TRIGGERnometry - My Trans Twitter Spat With J.K Rowling - Caolan Robertson

Episode Date: April 3, 2024

Caolan Robertson is a filmmaker and journalist who co-founded Byline TV and directed films such as ‘Betrayed: The Truth About Brexit’ and ‘Under Deadly Skies: Ukraine's Eastern Front’ (watch on Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CGYFFT89). He was very recently embroiled in a heavily-publicised fracas involving trans activist India Willoughby and JK Rowling. Caolan on X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/CaolanRob SPONSORS: Buy gold and earn interest on it! https://monetary-metals.com/triggernometry/ Shopify - sign up for a £1 per month trial at https://www.shopify.co.uk/trigger/ Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During the interview India revealed that they'd called the police on JK Rowling and that J.K. Rowling could be arrested. And then J.K. Rowling responded to it and I ended up just calling J.K.R.R.A. K. And obviously, I apologize the next day and then she responded. And I think she's been driven to breaking point, actually. Over time, the longer you spend on Twitter, it naturally, I think you just get drawn down more of kind of extreme rabbit holes. It is seen on the left on Twitter as okay to call J.K. Rowling, a c. Because we don't see, people as human beings on the other side of our politics anymore. So, Kalen, welcome to Trigonometry.

You are in the process of leaving Byline Times following a conversation that you hosted with India Willoughby, who's, by the way, former guest of our show, although it was a very different India Willoughby that came on our show, I think, it's fair to say. And then there was a big spat with J.K. Rowling involved and some nasty things being said, and apologies and whatever. So why don't you tell us what happened? So I've ran Byline TV for four years. It's a little bit different to the paper. It's editorially. It was something I was deciding, you know, who we interview and who we have on the shows. And I saw on Twitter that J.K. Rolling had misgendered India, if that's what you want to call it,

called him a man. And it was in the news and it was really shocking, apparently to a huge number of people. So I DM'd India and said, hey, do you want to come on Byline TV and talk about this? And they accepted, got a train down the next day. Because I just thought this is a really newsworthy thing. This is what I've been doing for the last four years is covering things that are current, interesting, generally culturally interesting. There was not really an agenda or anything behind it.

And during the interview, India revealed that they'd called the police on JK Rowling and that JK Rowling could be arrested, which is a huge, just basically a huge story, right? it was shocking to hear. So I rushed out and put that out. J.K. Rowling has definitely committed a crime. I'm legally a woman. She knows I'm a woman and she calls me a man.

Well, I've been to the police and I've reported it as an issue. I contacted Northumbria constabulary yesterday. So you reported J.K. Rowling. I have reported J.K. Rowling. to the police for what she said. Calling a trans person, a man, deliberately, knowing that that person is a woman, and I am a woman, regardless of what J.K. Rowling says. I've been through everything that's required of me. My birth certificate says female, my passport, all of my documents. It is a hate crime and it should be treated just as somebody calling a black person the N-word or an Asian person

person, the P word. Something I expected to get coverage in the press, maybe a million views, but it exploded way beyond anything I'd ever posted in my like political life on the left or the right. With something like 21 million views in a day and then J.K. Rowling responded to it and was like, oh, this is nonsense, this is poor journalism, this is garbage. And then started personally attacking me for the whole day with 11 personal tweets, Googling my passed, saying was a grifter, saying that I, and then literally was, was, was tweeting my response to the interview saying that I was calling India a hymn, which I literally wasn't,

if you watch the video, it says them. I used journalistic integrity. I questioned them about the rise of detransitioners. I questioned them about some of the darker side of the trans community, which I think was just trolling and just trying to basically take the piss and just try to turn and everyone against me and just cause a massive shit show, which was really overwhelming. Like, I've never been at the center of a culture debate like that before. I've never had it where someone, as big as JK Rowling is, like, personally attacking me for even something I didn't do. And I think the interview was justified, like, as a journalist, interviewing someone

about something that they've done reporting a massive celebrity to the police is fairly normal. It's a fairly standard process. So I just, I found that just a really extreme unhealthy situation. I've never spoken or gotten involved in the trans debate before. I've always talked about Brexit. On the right, it was immigration, it was culture. But I've never really put my foot in that and didn't realize how fucked up it was until that day. And then India started getting really angry and tweeting about me because I, I guess, misgendered them, which I didn't.

And then the trans-right activists were coming after me, the JK Roll. fans were coming after me. And it was just like an absolute shit show. And I kind of, I guess this is why no one else really in the journalism sphere gets involved and has a lot of these conversations because of how toxic it's all become. And it kind of amalgamated with so much vitriol. I just started losing the plot. Like I couldn't really cope with it. I mean, I was getting messages from family, from school friends who were being DM'd from like Instagram and my Facebook pages from JK Rowling fans and trans-right activists saying just like absolute abuse and I ended up just calling JK Rowley a cut because she was I felt like she was trolling me

completely constantly to like breaking point which is obviously she's not a cutoff but I think she knew what she was doing in trying to like derail the interview derail the whole thing undermine me byline everything And I think it was just, I think it just broke in the end. Why do you think she was doing that? Because it's quite a strong allegation to make against Jake O'Reilly. My experience of her statements in public has been that she's quite moderate actually, given someone who takes way more abuse than even you experienced than that one incident.

I don't blame her. I think what she's been through is extreme and the harassment and her entire legacy attempted to be undermined by trans right activists and LGBT people is horrific and undeserved. And it wasn't really until a few days after. And obviously, I apologize the next day. And then she responded three, like, really, really gracious responses being like, this was completely like, out of nowhere for Kaelin to apologize. I didn't ask for this.

I really appreciate it. We all say things we regret. And I realized that she's, like, I mean, that was lovely. And I think she's been driven to breaking point, actually, by all of this stuff from the last few years. And I think when she sees an interview with someone who's basically trying to get them arrested, she's going to go, I think she just flipped and she was just furious and she was just trying to throw it all back. I mean, the whole trans debate is so unbelievably vitriolic and toxic. And I would even say more so from the TRA side that I don't, I guess I don't blame J.K. Rowling for feeling the

way she felt and for going after me. And, you know, I've been against, like, the horrid culture war, vitriolic, you know, Twitter behavior for the last few years, I can't stand all of that. I tried to stay out of it. And even I became like that. I became one of those horrible people that night when I tweeted that, too, just from being in it for a day. So I can't imagine what she's been going through. But yeah. I'm guess what I'm curious about is why you think her response was an attempt to undermine the interview and attack you personally, because if somebody had done a piece about me that had someone come in who's clearly mentally unstable, who'd claimed to have reported me to the police for what is clearly not a crime,

I'd make fun of that whole thing too. So I guess I'm curious that you think this was kind of an attempt to attack you and undermine you. Why you think that? Well, I think I was just an interviewer asking what has happened in the last 24 hours, India said she had reported JK Rolling to the police. So I didn't have a stake in it. I didn't have an opinion in it. I didn't say, oh, that's great. Let's go and watch the arrest. There wasn't a piece in it that I had. And I've never gone against people like JK Rolling in the past. So I think it was an attempt to basically just shut that whole thing down. She was probably annoyed at me for even speaking to India and even giving that person any airtime. And I think,

I think it was pretty unfair, but I understand why she did it, and I understand the point that she's at, of just being absolutely done with all of this. So it's difficult. Kaelan, one thing that I find quite bizarre is that you didn't realize how toxic this was. As someone who's very much lived in the online space, you must have been aware that you were stepping into, you know, the most toxic debate. on the internet at the moment? Well, in my entire track record, I've never set foot in that debate. I've never made a comment about it. And I thought, as an interviewer at the other side of the table,

who's literally just asking questions, that I would have a separation to that. I'm not giving commentary or opinion. So it seemed relatively safe. It might be a little bit spicy. It might be like a news report. But I didn't expect it to be that intense. And to have someone with that many followers.

And, you know, Elon Musk was liking tweets about me that she was putting out. I mean, it was all over the place. And I didn't expect that, and I didn't expect it to be personal. So, and I don't think most people would if they were just doing an interview with someone and not passing opinion. Fair enough. So you tweeted what you tweeted. You then apologized.

She very graciously accepted. Then what happened? Well, I'm basically just done with, I've worked for left wing and writing media for like nearly a decade now. And it has been, it's been, there's been amazing points. been points that have been made great work and I'm really, really proud of it and added stuff to the world that I think are good films and good pieces of content. But I think it takes its toll massively on someone whose job it is basically to constantly be responding to what's going on in the news and constantly being on Twitter and constantly being part of debate. And it's

gotten extremely toxic recently. So I'm just going to take a break for six months. I'm not going to do any work for six months. And I'm going to probably start my own network, something down the middle, something that isn't left or right or up or down or pro or anti-trans, something right down the middle that people can make up their own minds about. And just going back to making good films, because it's really easy when you're on the internet, even if you're a journalist, this is why so many people get involved in it, to go down rabbit holes and to start chasing clicks and start chasing likes and start following where the drama is and where the attention is. Before you know it, you become the thing that you was the opposite of what you set out to

be. And that keeps happening. And I think the algorithms keep pulling you that way. And I just want to go offline for about six months. I think that's what most people need to do right now as well. Just unplug. Just disappear. Keep watching. Like and subscribe. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, I think most people that are really hyper-engaged in Twitter that I know on the left and right still are burnt out, exhausted, becoming more angry and becoming just, just vitriolic and feeling the same way that I've been feeling about everything. And I think everyone needs to spend more time off Twitter, at least for breaks, because it's become one of the most toxic places I've ever seen, much more than when I was on the right.

Really? I think so. As in 2016 to 2018. I think now it's more extreme. I think Elon Musk taking over was a good thing because it means that everyone now has the same platform, everyone now has the same voice, but the media industry has collapsed even more. journalism has become more crap. The BBC are no longer in funding actual investigations anymore. They're not doing real journalism anymore. And they're basically leaving the entirety of society

to debate and have all these conversations between each other. So I'm mainly blaming the media for this. It's got nothing really to do with the algorithms. And I think it's just caused everyone to go insane. And it's not a healthy environment. I mean, it was a good thing 30 or 40 years ago when we could sit down and get our news from news reporters who, you know, gathered information all day, did it on the ground, actual old-fashioned proper reporting like panorama used to be, and then delivered that news, you'd watch it, you'd get your information, wasn't always perfect, and then you'd go and live the rest of your life with your family and put food on your table. Now it's like you have to do all of your research yourself, you have to argue with a thousand

people on Twitter before you get to a conclusion, and you have to almost throw yourself into a culture war just to get your news from your own news feed. And I feel like it's, I think it's just basically broken how we even understand society anymore. It's made people more insane. We don't really know what to believe anymore. And it's an unhealthy place to be. And as somebody who has created content for a long time, have you found yourself being pulled to one direction or another because you know that that's going to generate more views? You know that it's going to generate more revenue, etc. I try, more so on the right, I was creating more outrageous content for views. It wasn't really about money.

I mean, I was always working for people with a set salary that was very small. So it didn't matter if they got more or less views. I would always get the same amount of money. But there is an excitement, I think, naturally, to generate more clicks and to do something that more people see. It makes you feel like you have more of an impact. So a lot of the time, you know, when I was working with Tommy Robinson, we would, our content would become more leveled up. Because we knew that it would get more clicks. It wasn't the case with, you know, when I was working with Lauren Souther and people like that.

I just pause you there. You say more leveled up. What does that mean? Well, when you're writing scripts and talking about Islam, it would be, you know, we would just use rhetoric that would become a little bit more outrageous because I guess I knew it would, you know, more people would watch it. And then we'd have more of an impact. And then we'd have more of success with our message. You know, it wasn't this completely insidious thing. It was just, that's almost the marketing tool you have to use to become more successful and to have a bigger audience and then to get your message out. Mostly, though, I mean, the work that I was most proud of, you know,

was things like with farmlands or with some of those documentaries that were considered that took a long time, that were actually adding something to public debate, the film I made in Ukraine that actually added to public debate series considered things. But those are great, but over time, the longer you spend on Twitter, naturally, I think you just get drawn down more of kind of extreme rabbit holes. This is why no one's really doing real journalism. anymore as well, I don't think. I think this is why everyone's atomizing and going independence, why, you know, Megan Kelly has a commentary show now instead of doing the original journalism

she used to do. I think it's why everyone's splitting off and breaking off from their networks because they're saying more and more outrageous things like, you know, Candice Owens, all these other people. I think it's atomizing everyone and causing everyone to be on a rat race, to be the leader of who can say the most outrageous extreme things to get the most engagement so that they can have the biggest message. It doesn't necessarily mean it's always a bad thing, because having more reach is good for everyone. But the mental health impact, I think, is devastating. And I think it can just break people. It can cause them to become horrible. And I felt like that myself. You definitely can. What's interesting to me is I think there's a big role for personal

responsibility in all of this, because 20 years ago, if you put more outrageous things in the newspaper headline, it would also sell more newspapers. But there would have been somebody in their editorial team who would have said, no, no, we can't do this. And I certainly don't feel that we've become more extreme over time. I've become much more measured in what I post on Twitter over time and how I consume Twitter as well. So I think there's a big role for your own things. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com. I want to take you back to your conversation.

with India because you say you just did an interview, which from one perspective is true. But I think the very nature of the trans discussion is such that it's actually very difficult to do an interview with somebody without at least to some people taking a position. For example, you said you didn't call India him, but I thought I saw a video that you did in. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm happy to be corrected. But throughout this conversation, you've called India Them, which is to me, no offense to you personally, but just as a position, is even more ridiculous than because India is not a them. There is no them, right? Do you see what I mean?

Well, I know. So, sorry, just to finish the point. So by doing an interview with somebody that you then defend on that basis or whether you talk about India as of them later, you have already major. yourself part of the way the conversation is being had. No, I think if calling India a she is taking one side of the culture war and calling India him is taking one side of the culture war. Calling India them is basically not referring to them as either of those things. Them isn't a thing. It's basically just a neutral term, which I think is the way to, I think is the most neutral way that you can come out.

That's interesting. So, well, the most neutral thing. I think it's the most neutral way that you can come about it. Well, yes, but it's kind of like, look, obviously people might disagree with this, but it's kind of like saying, you know, it's like what the BBC said, BBC said, well, we're not calling Hamas terrorists because we were trying to be neutral. There is a truth that you have to acknowledge. Like, India is male. So India was born male. India identifies as another gender now. I might not agree. You might not agree with what those things are. So them is just. It's an abstract term and then it takes away the whole gender issue. Yeah, I don't think it does. Yeah, yeah.

Also, Hamas are terrorists. Right, and India is male. So India was born male. But still is male. You can't change whether you're male or not. Well, this is what's difficult. Like, is it, is it an aggressive, is it a rude, is it, is it a mean thing to call someone who looks like a woman a male? I mean, I don't think it's, you know, when Blair White was being interviewed by Candice Owens on Dave Rubin's show, and Candace kept saying you're a man.

I thought that was horrible. Blair clearly looks like a woman. And I don't, and I think even if India doesn't look quite the same as Blair, it means that it's okay to just call him. But I'm not saying you're a man to India's face. I'm just saying when you talk about India in our conversation, to many people, you being unwilling to effectively be honest about what the truth is, will be seen as taking a position. Well, I think removing myself, because I'm supposed to be a journalist in this, removing myself from that whole debate is saying they are they and they are there. because that's not the non-binary thing. That's just referring to them as if I said India instead of them.

And it just takes it away because that's not what I'm trying to. I'm not trying to get involved in the culture war. If I said she, the right ruling people would be annoyed. If I said him, then the trans-right activists would be annoyed. And that's not the debate that I'm trying to get into. So I think it's the neutral proper way to talk about musicians. I would argue your experience demonstrates otherwise. Maybe.

You know. You know, listening to experience, on the one hand, I go, this is absolute insanity, where we've come to as a society, that we're sitting down and having this conversation. On the other hand, I'm going, well, you know, what did you expect in a way? And what does I really say about society and journalism that this is the hottest topic? If you're looking around at our society, you're looking at wars breaking out. You're looking at people struggling to afford the basics of life. Housing crisis, whatever it may be, political system not being fit for purpose.

What do you think is so incredibly toxic about this issue? Well, generally, politics has become more toxic, just all across the board. Even if you're talking about Ukraine, then you get called, you know, it's all called a proxy war or you're called anti-put. That's become completely toxic. You can't talk about Palestine or Israel anymore. without death threats. You can't talk about almost any subject. This is just slightly hotter than that because we're very bougie in Britain and we like to talk about local issues and things that are that are easy and that's what journalism is focusing on. But I mean, I get told by so many people,

well, what did you expect? Why did you just not have this conversation? Why did you just not get involved in this? Why did you just not cover this story? And I'm like, well, maybe that's also one of the reasons that it's so difficult to talk about and it's so bad because people just expect you not to get into it and not to talk about it and to have it as an issue that we ignore. And I think that's unhealthy as well. But generally, everything has become more fucked, working on the left and the right and seeing all of the different dynamics and all of the different subjects, it's become almost impossible to discuss anything on Twitter anymore. Because we've all just, we all just hate each other now. You know, people are not actually that horrible in real life. You know, people on the

left who have worked with recently who are really high-profile figures, can be. be absolutely lovely and loyal behind the scenes who I'll probably have friends for the rest of my life. And it's the same with people on the right. But as soon as they get their phone out, they become completely different people. And they become incapable of even seeing the other side as human beings, seeing the other side as normal. Even when I left the right and started working on the centre left, there were so many people that would say, you should never have left, you know, you should never work again, who would make massive complaints that I should never be able to be employed again, never mind, make news again on those spectrums, because they don't see people

who engage in debates about things like immigration or free speech as human beings who should be allowed to even exist to work anymore. And that's completely fucked too. So it's just been completely devastating to see. It looks like the kind of decline of civilization and society through the internet. And I don't think it's going to get any better. But the trans debate, again, it's no better than the Palestine-Israel debate. It's no different to the Ukraine. Russia debate. I think it is different for the reasons that we just tried to discuss, which is the problem, the reason the trans debate is so toxic is it's kind of indicative of a broader thing where we've become a society that prioritizes being nice over being honest. And so the them,

the them, that's why I picked up on this, right? It's like we had India on the show and we were very respectful and welcoming and blah, blah, blah. But it doesn't change biological reality. I'm happy to call India India, right? But I guess what I'm saying is I think it's very different because at the core of it, there is an unwillingness to be honest about a truth in order to be nice, which is not the case with Israel and Palestine. It's just a tribal conflict. It's not the case with Ukraine and Russia. It's just a international conflict, et cetera. But on this issue, I think the reason that has become as prominent as it has is you have, you know, leading politicians, Keast Armour at some point, you know, not knowing what a woman is and all this other stuff.

And a lot of people just see that as dishonesty. Yeah, I mean, also, Britain is a unique, also in Britain, like, we have a value system that is to be overly polite. Like, we're ridiculed of it across the world. That is kind of what it is to be British. So I think there should be a bit of a balance between being nice and being honest. Otherwise, we're just going to be, you know, brutally honest and horrible to each other all the whole time. There's a lot of Eastern Bloc countries which are a bit like that and it's kind of unpleasant as a culture. So I think it's a good thing in your society and your culture to be a bit polite. That doesn't mean you deny facts in reality completely. I think calling

someone them is polite. And I don't think it hurts anyone. I think it's fine. I don't think it increases or decreases the culture war anymore. I think that's a nice British thing just to be polite. But I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean, you talk about that all the time with politeness and honesty. But surely, you know, you acknowledge one of the great Valies about Britain is that we're, you know, polite. Completely. But I think the reason the trans issue is a little bit different is that the downstream and this is, it took me a little while to truly get this as well. So I didn't necessarily start in this position. But with the trans issue, the difference is that by being initially

polite, you then have a bunch of downstream consequences because you are not able to talk about people's sex properly. If you, if you say this person identifies as a woman and wants to, dress as a woman and have a feminine name and whatever. But it's male, that's fine. Because when it comes to single-sex spaces, when it comes to female sports, etc., you go, well, we accept India's right to be whatever India wants to be, except in these situations where India is still male. You see what I mean? Yeah. Well, I mean, it's kind of, you can also draw a line. This is like what people used to say about gay marriage. Once we allow gay marriage, then we'll be allowing people to have sex with animals. It's like, it's like, once we allow one thing, then the rest is

going to go. Once we're polite to trans people, then it will become more. No, sorry, just to be clear, so that we were talking about the same thing. I'm not saying if we call India a woman, then at some point later down the line, things will get even worse. What I'm saying is the logical consequence in the present moment of not acknowledging that India's male is India is then entitled to do things that India shouldn't be entitled to do. Well, that's right now, like go into a female space, like participate in female sports, etc. So it's not about if we allow gay marriage, then things will get even worse. It's more like

if we refuse to be honest about the truth now, you're going to get Adam Graham pretend that he's Eila Graham or Elyle Bryson and end up in a female prison with a penis having raped two women. That's a good point. That's the issue. Yeah. I mean, this is also why I probably shouldn't really have gotten into this because you know far more about this than I do. And I've never really researched it. This was just an interesting story and I just wanted to get the perspective. And thought saying then was it was an all right thing to do. I think it's why I'm so sad about this whole situation because I didn't have like a bad intention. But yeah, I mean, why you're saying you had a bad intention? I'm just saying I don't think it's possible

to have these conversations and fudge on certain things because you're just not, you're not going to get anywhere. So you think I should have called India a man in the response? No, I actually, if you want to be tactical about it, what I would have just said is India, India, India instead of them, them, them. Yeah. Fair enough. That's how you might play it in that situation next time. But my point more broadly is I just think this issue in particular is as contentious as it is

because there's some really key things that are being debated under the pretense of talking about the trans issue. And one of them is, are we allowed to be truthful to prevent harm if it's, hurts someone's feelings. And my view, after some consideration, is, yes, we should be able to be honest, even if some people get upset by it. Yeah. And it's also, as well, then you bring in the whole kids element of it, you know, kids of a certain age, 9, 10, 11 begin giving puberty blockers when the reality is they can't possibly consent to that form of medical intervention. So what eventually happens with this issue is that people who aren't as aware of every facet

of it because it is kind of like an iceberg issue. On the surface of it, you go, well, we're just talking about pronouns, aren't we? But there's everything else below. And the moment people then walk into this particular minefield, they tread on something and they don't even actually know what's happened or why something has blown up. Yeah, it's true. But I think generally it's, yeah, I mean, that makes sense. It's something I guess I still don't know that much about. But I can see how that would work. But it's also why I haven't really discussed this ever really on a show before or done any work about it because it's extremely complicated. And I just don't know, you know, it's not my area of what I've ever studied or talked about. But the other reason that this may have happened

as well is, I think it's a publication that you work for, which is I'm keen to get back to, which will be perceived by many people as being kind of far left, certainly the publication side of it. And so when that publication does a piece with India Willoughby, people are going to put those two and two together. And then they're probably not going to give you the benefit of the doubt of this is a neutral interviewer trying to have that conversation. So I guess the question is you are now leaving the byline times. Why is that? Well, no, I'm basically going to just take a step back for six months because I've spent far too long on the internet, far too long on Twitter and far too long with these things. And I'm probably going to go and start another network. but for six months, I don't know for sure what's going to happen,

but I just want to get off the internet because I'm going to go completely insane, like a lot of my friends and colleagues. I know you can't talk about everything because you ended up signing in. Yeah, I'm just curious to some extent what it is that caused you to leave, I guess. Yeah.

This episode sponsored by Forkfall. Most meal delivery services promise healthy food, but look closer, and you'll often find cheap industrial seed oils hiding in the ingredients. Forkful doesn't. things differently. Forkful delivers chef-prepared meals made with

premium ingredients you'd expect at a great restaurant from center-cut filet mignon to wild-caught lobster mac and cheese. And every meal is 100% seed oil free. Instead of canola or soybean oil, forkful chefs cook with extra virgin olive oil,

avocado oil, and grass-fed butter. Because better fats make better food. Meals arrive fresh, never frozen, with clear nutrition and ingredient transparency, so you always know exactly what you're eating. Restaurant quality meals, real ingredients, no seed oils. Discover Forkful today at Forkful Meals.com. Without getting you in trouble, without getting you in trouble, I'm just curious. Well, I mean, it's, what you can say.

I think it's just that I became the thing that, you know, this was a mutual decision. I became the thing that I hate, which is, which is someone that was at the depths of the, of the culture war floor on the internet that called a really high profile, you know, one of the most successful children's author in the world, a cut and just can't, and I just, you know, can't continue to, you know, do professional content and be, and be like a series, I don't know. It's not a good look. It's not a good look, but it's also just embarrassing and it's not who I actually, like, am and have been for the last few years. I focused on making great films and great content and actually trying to add something to the public discourse. And through being involved in this stuff,

even for 48 hours, became the thing that I've criticized for years, and became the thing about, you know, internet radicalization, rabbit holes, becoming crazy. It became that again. It has just made me want to just, you know, take a step back again for six months and reset. But it's extremely, yeah, it's extremely draining. It's difficult. Do you think, go for it. Can I just finish one thing?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, go for it. Just one thing on this, because I'm, so I totally get all that. And people, everybody makes mistakes. Everybody. What I'm, what I was curious about is sitting in the, chair only a few months ago was Lawrence Fox, who said that he wouldn't shag a female journalist. And I wonder if he had called that journalist a putrid, whether the response would have been as measured and mild as actually it has been with you. You've been on both left

and right in the media. And I'm, I just, I wonder, look, what Lawrence said, you know, we talked with him about it. And I think he was actually not necessarily all that happy with the way we can of that interview, I thought we were fair. Because I did think that what he said was out, I mean, what you said was way worse. Yeah. But what he said was also out of line. But I guess my question is, do you think that if Lawrence Fox had said that, he would have been treated the same as you've been treated? Do you see what I'm getting that? Do people on different size of politics who make broadly similar kinds of transgressions get treated equally? No. I think it is seen on the left on Twitter as okay to call JK Rowling a card.

Because we don't see people as human beings on the other side of our politics anymore. Right wingers do exactly the same thing to people on the left, which is why they think they're all pedos and they should be thrown in jail. They don't see them as human beings. And people on the left don't see people like JK Rolling as human beings in a lot of ways as well.

So when I made that comment, which I don't mean, and I actually always liked to JK Rolling, the fact that I have been, even in the last couple of weeks, at events I've been to, or events that are left told, oh, you shouldn't have deleted it, you're right anyway, you're on the side, was sad because I shouldn't have said that. So people were saying to you, you were right to call her that? Yeah.

People on the left, because that's what they think. They don't see people like J.K. Rowling as human beings, because we don't see anyone on the other side of our politics as human beings anymore because of the atomization of things like Twitter and because of the way that we converse in our politics anymore. And that's the most sad thing. And I didn't really know it was that bad until I tweeted that. that. But it's horrible. But it's the future of our politics. This is how we're all going to start conversing and seeing each other. Not necessarily this show and you guys. You've been doing this

for a long time in a measured and proper way. You haven't been chasing likes and clicks, but most commentators do. And that's why I think people are breaking down. That's why we're probably headed for something like Civil War one day, because we don't see anyone else as human beings who don't have the same politics as us anymore. Kaelin, I find that the fact that the people the left would come up to you and, you know, metaphorically slap you on the back for that tweet, when the left always talk about patriarchy, misogyny, and you're a man who called, and you apologize, fine, but you're a man who called a woman a cunt, and that's incredible. There's going to be so many bleeps in the sense of it. Yeah, it is. Because we want that YouTube

advertising money. Thank you very much. Exactly. And it sounds, it sounds better when I say, let's be fair. The accent, it gives it a little genocene. It gives it a little genesis. said, quote, but that's deeply misogynistic. Yeah, because it isn't about misogyny. It isn't about who's right and who's wrong. It's about us versus them. And it's about us being divided and the good side and the evil side. And that's all we see each other as.

It doesn't matter whether it's actually misogynistic or not. There are countless examples of stuff like this I saw on the right with hypocrisy as well. There's also a... Like what? Give us some examples. Well, I mean, it's, you know, we talk about, Right-wingers talk about grooming gangs being one of the central problems in Britain, but there's a huge problem with sexual abuse and sexual assault being tolerated with figures on the right. And that's very well known by a lot of...

Which figures? Well, there's a lot of members of the EDL who were convicted, who were all doing this stuff, who had all their names and stuff published, who didn't really have any backlash from those groups. And then there are figures now who are very high profile, who are some of the most high profile people in the world who have been engaged in that stuff, who see a... is absolutely fine and who's, you know, the right basically have a tolerance for that stuff. And I have to be honestly, we've had lots of people who are left and right of center. And I obviously know lots of people we both do in their circles.

I have no idea what you're talking about, genuinely. Yeah, you know, I mean, I can't go into this because there's an active court case with these things. But look, there is also a culture of language of people like, say like, people like Andrew Tate on the right who are super... I don't know if Andrew Tate is on the right. I don't know if he's political. I just... Well, maybe you know more.

I don't know. I think Andrew Tait is seen as a right-wing figure 100% who has said hugely misogynistic things on his TikTok about women and treated them badly. But then who will also talk about grooming gangs being the biggest problem in the UK or you know, how Islam is, you know, then his colleagues and people like that will talk about how, you know, Islam is terrible because it's misogynistic and hates women and hates gays when they're doing the same thing. So there's a lot of hypocrisy, but again, it's not about us, it's not about, you know,

misogyny or not misogyny, it's about, you know, my side versus your side and good versus evil and tribalism. So that's why, I think that's why that stuff is happening with J.K. Rowling. It's also the fact that, you know, we can't, you know, we want to talk about how great it is to celebrate women in power and powerful women, but a lot of people on the left want to tear down the most successful children's book offer, you know, one of the first female billionaires because she said a few things they don't like. And that's, you know, hypocritical as well. So it's, it's, again, I don't really think any of this is really about politics. It's just about tribalism and hating people on the other side because that's what gets clicks and that's how we've been, you know, talked to hate.

Do you think, how much of this do you think is people's beliefs, how much of this do you think is outright cynicism going for the clicks? And how much of this is people being manipulated in a sense by the algorithms, by their experience online, to see people who disagree with them in that way? Well, the people who propagate a lot of this stuff, I think, are driven by clicks and likes, and they'll say anything that will generate attention and usually replies to tweets get far more traction than a tweet itself, which incentivizes and encourages arguments and takedowns, and it's why everyone who writes a tweet, there's one under it saying the opposite. It's about encouraging people to constantly, constantly be pissed off and angry and argue with people. So I think a huge amount of it is that.

But the second amount is our newsfeeds are entirely different from each other's now. And we consume 300 foot of newsfeed every day, which you printed it out, it would be the length of a football stadium. And that's how we form our entire world opinion. We don't read newspapers, watch television anymore. And that news feed is curated based on the political opinions that you already have, or they're driven to more extreme versions of those. And that is how you perceive the world. And that is usually giving you only one version of an event in which there are two sides. and that will drive you more and more and more

to see the other side as an enemy, to hate them more, whether you're on the left or the right, and it incentivizes that tribalism because it's very monetizable as well. I mean, this is how these social media sites are designed and driven to be profit-based and to keep you on there for as long as possible. And a lot of the time, it's not people's fault.

They're scrolling through their feed. They think that they're looking at the real world. They think that they're looking at news stories, but they're seeing one more extreme version of an event and not believing the other thing happened. You know, it's even like when these kind of hate crime statistics will come out, you know, in 2016 and 2017, I would read constant reports on my feed that would talk about hate crime hopes here, the big hate crime hoax in America with that Muslim grow with a hijab that was faked. And it was all about fake hate crimes happening. And I went to my friend's news feed on Twitter around the same time. And it was talking about the rise in hate crimes and how it's become an epidemic and how since Brexit is going through the roof. And the two news feeds basically contrasted to one that said they didn't exist. They were all hope. and one that said it was becoming an epidemic, those two things are the reasons that we just don't understand basically reality anymore and can't stand, you know, the other side. Because, you know,

if I said, you know, hate crimes aren't on the rise, people would think I'm an absolute monster, you know, supremacist or whatever. But I would think that because my newsfeed told me that. So it's hard. So how did you make that transition from moving right to left? Because you worked with some pretty major figures on the right. You worked with Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern. You did a bit work for Alex Jones. Yeah. I mean, that's, and then moving to Byline Times, that's a hell of a gear change, isn't it? Well, kind of. If you look at everything I've said publicly in the last four years, I haven't said anything that is left-wing. You know, I haven't said a left-wing opinion. You know, I haven't said anything about the trans debate on the left or right. I've said Brexit's

bad because it's damaged Britain because I saw that in the Steelworks and News reports. I did a lot of work in Ukraine, talking about war crimes, but it wasn't really going on the left. Byline Times, as far as I can see it, I don't think, I know you disagree, is a hard left newspaper. It's one of the only newspapers that exist in Britain that are funding original investigative reporting. They exposed the PPE scandal. They exposed a huge amount of corruption in the government. And they also facilitated me to be able to travel across the UK and do on the ground

independent journalism across Europe actually. And at a time where we're not doing that anymore. So I saw that outlet as probably a solution to the stuff that I was seeing on the right, which was one-sided commentary and no original reporting. I saw a newspaper that's actually funding real investigative journalism, and I thought it was a great place to go, which it was. I'm really proud of my work with Byline. So obviously, I set up the TV, so that was a separate wing of it. I wasn't closely involved in the paper and their editorial and their investigations, but I carried out, you know, I used to get a notepad and go out and find original stories

when the stuff was happening with farming and trade deals in this country. I'd get into a car and drive all the way up to Northumberland and find farms, knock on their doors, ask them how they've been impacted and then do reports and come back to London with them and they would do really, really well. Because my work on the right, as much as, you know, it was very, very successful

and it was getting a lot of clicks, it wasn't adding anything to actual culture. I don't think it was adding anything to, I don't think it was doing anything really helpful or anything really good. It was just propagating right-wing opinions. And I thought, going on the left in doing the same thing would be just doing the, you know, would be doing the same kind of damage.

No one actually gets anywhere from it. It's splitting society just as much in the same way. So that's why my work has been investigative journalism for the last four years. The problem was getting involved for 10 seconds in the trans debate. But the reason I was on the right was because, you know, in 2016, everything was on fire. Europe was on fire. Everything was burning. There was terrorist attacks every five minutes. You had Charlie Hebdo. You had the newspapers being shot up. No one was talking about it in the media. You had the Orlando shooting where 50 gay people were killed by a Muslim extremist. And then you had Owen Jones being the only person they really brought

on to discuss it and say it had nothing to do with Islam. They didn't look at the ideology behind it. They didn't look at the reason it was happening. They didn't look at the Quran, not like when Christchurch happened and they broke down the entire ideology of the white supremacist tutor and took action against that. And I felt like there was a gap in the media that needed to be filled with people having these conversations and discussing them. So that's when I wrote to rebel and I got a job as a presenter there. And I was, you know, I was at the beginning doing pretty good work. It was about free speech, why we're not having these conversations. It was talking about Islam, but it was pretty moderate, and it was genuinely something I thought was really, really good.

But over time, there is an incentive to create stuff that is more outrageous. Within the rebel model, there was that system, which was why I left. And then I guess I became a bit of a victim of it, too, working with those people, of just making stuff for the sake of being controversial. And at the end of it, it wasn't what I had set out to do originally, which was to fill a gap of having real conversations. it was just putting out right-wing propaganda. And that's kind of how a lot of those people operate. So that's why I left a lot of that. I mean, there are other reasons.

Also, it's extremely chaotic. There's a huge amount of backstabbing. That's why they're still all falling out with each other even to this day. Sounds like the left, mate, to be honest with. No, but it's like, well, I mean, the left is a little bit more organized. But, I mean, it was a bit more sensible. No, you don't have the same chaos on the left than you do on the right right now,

with the daily wire falling apart, Delhi White's not falling apart. They just got rid of Candace Homes. Yeah, and look what's happening with Stephen Crowder and Jared. And that lawsuit all in the same week. I mean, that is not happening on the left on that same level at all. It's interesting because we have a running joke whenever we have a left-wing guest, we always say to the guys, if they're running late, setting up, well, don't worry, he's on the left. He's not going to be on time.

Well, I'm not on the left, but you were late. But it's interesting. I mean, our experience were left-wing people, which was our industry in comedy. is there far less organized than people in the right. But anyway, so it sounds like to me that actually many of the reasons that you were attracted to the right wing space still are valid in your mind

and that's kind of, you still think those things are important. Yeah, I mean, the questions are still valid. Why didn't the media cover this stuff? We still have a complete lack of courage to be able to have any of the conversations that you have on this show, which is why this is so successful, and BBC is failing

because you're having the conversations that people need and want to hear for a society to continue to develop. But the answers to those aren't making videos in no-go zones with Tommy Robinson in Rome. They are having these conversations like this. And I think just because the solutions I found were wrong doesn't mean that the questions were wrong. I still think those questions are valid. I've always said that. It's just...

And just so that people understand why isn't doing a video in a no-go zone, why isn't that part of the answer to show people what's happening on the ground if it's an accurate representation? I think if it's with a commentator who doesn't have an interest in showing exactly what's going on and is there with an incentment to cause chaos, then it's probably not the most healthy way to do it. You know? Yeah. So can you, sorry, I'm not sure I do know, can you explain that a little bit more? Like, what do you mean? Well, I think, I think going to a, a lot of the time my reporting with people on the right was already decided what would happen, and then we would go and cover it to fill an agenda, right? And that wasn't, again,

for nefarious sinister reasons. It was because we knew that we'd get views and then we would be able to become more influential to have these conversations. But yeah, that's just not a healthy way to do it, to start with your answer and to work backwards to go and film it. And you know, if you're going to go to an area and you know it's going to erupt, or you know it's going to kick off, or you know, whatever's going to happen, and then you film that and act really shocked. I just don't think that's a healthy way to, you know, make news. Yeah. So the other way to do it is where you go there and you don't have an agenda and you just report on what you see. Which is what I did with Byline for the last four years. That's why,

that's why I left the right and tried to do content and investigative journalism, where I would arrive in a country, like in Kiev last year, I arrived there and I had no agenda. I didn't know how extreme the war was, and I didn't really know what was going on. I wasn't covering Ukraine at all, but ended up staying there for three months, going all the way to the front line, and spending months figuring out, and speaking to villagers, understanding if they actually wanted to be part of Russia or not, going down to Herson, actually figuring out what's going on for myself and developing a film with no agenda at the beginning. And that's, I think that's something that I've transitioned to. It's not from the right to the left, really. It's from making stuff within a

agenda to making stuff without an agenda. And just because Byline Times is perceived as being a left-wing newspaper doesn't take away from the fact that it still allowed me to do actual investigative journalism, which I think is important. I'm just hearing between the lines that you think that, like, thinking that something is a left-wing newspaper is like a criticism. Left-wing newspapers are allowed to exist in a very important part of the ecosystem, because left and right will naturally focus on different issues. And some of the issues the left will focus on are also very important, as long as they're being covered accurately and fairly,

which, as I think we'd both agree, hasn't always been the case, the left and right. Yeah. So going back to the investigative journalism bit, one of the threads that I'm noticing more and more, and we've talked about a lot of journalism with this, it's actually really worrying that investigative journalism seems to be on the way out when it's much needed in society because it holds powerful figures

to account. Yeah, it shocked me how successful my neutral reports were when I started with the TV, like literally just going to a town, going to a farm, going to a steelworks that was closing down or the Honda factory that closed down in Swindon and just asking workers why it had happened and what the reasons were and getting their perspective and then putting it out, we'd get millions of views. And then I would hear the next day that, you know, Lewis Goodall or someone from the BBC had gone and tried to find them and asked them for an interview, because these institutions are no longer getting in a car, getting a notepad out, and doing actual work. A, because it's expensive, and these companies want to save money, they have boards

all across, you know, Channel 4 and ITV, whose entire purpose is to cut costs as much as possible, and in that they lose, the first thing to go is always investigative reporting. And that's why we're not seeing actual trusted stuff come out of these news organization anymore. There's been a new hiring process that is getting rid of their old reporters and replacing them with political influencers for their TikTok account so they can drive engagement, which is only going to make this worse. Newsnight, as part of their cuts last year, cut their investigative department as well, which was literally the point of Newsnight. There's just going to be a debate show now. And that leaves a huge void in Britain that we have of what the hell is going on, especially

outside news studios in London. Like, I remember going to, when I went to Port Talbot, the Steelworks. My report there got something like four or five million views, and it was why the planet closed And I just spent two nights there speaking to steelworkers, speaking to some of the key leaders. No one in the news really understood why it was closing down. They went there for two seconds and left, or they did it from London. And I asked all these people who gave me these really profound answers. Have the news reached out to you? Have you been asked for an interview? And none of them said, yeah. Even the First Minister of Wales said he hadn't been reached out to. And that report was, I think, really successful because people in this country want original investigative on the ground

reporting. And they're not getting it from their televisions anymore. And it's, and it's It's really, really sad because the point of the media is to give us that so that we can understand what's going on in our own country, which we don't. I think that's what I've been most proud of is that work. Whatever I do next, whether it's with byline again or whatever it is, it'll be that. Because even though it's expensive, it's invaluable and it's fulfilling as well. You're actually finding out something that's true and then putting it out in the world that people didn't know about. And if it's popular as it can be, then you will generate the revenue that you

need to actually keep doing it as well. Yeah, you don't actually need to be, I don't realize it's that right. You don't actually need to be outrageous or extreme or just say crazy stuff to get clicks. You can actually produce really, really high quality good work. And people want that just as much. I think people now want it more, which is why we've always taken that approach. And I understand, look, Pete's true what you say. People always respond to incentives. But the incentives are not always clear. There was a moment when, you know, there is a short-term incentive to be outrageous and get clicks. But what I think we've observed in the six years we've been doing this is most of the people who do that, they rise quickly and then they fall quickly.

Whereas if you're true to core principles, which is trying to get to the truth, wherever it goes, then people will over time actually see that. And even if they don't agree with every individual interview you've done or a bit of a report. reporting you've done, they'll know that you are trying to get to the truth and they'll respect it more and then they'll watch it, even if it's not necessarily the thing that panderes perfectly to their particular opinion. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of how the world works. If you put something of quality out enough times and something that's actually valuable that you've considered, it will reward you and the world will, you know, be able to feel its value. So that's already important. But it's also why so many commentators on the right and the left who are really

outrageous and who do say inflammatory things usually only last about two years. Yeah. And then it's over. It's because really all they have is outrage. And they're not saying anything of substance. So once I've delivered that, whatever it is, outrageous comment, fine. You can keep doing it again and again. But it's almost like a drug here. Then you're going to need to get more and more outrageous.

And then they get into problems. But also, I really feel that people now are craving things that are more substantive. Constantin did this amazing series where he just went out and talked to people. at Israel and Palestine. That was great. And he asked apolitical questions to protesters and they gave his response.

And it was fascinating to watch because you're there seeing this piece of content and part of you is going, this is really interesting and the other part of you is going, I haven't seen something like this in 20 years. Yeah. I had exactly the same thought with that. I was even looking at like,

who shot it, who, I was just fascinated with the whole crew, everything about how you do. did it because it was completely original. And it was similar to the work that I've been doing. But no one's doing it because, A, people are very lazy-not. You can just do a show behind your computer screen. B, it's expensive, but C, it's hard. It's actually hard work.

It's scary or you have to go into crowds. It's a difficult thing to do. But when it does happen, it does happen properly. It will cut through culture completely. Yeah. Which is very important. No, and it's great. And I think the main thing is to

I hear a lot of kind of disempowerment in the way you talk about social media, and I'm just always wary of having that approach because I think ultimately we're all responsible for, yes, Twitter can drive you to the extremes, but it doesn't have to. Like, I played around with that dunking on people thing and all of that for a while, and then I was like, no, I don't like doing this. And I'd much rather get 100,000 new subscribers by doing a speech that goes viral than I would by dunking on India Willoughby or JK Rowling. Do you know what I mean?

Yeah, but I think you're very unique in that. You're also smarter than most people, I would say. Most people are kind of passive, and they're not engaged in this all the time, and they just want to get their news for an hour before dinner time, and then they need to go to bed. They don't have the time and capacity, I think, to think through the processes like that. I think they're consumers of a news feed that determines their world opinion, and they don't have the time and capacity to go beyond that,

or to even think beyond that, which is why everything, is becoming more radical. It's why when you go to those protests and you speak to those protesters and you say, well, what do you think about Hamas? And they have no idea that they're even, you know, they have right-wing views because they've never seen that on their feeds and they become radicalized to the left. It's universal. It's everywhere. It's why Christmas dinner parties are now basically ruined because no one can talk to each other and other grandparents. But the solution to it is that kind of work. And I think it is the kind of work I've been doing for the last few years, but for the media to do it as well. Yeah. And it's also,

as well, look, just because something is easy and it gets clicks and it gets an instant hit, doesn't mean that it's a right thing to do. Actually, what is more prudent is to take the longer route, work harder, and actually you're going to get what you truly want. What you really, because most people, okay, once you get over the cheap dopamine hit of when something goes viral, if it's not something you're really proud about, it's not a good feeling. No, it's why it was hard back in the days with a lot of right wingers because I became that person and was just making stuff every day for clicks that was outrageous, sometimes stuff that goes way beyond what I would believe. And it's just, it's just bullshit. And it's why I didn't stay in it for very long

as well. It's why the people, a lot of people I work with don't really exist now because they were doing the same thing. But yeah, it makes sense. One of the final thing to explore, I found interesting, particularly the contrast that I brought up with Lawrence is I think the thing that happened, even though, as I said, I think what you said was much worse than what he said, actually, you apologize very quickly. And we live in an age where so many people think that apologize and when you've said something wrong is the wrong thing to do as people were telling you that afterwards. I actually think your example shows quite the opposite, which is if you said something wrong, which we all do, everybody, the best thing to do if you said something wrong,

genuinely that you regret is to apologize straight away. Yeah. And then to just be like, look, I apologize, that's it. And people will move on a lot of the time. Yeah. And I think it's why, I think it surprised J.K. Rollics, why she replied three times to that apology saying, like, we all make mistakes. Please leave K. Canaan alone. Like, you know, it's fine. Like, I really appreciate this apology. And I replied and said, I'm actually really in awe of this response. This is really, really respectful and gracious. And there were so many people saying, like, that we need more of this on the internet, but it doesn't happen anymore. But there was also a lot of people on the left

who were then furious at me and the place I was working for even apologising. Yeah, fuck those people though. Yeah, I know, but it just shows how sad that is because I think it was genuinely a good moment, like a nice moment that morning at like 8am. But yeah.

But you know, you're always going to get the ideologues on either side. You know, the people go, never apologize for anything. You're like, really? Yeah. I'm sure you're great to hang out. out with. And the thing is, as well, is for so many of these people, to your point about how the

internet changes people, I go, never apologize. Is that, is that what you teach your kids? Never apologize for anything? Because I don't think you do. And with many of these people, I've seen them with their children and they're good parents. I don't think you'd be teaching your children always double down. Yeah. That's, just raising a mini-trump. Yeah, just. But it's how we're teaching ourselves to behave now. I think, going on Twitter, I think that actually is the attitude. It is to never apologize. It is to never back down. And it's getting worse as we get more of our feed from the internet. I think that's the core problem with it. And again, not seeing the other side as human beings and never apologising to them because they're not people, are they? They should be

thrown in prison. That's what they think. Well, there we go. We're about to go to locals and ask you questions from our supporters. But before we do, the final question we always end with is what's the one thing that we're not talking about that you think we should be? Before Kalin answers a final question, make sure to head over to our locals at the end of the interview, the links in the description, to see this. Working with the right, there was a lot more people I was surrounded with who really believed what they were doing and they really had a purpose. A lot of people on the left are driven by personality and money a lot more. How do you manage your propensity for extremes is his question?

Well, I don't think what I was involved in was extreme. Well, I think working with Alex Jones is extreme. Well, the one thing we should be talking about. Yeah, but we're not. I mean, I guess, I mean, I just, my whole thing is I think we should just be doing more actual investigating and thinking for ourselves and we should be funding more investigations and actually looking at what's going on in the world and we should all just get off the internet for a while. That's just my end. That's my end philosophy with all of it. Perfect.

Head on over to locals where we ask Kael and your questions. Stay on the internet. What's the best way to get someone to seriously consider arguments from the other side? This episode sponsored by Ridwell. How many plastic bags, snack, and random packaging are stashed around your house because you're not sure how to recycle them. Ridwell makes it simple to recycle more from anywhere. With Ridwell, you can recycle plastic bags, snack wrappers, pill bottles, bottle caps,

and tons of other items your curbside bin doesn't take. And unlike most recycling programs, Ridwell carefully tracks where your items go and reports back on what actually gets recycled. Getting started is easy. Order a starter kit, fill the bags with hard-to-recycle items, send them back to for free and Ridwell takes care of the rest. Start today at ridwell.com.