Sometimes I make mistakes. If I have a strong opinion about something, I view it as my responsibility to be honest about that, rather than hide behind an attempt to take some more centrist stance. Given all that, I also think I have a responsibility to address criticism head on. So that is what today is about. Before I begin, I'd like to note two things. First, I reached out to Christopher Ruffo, the conservative activist who has driven

a lot of the coverage about critical race theory in schools, the Florida parental rights and education bill, and news cycles about Disney. I invited him to come on the podcast and to sit for an interview for the newsletter that I was going to transcribe. His team declined. His assistant cited a very busy schedule, which seems like a legitimate excuse. He's probably a very busy guy. They told me it wouldn't free up for weeks. I promised I would follow up, and I will. I have criticized Rufo a lot, and I'd like to give him a chance to address those criticisms sometime on Tangle. Second, there is no doubt that I come to this conversation with my own biases. My politics are all over the place, but when it comes to LGBTQ issues, I see a lot more of my worldview on the left than I do on the right.

Many of my closest friends identify as LGBTQ. I love them with all my heart. as friends identify as LGBTQ. I love them with all my heart. And after reading through some of the feedback to this edition, I feel very inclined to defend their dignity and point out their humanity and importantly, to try and accurately represent what I understand their perspectives and experiences to be. There is no way around that reality. And I'm not trying to pretend otherwise. If you don't agree with me, all I can ask is that you read my writing or you listen to this podcast with an open mind and that you trust me when I say I have thought a great deal about these issues and I'm trying to approach them as fairly and openly on my end

as I possibly can. And for whatever it's worth, this isn't a particularly convenient position for me to take given the polling on this bill that shows a slim majority of Americans actually support it. So in a moment, you're going to hear some reader feedback and then my responses. When I say quote-unquote, that means that the feedback is a direct quote from a reader. It's a sign it's a verbatim response I got. Many readers also responded with similar feedback, and so in most cases, I have actually just tried to summarize their positions into one piece of criticism to address, I've done this as honestly as I possibly could.

Alright, first up, quote, Okay, so my response. upbringing, end quote. Okay, so my response. I sent a similar answer to a few different readers who made similar claims as this, but I think this one is just like the clearest and most direct. I also tweeted a little bit of a thread about this, but I want to do it again here. Let's take a step back. The arguments about Florida's parental rights in education, or don't say gay bill, whatever you want to call it, have gotten so convoluted that there's no longer any meaningful conversation happening on this issue. When this started, the actual debate that we were having was about whether we should prohibit teachers from teaching about gender identity or sexual orientation to kindergarten through third grade kids. I think everyone agrees that a school's primary role is to educate children in math, science, language, etc. The classics.

This is what I believe. It's what most conservatives and liberals I know also believe. I don't think anyone is saying we should abandon those things in favor of a woke curriculum or whatever else. A necessary role of schools, though, is also to create a safe learning environment to achieve that goal of educating our children. In my view, the bill in Florida is really about this. It's simply about parents wanting to know that their kids are in a safe environment. It's about parents wanting a steady stream of access to information about their kids from school

and about parents wanting to know that the school's curriculum is not doing some kind of damage to them. On one side of this debate is a group saying that in order to have a safe learning environment, we need to be able to discuss things like sexual orientation or gender issues when they arise. This side, whom I mostly agree with, is arguing that educators need to have answers and yes, maybe even age-appropriate curriculum to teach kids why, say, Kyle has two dads. The crowd that

labeled this the Don't Say Gay Bill argues that this legislation will make that harder to do. It will alienate already marginalized kids and families, and it will make it even more difficult for young kids to understand the LGBTQ community. It's worth pointing out that right now, gender identity and sexual orientation curriculum does not and did not exist in Florida's K-3 schools. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't discussed, but there was no curriculum in the state curriculum about gender identity or sexual orientation. On the other side are those supporting this bill. This group says that by engaging in this instruction or discussion at all,

we risk indoctrinating kids, convincing them that they are trans or gay or bi, and confusing them about their gender, making them think that they too might be different. Their position is that just by educating kids about this, we're taking a risk. They believe that we need to limit this kind of education to the parents and leave it up to them to navigate these issues. It is the parent's job. They want education about gender identity and sexual orientation kept out of K-3 schools entirely, and only in an age-appropriate manner in the years after that. Taken at face value, the latter group's calculation is that the risk is so great that rather than try to come up with a mutually agreed-upon curriculum or standard,

we should ban any curriculum around these issues outright until third grade. In order to address this concern, they made the proposal that was very controversial inside this bill. Quote, classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade three or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. This is the central tension. There is so much noise, but this is the whole issue. Critics, myself included, think that this one clause is overly broad and dangerous to the point

that it will chill any necessary classroom instruction or conversation about things that are very real, like gay and trans people, that kids are always going to have questions about. In other words, I don't think there is a legitimate question about whether we should educate kids about these issues. I do think there is a legitimate question about how to educate these kids about these issues. Parents who don't want schools educating their children on the issue want to do it themselves.

And parents who want that responsibility don't trust schools, other parents, or Disney to do that job for them. And I do think, to your point, the reader who sent this in, want that responsibility, don't trust schools, other parents, or Disney to do that job for them. And I do think, to your point, the reader who sent this in, it is important to be thoughtful about how we present material that touches on sexual issues to kids, including how LGBTQ characters or sexual scenes in Disney content might influence young children. Many people on the left actually have held this position for a long time and criticized classic Disney content for promoting unhealthy sexual dynamics. There's a link to a Teen Vogue piece titled Why These Disney Films May Help Perpetuate Rape Culture from 2017 that is in today's newsletter. That was a lefty position for a long time. So all this is to say, I think the critical issue here is not about how we should approach these conversations or whether we should be careful about how we navigate this stuff or how Disney is promoting these things.

Both sides actually kind of agree on that. The critical issue is whether the Florida bill is a good piece of legislation or not. If you believe that it is, as this reader seems to, then most things work out from there. Disney is bad for opposing it. They look guilty for backing it. If you don't believe it's a good piece of legislation, as I don't, then Disney looks good for taking a public stand against it. And it's worth reiterating here again that Disney never actually lobbied against this bill. They just sort of stated some opposition and put some

statements out there. My position is that it isn't either the parent's job or a school's job to make sure students can understand themselves, their bodies, and the world they live in. It is both of their jobs. It is society's job. It takes a village, as they say. We all have roles, and I think the school's role should be minimal, but it still exists. I certainly don't think there should be an outright ban on discussing these issues or having them inside curriculum in K-3 schools. That's the position that I have taken against the bill in Florida. Okay, next piece of criticism, and this is a summary, not a direct quote. You seem to be open-minded enough to change your mind about

issues over time. As far as I know, you don't have kids. My guess is that when you do, your mind on this issue will change. Okay, my response. A lot of people said this. Yes, I am not yet a parent, so it's impossible for me to say with any certainty that my mind won't change. Of course, I changed my mind about quite a few things even in the last couple years of writing Tangle. But I find two things about this critique pretty frustrating. First, just because I'm not a parent doesn't mean I can't have a well-informed criticism of the legislation in Florida, or the way this issue is playing out. It reminds me a little bit of people on the left who have told me that because I'm a white guy, I shouldn't write about issues related to race or policing. My job is to be open-minded, fair, and honest on all topics I

cover. It's to listen and learn and research and try to pass on the highest quality information I can. I'd wager that I've talked to more Americans across the political spectrum, educators, conservative parents, liberal parents, parents of trans kids, gay kids, trans parents, gay parents, pastors, rabbis, Republican lawmakers, whatever you want, about LGBTQ issues than pretty much anyone I know outside of activists who spend every day of their lives on this issue. I just can't accept that my not having a child means I can't have an opinion that is valuable or legitimate to enter into this conversation. Number two, I think responses like this have some very strong undertones that being gay or trans is inherently bad.

It seems important to me to call this out. I know and love a lot of very happy, healthy, thriving LGBTQ people. When I hear people say that I'll really understand this when I have kids, I get the feeling that they're really saying, quote, when you have kids, you'll realize how scary it is that they may identify as LGBTQ. This gives me a deep sense of sadness. If my children grew into any one of the LGBTQ people that I'm friends with, I'd be thrilled, elated, blessed. My real concern is that if I ever have a child who identifies as LGBTQ, they'd live in a world where they were bullied, ostracized, discriminated against, or otherwise treated badly because of that identity. That is the thing that I'm worried about. Okay, next one. Young kids are impressionable. By teaching them about gay or trans people in K-3,

you are opening the door to them being confused about their own gender or sexual orientation before they even reach puberty. This can have long-term negative effects. Okay, there are two things about this criticism that I also find quite frustrating. First, this argument is kind of striking for what it implies. Remember, a lot of the people who are most supportive of the LGBTQ community are also people who believe gender is a social construct. A lot of people who believe that all trans people are simply mentally ill believe that gender is immutably tied to sex. The position just seems contradictory to me. A lot of people seem to simultaneously think that gender and sex cannot be divorced from each other, yet also believe that

merely learning about gender might influence someone to separate it from their sex. Doesn't the possibility of separating gender identity from sex imply that gender actually is a social construct? Of course, this is not a simple thing. Separating gender entirely from sex would be a silly exercise, just as pretending the two are the same is also a silly exercise. My point is that the first trans or gay person didn't come to be because someone came up with the concept and presented it to them. And it seems far more likely to me that awareness about LGBTQ issues is simply making more people more comfortable and safe with openly identifying that way, not creating more members of the LGBTQ community. Second, there is the rather obvious counterpoint here that even if kids are exposed to gay

characters in Disney or some first grade friendly curriculum about trans folks, the vast, vast majority of everything they see around them is still going to be your standard heteronormative stuff. The idea that being exposed to this content is going to convert them rather than simply clarify things about themselves or the world around them seems pretty specious to me. Okay, a good analogy might be left-handedness. Did you know, for instance, that people used to discriminate against lefties? As recently as 2015, there was still one teacher who thought being lefty meant you were being possessed by an evil force. There was actually a Washington Post article about this teacher sending a kid home and telling them to learn to write with their right hand.

Yet, once it became more acceptable, more and more people began identifying as left-handed. The number of lefties grew until it hit 12% and then it basically plateaued. There wasn't a social contagion effect of left-handed people, there was just the reality that they existed and society's evolution toward accepting them. I can even add a personal anecdote to this. My entire life, I would have these very bizarre, recurring experiences where specific things like watching somebody use a pen they borrowed from me or speaking to a secretary who spoke in a very calm and deliberate tone would flood me with an overwhelming sense of calm. In old journals, I would describe it as if someone was pouring warm sand on the back of my head, literally, and as I became more attuned to it, I could actually feel my heart rate dropping when it happened. and as I became more attuned to it, I could actually feel my heart rate dropping when it happened. The experience was so weird that I never spoke to a single person about it.

I never even tried to explain it to my closest friends. By my early 20s, after tons of research online that I did in private, I started to think that maybe I was on some kind of autistic spectrum or experiencing the result of an old brain injury. Then one day, shortly after one of these episodes, I went on one of the Google quests I'd done probably a dozen times before trying to figure it out, and I typed in sounds that feel good and was immediately presented with a top research result, Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response, ASMR. There were entire communities of people dedicated to this thing I had, research papers, very weird YouTube channels. It was all right there the whole time, but I'd never found it before. I didn't have the words or understanding

to explain what I was experiencing, but it was still happening. I don't think someone reading about ASMR is going to give them ASMR. I think the existence of this information helped me put words and definitions and gain context for something that kept happening to me, but I could not understand well enough to explain to anyone else. All right, before we get to the next one, take a brief break, a little interlude, take a breath, get some water for a message from our sponsor. All right, next criticism that I got. There is research about the social contagion effect related to rapid onset gender dysphoria. I've seen my own kids question their gender identity or sexuality as a means of social

inclusion. Putting this stuff in a school curriculum is only going to make the issue worse. So a lot of people actually wrote in with really similar things. Again, this is a summary of a few pieces of feedback that I got. I cannot deny that this research about rapid-onset gender dysphoria happening in a sort of social contagion effect exists. I can tell you that the research is very controversial and tied almost exclusively to teenage girls who are going through puberty,

not K-3 children who are really what we're talking about here. Of course, I also can't deny that your kids are announcing they're non-binary or gay as a means of fitting in with other kids who identify as LGBTQ. But, after decades and decades of gay and trans folks being ostracized, discriminated against, othered, and often violently attacked for who they are, I also can't deny that I think there's something redemptive and beautiful about an upcoming generation viewing the LGBTQ community as cool or embracing those folks with loving arms rather than bullying and excluding them. Still, I don't even think it matters how you slice it from my position on the bill in Florida or the controversy around Disney. If you believe that, say, there's a social

contagion effect happening among kids around gender identity, then the best solution is not to pretend that LGBTQ issues don't exist or to act as if trans people aren't real. It's to educate the children. How many times do we have to learn this lesson? The obvious parallel, the first one that comes to mind, is sex education, which, by the way, is different than what we're talking about. Nobody is saying we should teach sex ed to kindergarten through third grade children. But we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that teaching about sex at the onset of puberty is

the best way to promote safe and healthy sexual lives. Many groups spent decades thinking that we could promote abstinence only or just ignore the issue altogether. Some still do believe this. They were and are wrong. Abstinence-only education as a means of keeping children from having either sex or unwanted pregnancies is a failure. Trying to shelter kids from the very real existence of LGBTQ people will also be a failure too. Next, quote, It is the role of a parent, not corporate America or Hollywood, to have these conversations with their children. Let's get back to what schools are for, end quote.

My response. I actually agree with this. I also think this position can coexist with mine, which is A, that some parents skirt this responsibility, and B, no matter how big a role parents play in their kids' lives, they're still going to have questions about this stuff, even at a young age, and it's going to come up in school, too. I think it's important to remember how all this came about, and I can't emphasize this enough. There is no curriculum in Florida about gender identity or sexual orientation. The health-related classroom instructions about brushing teeth and eating meals with your families. The bill banned something that

wasn't part of the curriculum. So for me, this was a solution looking for a problem, and it introduced the mechanism for parents to sue schools if they thought they were in violation of this new standard for there to be absolutely no classroom instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation. At some point, it's worth looking to the educators for guidance here. And based on conversations I've had with K-3 teachers, as well as the reactions from some of the most respected teachers in the country, it seems obvious to me that educators are very worried about yet another challenge to have to navigate in the classroom. All right, our next piece of feedback. Quote, I am disappointed in so many things in your take on this issue. My number one disappointment is how you repeatedly stress that the people who

oppose this bill are being vilified as groomers or predators. It is completely wrong for those opposed to the bill to be characterized as such, but you failed to even mention how those of us who support the bill are being characterized as transphobic, homophobic, and essentially compared to hate groups. That is equally wrong, and it has been going on for years to label and shame some individuals who oppose any pro-LGBTQ legislation. Please call out the hypocrisy and hysteria on both sides. I thought that's what your newsletter was about. My response. I think this is a very fair criticism. And it's an important point for those on the left to know right now. Saying people who support this legislation are literally murdering trans people or labeling them as obviously homophobic or

transphobic invites the kind of degradation of rhetoric, which encourages the other side to start calling you a pedophile or a groomer. I know many of the people who support this legislation are kind and decent people. Some are even ardent supporters of the LGBTQ community. Yes, it's true. I happen to think they're wrong about the upside of this bill, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily hateful people or responsible for violence against LGBTQ Americans. I should have pointed this out in my initial piece, and it's a good example of my bias coming through in my take, and I apologize for it. Okay, next. I don't think calling Democrats or LGBTQ people groomers is necessarily a direct reference to pedophilia. I did not take it that way.

I view it more as grooming them politically, to be socially progressive, to believe things like there are more than two genders, or to be brainwashed into believing that being trans or gay is normal. Okay, I got feedback like this from a lot of people. Look, if it's not about calling people pedophiles or insisting that Democrats, teachers, Disney, and LGBTQ Americans want to sexualize kids and convert them, then find a different word to use. Then don't use the word groomer. By introducing this legislation, is Republican Governor Ron DeSantis just grooming kids to be Republicans? Why isn't he described that way? Probably because it's not about shaping a child's political ideology. That's not the accusation. I think to me it's pretty clear what they're doing. On top of the dog whistling to the QAnon community that already believes Democrats run child sex rings, I think there is an abundance of context here that is worth considering. Calling LGBTQ people and their allies groomers and insinuating that they are going to prey on

your children is a decades-old stereotype. It was extremely popular framing and has been around since Anita Bryant. This stuff is not new. If you believe kids in K-3 shouldn't hear anything about gender identity or sexual orientation in class, that is a reasonable position to take. But the new framing that is coming from a lot of conservative activists and sitting politicians that everyone from Hillary Clinton to Disney to Katonji Brown Jackson to progressives more broadly are soft on pedophiles or literally running child sex rings is disgusting and dangerous, and it should be condemned. Kudos to prominent conservative pundits like David French who have called it out and done that. A lot of people wrote in saying something like,

I don't hate gay people, and I wish them no ill will, but I do believe that homosexual activity itself is a very serious sin, and that God created men and women. I don't think that we should be teaching young kids that being gay or trans is acceptable. My response. I've written about my religious views and how they relate to issues in the LGBTQ community. I doubt I'm going to change any minds if your faith ties you to the belief that homosexuality is a sin that needs to be eradicated in this world to thrive in the next. All I can do is ask you to truly reflect on whether your religious adherence is being used by others as a cover for homophobia or not. A lot of things are prohibited in the Bible, and I find it illuminating that so many religious folks spend so much of their time focused on one

particular biblical sin over others. There is a famous and very Aaron Sorkin West Wing clip that people like to reference about this phenomenon. There's a famous and very Aaron Sorkin West Wing clip that people like to reference about this phenomenon. There's a link to it in today's newsletter. God also insists that we welcome people with love and view his creations as made in his image, and I like to believe that a society that treats LGBTQ people with love and dignity is much more holy than one that doesn't. Another really popular criticism I got from people is, just because kids being influenced by teachers to think of themselves as gay or trans may be rare, doesn't mean it never happens.

I don't see any reason why we should wait around for it to become a problem before addressing it with legislation like this. What's the actual cost of this bill if, as you claim, this stuff isn't being taught in schools now? Great. This is a good question. I think a helpful point. It's one people made in my response to critical race theory when I took a similar line about my concern that Republican legislators were prohibiting something they didn't need to prohibit because it didn't exist. Here's how I think about this. I am a free speech enthusiast. One of the things that I talk about when I write in favor of free speech

is not just laws that allow for free speech to prosper, but a culture of free speech. These are two separate things. When a conservative speaker shows up to give a lecture at a college campus and students come out in mass to shout them down, effectively preventing the speech from happening, his free speech rights haven't technically been violated. Two groups were exercising their speech

and one side won. But an event like that also demonstrates the erosion of a free speech culture and the kind of erosion that throughout history has inevitably led to the state actually preventing speech. In this case, I think it's worth thinking about the cultural impact of this legislation. Let's say, for argument's sake, that this bill has almost zero negative impact in the classroom. Let's say, for hypothetical purposes, that no parent ever uses this law to file a frivolous lawsuit against a school, no teacher ever feels scared to address a student's question about an LGBTQ-related issue, no kid is ever made to feel ostracized because his classmates don't understand his family structure, nothing bad at all in the classroom happens as a result of this bill.

I think all of that is supremely unlikely, but even if it were true, I'd still oppose this legislation. Why? Because, well, look around. Look at the cultural impact it's having. Look at the Florida governor's press secretary calling it an anti-groomer bill and being cheered on by other conservatives. Look at the division it is causing in the Florida state legislator and nationally. Look at how it has further degradated the political discourse. Look at how much more it has entrenched each side against

each other, one side now accusing the other side of being responsible for LGBTQ suicides, and the other side responding by alleging those people want to brainwash their kids. Did the bill help? Did it make classrooms safer? Did it make teachers' jobs better? Did it unite parents? Is it serving students? Has the conversation improved? Has anything in Florida gotten better? The obvious answer to all of these questions, to me, seems like no. And I think that was all pretty predictable. So even in a best-case, fanciful scenario about the tangible impacts this bill has had in the classroom, I still think the bill's immediate cultural impact was overwhelmingly

negative. All right, just to make sure you don't think I'm a total masochist, here is some positive feedback about the addition I got that I think is worth highlighting. Quote, I missed this Tangle article yesterday. It was very interesting. As a Baptist pastor and a Republican, I don't care for the direction that society as a whole is heading. However, I cannot expect a society moving away from Judeo-Christian values to embrace my beliefs. This is not a good reason to drop my subscription to Tangle. Just

because we do not agree is not a reason to leave. end quote. Another one, quote, the reason why I subscribed to this publication was to get all sides of an issue, so I know what is going on. I see no value in just getting my beliefs reinforced by commentary I already agree on. I watch a lot of news clips on YouTube. This is because I can watch multiple news videos on the same subject from different viewpoints. Tangle does this better than any other news or publication I have found, end quote. Next one, quote, thank you for stating your take so plainly, Isaac. My hope is that the balance you demonstrate over such a wide variety of political topics helps some other people who

might otherwise simply defer to their party's line on this issue consider the ridiculous and dangerous position leading conservative voices have taken on this subject, end quote. Last one, finally, quote, thanks for this, Isaac. I am a fairly conservative mom of five, and I certainly have concerns about schools, not the least of which are actual education quality, but also the potential introduction of gender dysphoria or race essentialism to young kids, which is why we homeschool, and my husband and I both work. It's kind of nuts. That said, I think you hit the nail on the head here. This whole thing is so overblown by both sides. It's kind of nuts. That said, I think you hit the nail on the head here. This whole thing is so overblown by both sides. It's just getting tiresome.

The climate of black and white thinking prevents any productive conversations and drives us all further and further apart. And the people who consider themselves more center as I do are left very disoriented. Hard to imagine where we'll be when my kids grow up. to imagine where we'll be when my kids grow up. All right, that is it for today's podcast, this special Friday edition. Like I said at the top of the episode, please, if you want to support this work and make it more available and widely read and all that good stuff, just subscribe. ReadTangle.com. You can click on the membership in the top bar or just go to readtangle.com membership all right thanks everybody and we'll be back here same time on monday our newsletter is written by isaac saul edited by bailey saul sean brady ari weitzman

and produced in conjunction with tangle's social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, who also helped create our logo. The podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn, and music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com. you