#Social Media Algorithms 2025

[xploreitcorp5]

What is the Future of SEO in the Age of AI?

1. AI is Changing Search Engine Algorithms  

Search engines like Google are using AI to improve how they work. BERT, MUM, and RankBrain are just the start. These systems help search engines grasp what users really mean, beyond just matching keywords. With Natural Language Processing, AI can understand queries in a more human way.

Now, AI ranks pages based on user experience, mobile-friendliness, and the overall quality of content.  

With real-time updates to algorithms, SEO strategies need to be adaptable. Students in digital marketing course in Coimbatore are learning how to make their content fit these new algorithms.

2. Working with AI in Content Creation

AI is changing how we create content. Tools like ChatGPT and Jasper can whip up text quickly, but Google still prefers original insights from real people. Use AI to brainstorm ideas and gather research. 

Always tweak AI-generated content to make it more relatable and engaging. Make sure it aligns with Google’s guidelines for helpful content.

While AI can be a great helper, the future is for those who mix it with creativity—something emphasized in digital marketing courses in Coimbatore.

3. Voice Search Optimization  

Voice assistants such as Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are becoming popular, leading to longer, more conversational search queries. To optimize for voice search, use natural language and long-tail keywords. 

Creating FAQ-style content and using schema markup can help too. Voice SEO is becoming a big topic in digital marketing training in Coimbatore.

4. Machine Learning and User Behavior 

Search engines are leaning on machine learning to tweak results in real-time. This means that SEO is about more than just technical aspects; user interaction matters too. 

Metrics like bounce rate and session duration can affect your rankings. Content that keeps users engaged is prioritized now. Keeping an eye on user behavior and analytics is essential, and many digital marketing programs in Coimbatore now teach UX/UI basics to prepare students for this shift.

5. The Rise of Visual and Video SEO

AI can now see images and videos, leading to new ways of indexing visual content. Using alt text and proper file names is crucial.  

Don’t forget to include video transcripts and descriptions while ensuring fast loading times and mobile optimization. With platforms like YouTube and Pinterest on the rise, it’s vital to optimize all content types, not just written stuff.

6. Predictive SEO with AI Tools

AI helps with predictive analytics, letting marketers guess search trends and ready content ahead of time. Tools like Google Trends and predictive SEO software can be handy here. 

Spotting content gaps and planning for them will be key, especially with seasonal or event-based strategies. Good digital marketing courses in Coimbatore focus on hands-on experience with these tools.

7. E-E-A-T: Expertise Matters  

Even with AI’s growth, Google’s E-E-A-T guidelines (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) are still important. Make sure to highlight real authors and credentials. 

Adding customer reviews and expert insights adds authenticity. Learning how to balance AI and genuine content is a skill taught in digital marketing courses in Coimbatore.

8. Improved Local SEO with AI  

AI is making local SEO better by helping to create more accurate geo-targeted content. It’s crucial to optimize your Google Business Profile, include location-based keywords, and encourage reviews for local visibility. 

For students in digital marketing training in Coimbatore, local SEO is especially critical for helping nearby businesses grow.

9. The Importance of LSA Keywords

Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) keywords help search engines understand content context better. Here are some examples connected to SEO:  

- search engine optimization tools  

- AI in content marketing  

- user behavior analytics  

- mobile-first indexing  

- semantic search trends  

Using LSA keywords is important for creating content that fits the needs of both users and search engines.

10. Job Opportunities in AI-Driven SEO

As AI takes a bigger role in SEO, companies look for folks who understand both digital marketing and AI. Entry-level positions are starting to require knowledge of AI tools. 

Internships now often include automation tools, analytics, and AI content optimization. Courses in Coimbatore are adapting their programs to reflect this demand. Hands-on training, tools, and project-based learning are becoming the norm.

Conclusion: Staying Ahead with Xplore It Corp

So, what’s the future of SEO in the age of AI? Clearly, while AI is making things faster and more efficient, human creativity and flexibility are essential. The need for skilled SEO professionals is rising, and it's important to keep evolving.

To keep your skills sharp, think about joining a digital marketing course in Coimbatore, or check out top training institutions in the area. Gain practical experience with real-world tools and expert guidance.

At Xplore It Corp, we offer training that combines traditional SEO with today’s AI technologies, prepping you for both the current job market and what’s to come. Join us to step into the future of digital marketing confidently!

FAQs About the Future of SEO and AI

1. Is SEO becoming outdated because of AI?  

No, SEO is changing, not disappearing. AI is reshaping how search engines function, focusing more on user intent and content quality.

2. Can AI write good SEO content? 

AI tools like ChatGPT can help create content, but you still need a human touch for it to be engaging and unique.

3. Which skills are vital for AI-driven SEO?

Key skills include knowledge of AI tools, data analysis, voice search optimization, and UX/UI. These are often covered in digital marketing course in Coimbatore.

4. How does AI impact local SEO? 

AI improves local SEO by enabling real-time targeting and personalized user experiences through voice search.

5. Where can I learn SEO with AI tools in Coimbatore?

Check out Xplore It Corp for in-depth training on integrating SEO with AI resources.

[captinaubs]

I'm going to start posting my art on social media again. And I'll try to remember to also post here. I use and enjoy tumblr the most. I know no one will see it here as it gets lost in my feed. But no one's gonna see it in tiktok or insta either.

Here's the caption ->

"Hey, it's been a while since I last posted. I got busy and sick of the social media game. I've been debating whether or not to start posting my art again for a while now, and I'm still going back and forth on it. There are a lot of mixed feelings involved that I won't dive into now. But I did want to make and post something for #mermay before it was too late.

This is an illustration I made using watercolors and alcohol markers. I forgot to film a lot of it, but I tried. It's nothing too complicated; I didn't want to overwhelm myself with too high an expectation."

[norgeant]

"Ah yes. Me. My boyfriend. And his F1 contact for the next couple of years at least"

Max fewtrell can relate to this exact situation

[pollhit]

Instagram vs YouTube Shorts – Where Do You Watch More Content in 2025?

Introduction

In the fast-scrolling digital era, short-form video content is king. Whether you’re into dance challenges, funny skits, educational hacks, or mini vlogs—chances are you’re consuming them either on Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts. But when it comes to content preference, engagement, and creator earnings, the debate intensifies: Instagram vs YouTube Shorts – where do YOU spend more time?

Let’s dive into a detailed comparison of both platforms from the perspective of users, content creators, and brands.

 Platform Overview

🟣 Instagram Reels

Launched in 2020 as a direct competitor to TikTok, Reels became Instagram’s answer to vertical video. With its strong photo-sharing history and influencer culture, Instagram Reels quickly evolved into a powerful short video hub, integrated with Stories, Feed, and Explore.

🔴 YouTube Shorts

YouTube, the OG of long-form content, jumped into the short video race with Shorts in 2021. Today, it’s one of the fastest-growing video formats on the platform. Powered by YouTube’s search engine and recommendation algorithm, Shorts offer immense reach and discovery potential for creators.

 Popularity and Usage

Instagram Reels:

Favored by Gen Z and Millennials (ages 16–35)

Users typically consume Reels while browsing Instagram casually

Average watch time: 30 minutes per session

Often used for entertainment, fashion, lifestyle, and viral trends

YouTube Shorts:

Attracts a broader age group (13–50+)

Tied to YouTube’s homepage and notifications

Average watch time: Higher because of binge-watch effect

Covers educational, gaming, tech, comedy, and music content

✅ Verdict:Instagram is for quick dopamine hits, while YouTube Shorts holds users longer through stronger AI suggestions and channel subscriptions.

 Creator Ecosystem

Instagram Reels:

Easy to go viral using trending audio

Creators use filters, effects, and native editing tools

Limited insights and unpredictable algorithm

Followers matter more for views

YouTube Shorts:

Better long-term audience building

More detailed analytics (CTR, retention, etc.)

Videos are evergreen – can get views months later

Less dependent on subscriber count

✅ Verdict:YouTube Shorts is ideal for serious content creators, while Instagram Reels benefits lifestyle influencers and trendsetters.

 Algorithm & Discovery

When it comes to visibility and viral reach, the algorithm behind a platform plays a crucial role. Both Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts use recommendation systems, but they are built for different user behaviors and priorities. Let’s break down how each platform’s algorithm works in 2025:

 Instagram – Engagement-Driven Discovery

Instagram’s Reels algorithm is heavily engagement-based and favors content that can gain traction quickly within your network and locality.

Prioritizes engagement metrics like likes, comments, shares, and saves over time.

Reels that use trending audio, popular filters, and high-performing hashtags often get more reach on the Explore or Reels tab.

Instagram frequently recommends content based on:

Who your friends are interacting with

Your location and tagged areas

Recent activity (e.g., what types of posts you’ve engaged with recently)

This means your Reels visibility can skyrocket quickly, but it’s also highly dependent on timing, trends, and momentum.Great for content creators chasing short-term virality and lifestyle trends.

 YouTube – AI-Driven Precision Discovery

YouTube Shorts relies on a much more sophisticated and AI-powered recommendation system, which focuses on long-term user behavior and content quality.

YouTube evaluates each Short based on:

Watch history

Search behavior

Click-through rate (CTR)

Viewer retention (how long someone watches the video)

Shorts are shown through the homepage feed, Shorts shelf, and search results, allowing them to reach a broader and more global audience.

YouTube’s AI adapts quickly to viewing patterns and constantly fine-tunes its recommendations to keep users engaged longer.

This system rewards creators who consistently post valuable, watchable content, even if they don’t have a massive following. It’s perfect for building sustainable growth and audience trust.

✅ Verdict:YouTube’s algorithm is more powerful and favors quality + consistency, while Instagram rewards momentum + trends.

 SEO & Reach

In the battle between Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, SEO and discoverability play a huge role — especially for creators and brands aiming for long-term visibility. Here’s where YouTube clearly pulls ahead of Instagram.

 YouTube Shorts – Built for Search & Longevity

YouTube is not just a video platform — it’s the second-largest search engine in the world after Google. This gives Shorts a major advantage when it comes to content visibility:

Shorts can appear in Google Search results, especially if optimized with proper titles, tags, and descriptions.

YouTube’s internal search is strong  users actively search for content like “top 10 phones,” “how to cook paneer,” or “fitness tips,” and Shorts can show up directly in results.

Evergreen value: A well-performing YouTube Short can continue to get views months after posting, thanks to algorithmic recommendations, playlists, and search results.

Users can also discover Shorts on channel pages, home feeds, notifications, and the dedicated Shorts tab.

If your goal is SEO-driven content marketing or audience growth over time, YouTube Shorts is a more reliable platform.

 Instagram Reels – Built for Trends, Not Search

Instagram Reels, on the other hand, is designed for real-time virality, not long-term discoverability:

Reels are mostly surfaced via the Explore page, Reels tab, or from mutual connections.

Content discovery relies heavily on trending sounds, hashtags, and engagement momentum in the first 48 hours.

While Reels can go viral quickly, they often lose traction after a few days, unless reposted, reshared, or featured by large pages.

Instagram’s search functionality is not video-focused  users rarely “search” for Reel topics the way they do on YouTube.

For creators relying on search traffic, passive growth, or tutorial-based content, Instagram falls short.

✅ Verdict:For SEO value and long-term reach, YouTube Shorts wins.

 Brand Integration & Ads

In 2025, brands are investing heavily in short-form video platforms to capture attention and drive conversions. While both Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts offer massive reach, their approach to brand integration, ad support, and conversion strategy is quite different  and this affects which brands choose which platform.

 Instagram – The Influencer Marketing Hub

Instagram continues to be a top choice for influencer-driven brand campaigns, especially in fashion, beauty, fitness, and lifestyle sectors.

Brands leverage Reels + Stories to push new product drops and seasonal sales using native creators.

Instagram allows shopping tag integration, where users can tap on a product and buy instantly without leaving the app. This creates a smooth scroll-to-shop experience.

Visual aesthetics and trends dominate the platform, making it ideal for product showcases, makeup tutorials, and fashion transitions.

In short, if your brand relies on impulse purchases and visual appeal, Instagram is the perfect match.

 YouTube Shorts – The Brand Awareness Powerhouse

YouTube Shorts is becoming the go-to for brand storytelling, education, and conversions at scale, especially when paired with traditional long-form videos.

Brands can embed clickable links in video descriptions (and even comment pins), helping drive traffic directly to websites, apps, or landing pages.

YouTube’s multi-language ecosystem and AI-powered discovery make Shorts a strong choice for regional campaigns or mass awareness.

Ideal for tech, finance, gaming, app marketing, and tutorial-style promotions, where audiences expect deeper value and explanation.

Also, YouTube ads ecosystem (Skippable, Bumper, and Shorts Ads) gives brands more precise control over targeting and retargeting.

✅ Verdict:Instagram is ideal for visual shopping, YouTube is better for info-rich promotion.

 Audience Behavior in India (2025)

In 2025, India’s digital audience is more fragmented and diverse than ever before. With affordable smartphones, faster internet (5G), and a growing creator economy, both Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts are dominating different audience segments but with clear patterns.

 Gen Z Loves Instagram for Entertainment

Recent surveys show that over 60% of Gen Z (ages 16–24) in India prefer Instagram Reels for short-form entertainment. The reason? Instagram’s design is fast, trendy, and built around viral audio, challenges, and influencer culture. Young users scroll through Reels casually throughout the day, making it their go-to app for fashion, memes, dance, and lifestyle content.

 Creators Flock to YouTube Shorts for Growth

Meanwhile, 70% of digital creators say they prefer YouTube Shorts for career growth. Why? Because Shorts offer

Better algorithmic discovery

Long-term view potential (even months later)

Integrated monetization through the YouTube Partner Program

Creators in categories like tech, education, gaming, and vlogging are especially shifting to YouTube because it gives them a chance to build real subscribers and generate consistent revenue.

 Final Thoughts: Which One is Better?

There’s no clear winner – it depends on:

🎯 Your goals (virality vs. career growth)

👥 Your audience (urban Gen Z vs wider YouTube base)

💰 Monetization plans (influencer collab vs. YouTube ad revenue)

If you’re a brand or creator, the smart move in 2025 is to repurpose content on both platforms. Create once, distribute everywhere!

 Poll Suggestion for PollHit

Instagram Reels vs YouTube Shorts – Where do you watch more short videos?

[jpptech]

Social Media Trends 2025: What Businesses Can Learn from Service Zoom

In today's competitive digital landscape, staying relevant on social media is no longer a choice—it’s a necessity. As algorithms shift, new platforms emerge, and consumer expectations evolve, 2025 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for businesses to either adapt or get left behind.

So, how do you keep up with the fast-paced world of social media marketing? That’s where the expertise of Service Zoom becomes invaluable. With a finger firmly on the pulse of industry trends, Service Zoom is helping businesses of all sizes translate social activity into real, measurable growth.

Below, we explore the top social media trends for 2025—and how Service Zoom helps businesses not only understand them but leverage them effectively.

1. AI-Powered Content Creation is the New Normal

In 2025, artificial intelligence (AI) plays a critical role in creating content that is smart, targeted, and personalized. AI tools are being used to:

Predict audience preferences

Create data-driven content calendars

Generate tailored captions and visual recommendations

Analyze past post performance for better future planning

Service Zoom uses cutting-edge AI to build and execute content strategies that feel human but perform with machine precision. This enables businesses to maintain consistent posting, higher engagement, and a unique brand voice—all with maximum efficiency.

2. Micro-Influencers are Replacing Celebrity Endorsements

Forget mega-celebrities with millions of followers. In 2025, micro-influencers (accounts with 5K–50K followers) offer better engagement, more authenticity, and tighter community ties.

Service Zoom helps businesses:

Identify niche influencers aligned with brand values

Build mutually beneficial collaborations

Track ROI from influencer campaigns

With this approach, businesses achieve better visibility in highly targeted communities, increasing both trust and conversion rates.

3. Short-Form Videos Still Rule the Feed

From TikTok trends to Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, short-form video content continues to dominate social media in 2025.

Consumers crave snackable, visual content that delivers entertainment or value within seconds. Service Zoom’s content team specializes in crafting professional, eye-catching video content that fits your brand and stands out in a sea of scrolling.

Whether it’s behind-the-scenes footage, tutorials, testimonials, or trending challenges, Service Zoom ensures your videos are optimized for reach, relevance, and retention.

4. Social Commerce Is the Future of Shopping

Social media is no longer just a discovery tool—it’s becoming the end-to-end customer journey. With features like Instagram Shop, Facebook Marketplace, and TikTok Shopping, users are making purchases without ever leaving the app.

Service Zoom helps businesses:

Set up and manage social storefronts

Create shoppable posts and stories

Optimize product visibility through hashtags and SEO

Run effective social commerce ad campaigns

This integrated experience removes friction from the buying process, leading to higher conversions and increased brand loyalty.

5. Community Building Over Broadcast Marketing

Today’s audiences want to be part of something—not just marketed to. Community-driven engagement is a major trend in 2025.

Service Zoom helps brands build strong digital communities by:

Facilitating user-generated content

Hosting live Q&As and interactive sessions

Managing groups and forums

Responding to comments and DMs in real time

This two-way engagement not only humanizes your brand but also builds a loyal audience that becomes your best advocates.

6. Data-Driven Marketing Decisions

In 2025, guessing is gone. Data is king.

Service Zoom provides in-depth analytics dashboards that measure:

Engagement rates

Follower growth

Ad performance

Audience demographics

Conversion tracking

These insights help businesses adjust strategies in real time, double down on what works, and minimize what doesn’t—ultimately leading to a higher ROI.

7. Hyperlocal Targeting for Maximum Impact

If you run a local business, geo-targeted content is essential. Consumers are more likely to buy from brands that feel local and relevant.

Service Zoom uses hyperlocal tools to:

Run location-specific ad campaigns

Promote events, offers, and announcements to nearby audiences

Boost your local SEO through geo-tagging and maps integration

This allows small businesses to dominate their local market while keeping ad costs low and conversions high.

The Service Zoom Advantage

What makes Service Zoom stand out is their ability to turn complex trends into easy-to-execute strategies. Whether you're a startup looking to build brand awareness or an established business aiming to scale online, Service Zoom offers:

Customized social media marketing plans

Daily account management

Performance tracking and reporting

Ad campaign setup and optimization

Influencer outreach and content planning

They don’t just keep up with trends—they make them work for you.

Final Thoughts: Stay Ahead, Not Behind

The social media space in 2025 is packed with potential. But without the right partner, it can also be overwhelming. Don’t get left behind—learn, adapt, and grow with the expert guidance of Service Zoom SMM.

Whether it’s building your brand voice, launching a product campaign, or growing your followers organically—Service Zoom is your digital partner for real growth in the modern era.

[lmsintmedia]

The Social Media "Echo Chamber" Effect: How Algorithmic Bubbles Affect Mental Health

Are Social Media Algorithms Messing with Your Head? Ever noticed how your social media feed seems to know you better than your best friend? You like one video about meditation, and suddenly your feed is flooded with self-care tips. Click on a political article, and now you’re getting non-stop news reinforcing that same viewpoint. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s the algorithm at work, shaping what…

[digiellomarketing]

Social Media Algorithms Explained: How to Boost Your Visibility 🚀

Social media platforms are powered by complex algorithms that determine what content users see. Whether you're a brand, influencer, or business, understanding these algorithms is key to maximizing your reach. Here’s how you can boost your visibility and engagement in 2025!

Chatbots in Customer Service: The Future of Support

Top Digital Marketing Strategies for Maximum Growth

📌 How Do Social Media Algorithms Work?

Social media platforms prioritize content based on: ✅ User engagement (likes, shares, comments, watch time) ✅ Relevance to the user (interest-based content) ✅ Content quality (high-resolution images, videos, and valuable insights) ✅ Recency (newer posts often get prioritized)

🔥 Platform-Specific Algorithm Strategies

1. Instagram Algorithm 📸

Engagement matters! The more interactions (likes, saves, comments), the better your reach.

Use Reels 🎥 – Instagram favors short-form videos over static posts.

Post at peak hours to maximize impressions.

2. Facebook Algorithm 📘

Focus on meaningful interactions (comments and shares rank higher than likes).

Go live 🎙️ – Live videos receive 6x more engagement than standard posts.

Join & engage in Facebook groups to increase organic reach.

3. YouTube Algorithm 🎬

Watch time is key – The longer people watch your video, the more it’s recommended.

SEO-optimized titles & descriptions improve search visibility.

Use YouTube Shorts to boost engagement and subscriber growth.

4. LinkedIn Algorithm 🏢

Posts with thoughtful comments and shares perform best.

Videos and carousel posts get higher reach than text-only content.

Tag industry leaders to expand visibility in professional networks.

🚀 Pro Tips to Beat the Algorithm & Boost Visibility

✅ Optimize your content for SEO – Top SEO Services in Delhi ensure better search rankings. ✅ Leverage hashtags smartly – Use a mix of trending and niche hashtags. ✅ Consistent posting – Platforms reward consistency with higher visibility. ✅ Invest in paid ads – Boost posts for greater exposure.

Why Choose Digiello Marketing? 🎯

As the best digital marketing agency in Delhi, Digiello Marketing helps businesses master social media marketing with:

Data-driven strategies for maximum engagement

SEO services & content marketing for organic growth

Managed IT Services & Software Development Services from IT Work Solutions

📞 Want to boost your brand’s visibility? Contact Digiello Marketing today! 🚀

[delhiinstitute123]

Instagram Algorithm Decoded: Hacks to Boost Engagement and Reach

The Instagram algorithm is designed to prioritize content that keeps users engaged on the platform. It analyzes various factors to determine what appears on users’ feeds, Explore pages, and Reels. Here are the key ranking signals that influence content visibility:

User Interaction & Engagement

The algorithm favors posts with high engagement (likes, comments, shares, and saves).

Posts that spark meaningful conversations tend to get boosted.

Content Relevance

Instagram analyzes user interests and past behavior to show the most relevant content.

Hashtags, captions, and keywords help categorize content for better visibility.

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

Here’s How Trump Entertains and Hooks His Audience on X

Juicy and Sensational Stories from an Elderly While America grapples with economic crises and millions face mounting challenges, the new president seems preoccupied with…mocking appearances and sharing memes. Priorities, right? Editorial Disclaimer:This story contains content that may include unpleasant or shocking images. The intent is to inform, entertain, and spark reflection — not to…

[stopproject2025comic]

Reproductive rights in the US are in tatters. Project 2025 will make things much worse.

Complete alt-text and image description at our site. Lots more comics, too! https://stopproject2025comic.org/comic/abortion/

Share the comics on your own timeline or post links. It's hugely appreciated! The big social media companies use algorithms to bury material like this. We're making these comics and putting them out under a Creative Commons so ordinary people can help get the word out.

[mariacallous]

Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights

Full text of the podcast episode below for those who don't or can't go to the NYT page or listen

This is an edited transcript of an episode of “The Ezra Klein Show.” You can listen to the conversation by following or subscribing to the show on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.

President Trump, in his inauguration speech, was perfectly clear about what he intended to do.

Archived clip of President Trump: As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.

Starting the day of that speech, Trump began an all-out effort to roll back trans rights, using every power the federal government had and some that it may not have.

Archived clip: President Trump has signed an executive order which declares the U.S. government will no longer recognize the concept of gender identity. Archived clip: President Trump directing the Secretary of Education to create a plan to cut funding for schools that teach what he calls gender ideology. Archived clip: This afternoon, Trump makes a move to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports. Archived clip: Ban on gender-affirming care for transgender kids. Archived clip: Ban on gender-affirming care for transgender inmates in federal prisons. Archived clip: Ban on transgender troops serving in the military. Archived clip: These executive orders, many of them have not actually gone into effect yet, but when I look across the country, we’re already hearing stories of impact. Archived clip: In a time when we are struggling to find people to volunteer to do this, we are begging to be allowed to continue our service, and you’re just going to wash us away. So today I’m not OK. Archived clip: It’s a complete dehumanization of transgender people. Years and years and years into who I am, and I’m supposed to out myself? It’s about privacy and dignity for me to be able to change my passport to male.

A lot of the things Trump is doing in this term have put him on the wrong side of public opinion — but not this.

In a recent poll where Trump’s approval rating was around 40 percent, 52 percent of Americans approved of how he’s handling trans issues. Another poll showed that was more than approved of Trump’s handling of immigration. Far more than approved of his handling of tariffs. And if you look more deeply into polling on trans rights, the public has swung right on virtually every policy you can poll.

Trump didn’t just win the election. He and the movement and ideology behind him had been winning the argument.

Sarah McBride is a freshman congresswoman from Delaware, where she was formerly a state senator. She’s the first openly trans member of Congress, and her view is that the trans rights movement and the left more broadly have to grapple with why their strategy failed — how they lost not only power but hearts and minds, and what needs to be done differently to protect trans people and begin winning back the public starting right now.

I was struck, talking to McBride, by how much she was offering a theory that goes far beyond trans rights. What she’s offering is a counter to the dominant political style that emerged as algorithmic social media collided with politics — a style that is more about policing and pushing those who agree with you than it is about persuading those who don’t.

Ezra Klein: Sarah McBride, welcome to the show.

Sarah McBride: Thanks for having me.

I want to begin with some polling. Pew asked the same set of questions in 2022 and 2025, and what it found was this collapse in what I would call persuasion.

They polled the popularity of protecting trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces. That had lost eight points in those three years. Requiring health insurance companies to cover gender transition lost five points. Requiring trans people to use bathrooms that match their biological sex gained eight points.

When you hear those results, what, to you, happened there?

By every objective metric, support for trans rights is worse now than it was six or seven years ago. And that’s not isolated to just trans issues. I think if you look across issues of gender right now, you have seen a regression. Marriage equality support is actually lower now than it was a couple of years ago in a recent poll. We also see a regression around support for whether women should have the same opportunities as men compared to five, 10, 15 years ago.

Editors’ Picks

Shining a Light on the World of Tiny ProteinsI Scream, You Scream. They Don’t Scream for Ice Cream.The ‘How to Train Your Dragon’ Star Mason Thames Is Still Freaking Out

So there’s a larger regression from a gender perspective that I think is impacting this regression on trans rights. But I think it has been more acute, more significant in the trans-rights space.

Candidly, I think we’ve lost the art of persuasion. We’ve lost the art of change-making over the last couple of years. We’re not in this position because of trans people. There was a very clear, well-coordinated, well-funded effort to demonize trans people, to stake out positions on fertile ground for anti-trans politics and to have those be the battlegrounds — rather than some of the areas where there’s more public support. We’re not in this position because of the movement or the community, but clearly what we’ve been doing over the last several years has not been working to stave it off or continue the progress that we were making eight, nine, 10 years ago.

I think a lot of it can be traced to a false sense of security that the L.G.B.T.Q. movement and the progressive movement writ large began to feel in the postmarriage world. There was a sense of cultural momentum that was this unending, cresting wave. There is this sense of a cultural victory that lulled us into a false sense of security and in many ways shut down needed conversations.

The support that we saw for trans rights in 2016, 2017 — it was a mirage of support in some ways. Because I think, in the postmarriage world, there was a transfer of support from the L.G.B. to the T. for two reasons.

One, I think people said: Well, the T. is part of the acronym. I support gay people, so I’ll support trans people — it’s all the same movement. Two, I think in those early days after marriage, a lot of people regretted having been wrong on marriage in the 1990s and 2000s. And they said: I didn’t understand what it meant to be gay, and therefore I didn’t support marriage, and I regret not supporting something because I didn’t understand it. So I’m going to, without understanding, support trans rights because I don’t want to make that same mistake again.

I think that resulted in a lot of us — a lot of our movement — stopping the conversation and ceasing doing the hard work of opening hearts and changing minds and telling stories that over 20 years had shifted and deepened understanding on gay identities that allowed for marriage equality to be built on solid ground.

And I think that allowed for the misinformation, the disinformation — that well-coordinated, well-funded campaign — to really take advantage of that lack of understanding. And the support for trans rights was a house built on sand.

I want to connect two things you said there, because I hadn’t thought about this exactly before. You made this point that there’s been a generalized gender regression — which is true. And you also made this point that people had this metaphor in their minds: I was wrong about gay marriage, I didn’t understand that experience, so maybe I’m wrong here, too.

But the one thing that’s maybe different here is there’s a set of narrow policies, like nondiscrimination, and then a broader cultural effort — everybody should put their pronouns in their bio or say them before they begin speaking at a meeting — that was more about destabilizing the gender binary.

And there people had a much stronger view. Like: I do know what it means. I’ve been a man all my life. I’ve been a woman all my life. How dare you tell me how I have to talk about myself or refer to myself!

And that made the metaphor break. Because if the gay marriage fight was about what other people do, there was a dimension to this that was about what you do and how you should see yourself or your kids or your society.

I think that’s an accurate reflection of the overplaying of the hand in some ways — that we as a coalition went to Trans 201, Trans 301, when people were still at a very much Trans 101 stage.

I also think there were requests that people perceived as a cultural aggression, which then allowed the right to say: We’re punishing trans people because of their actions. Rather than: We’re going after innocent bystanders.

And I think some of the cultural mores and norms that started to develop around inclusion of trans people were probably premature for a lot of people. We became absolutist — not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement — and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. Part of this is fostered by social media.

We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place.

We should be ahead of public opinion, but we have to be within arm’s reach. If we get too far out ahead, we lose our grip on public opinion, and we can no longer bring it with us. And I think a lot of the conversations around sports and also some of the cultural changes that we saw in expected workplace behavior, etc. was the byproduct of maybe just getting too far out ahead and not actually engaging in the art of social change-making.

The position for more maximalist demands is that you need to be in a hurry — trans people are dying now, suffering now — and that there isn’t time for decades of political organizing here. And also that maybe it works, or there’s a reason to believe it works.

You’ve been in more of those spaces than me. How would you describe how the more maximalist approach and culture evolved and why?

Well, first off, I think you’re right. It is understandable. This is a scary moment. I’m scared. As a trans person, I’m scared.

I recognize that when the house is on fire, when there are attacks that are dangerous, very dangerous, it can feel like we need to scream and we need to sound the alarm and we need everyone to be doing exactly that. I get that instinct. I understand that people would say: If you give a little bit here, they’ll take a mile.

We’re not negotiating with the other side, though. In this moment, we have to negotiate with public opinion. And we shouldn’t treat the public like they’re Republican politicians.

When you recognize that distinction, I think it allows for a pragmatic approach that has, in my mind, the best possible chance of shifting public opinion as quickly as possible. It would be one thing if screaming about how dangerous this is right now had the effect of stopping these attacks, but it won’t.

You call it an abandonment of persuasion that became true across a variety of issues for progressives. Also for people on the right. And sometimes I wonder how much that reflected the movement of politics to these very unusually designed platforms of speech, where what you do really is not talk to people you disagree with but talk about people you disagree with to people you do agree with — and then see whether or not they agree with what you said. There’s a way in which I think that breeds very different habits in people who do it.

I think that’s absolutely right. Again, we’re not in this place because of our community or our movement. Or because we weren’t shaming people enough, weren’t canceling people enough, weren’t yelling at people enough, weren’t denouncing anti-trans positions enough.

I think the dynamic with social media is that the most outrageous, the most extreme, the most condemnatory content is what gets amplified the most. It’s what gets liked and retweeted the most, and people mistake getting likes and retweets as a sign of effectiveness. Those are two fundamentally different things. And I think that, whether it’s subconscious or even conscious, the rewarding of unproductive conversations has completely undermined the capacity for us as individuals — or politically — to have conversations that persuade, that open people’s hearts and minds, that meet them where they are.

And I think the other dynamic that we have with social media is that there are two kinds of people on social media. The vast majority of people are doomscrollers: They just go on, and they scroll their social media. Twenty percent, maybe, are doomposters: 10 percent on the far right, 10 percent on the far left — the people who are so, so strident and angry that they’re compelled to post, and that content gets elevated. But what that has resulted in for the 80 percent who are just doomscrollers is this false perception of reality.

Take a person, let’s say they’re center left — it gives them a false perception that everyone on the left believes this, and it pulls them that way. And then it gives them a false perception that everyone on the right believes the most extreme version of the right.

It creates this false binary, extreme perception, availability bias. Because all of the content we’re seeing is reflective of just the 20 percent, and it has warped our perception of reality, of who people are and where the public is.

One of the best things about being an elected official is that I have to break out of that social media echo chamber — that social media extreme world — and interact with everyday people. And yes, there are real disagreements, but 80 percent of the doomscrollers or the people who aren’t even on social media are actually in a place where we can have a conversation with them.

When I ask this question, I don’t just mean on trans issues, but: You represent Delaware, which is a blue state — not Massachusetts blue — but blue. If you took your sense of what Democrats want or what the country wants from your experiences in social media versus your sense from traveling around your state, how would they differ?

I think they would differ in two ways. One, they would differ in the issues that we would focus on. What you hear on social media is a preoccupation with the most inflamed cultural war issues that you almost never hear when you’re out talking to voters in any part of the state. What you hear is an understandable catastrophizing around democracy, which you don’t hear nearly as much when you’re out talking to voters.

What you hear about when you’re talking to voters is the cost of living. You hear about the bread and butter issues that are keeping people up at night — people who aren’t on social media or aren’t posting on social media. And so you hear a difference in priorities, but then you also hear a difference in approach.

People are hungry for an approach that doesn’t treat our fellow citizens as enemies but rather treats our fellow citizens as neighbors, even if we disagree with them — an approach that’s filled with grace.

On social media we have come to this conclusion, rightfully so, that people’s grace has been abused in our society. That the grace and patience of marginalized people have been abused. And that is true.

But on social media, the course correction to that has been to eliminate all grace from our politics. It’s: How dare you have conversations with people who disagree with you? How dare you be willing to work with people who disagree with you? How dare you compromise? How dare you seek to find common ground with Republicans?

And when you go out into the real world — Democrats, independents and Republicans — there is a hunger for some level of grace for us to just not be so angry at one another and miserable. They want to see and know that we actually do have more in common. And therefore it gives you hope that persuasion is not only necessary but can actually still be effective.

What does grace in politics mean to you, and when have you either seen it or experienced it?

I think grace in politics means, one, creating room for disagreement: assuming good intentions, assuming that the people who are on the other side of an issue from you aren’t automatically hateful, horrible people. I think it means creating some space for disagreement within your own coalition. I think it’s a kindness that just feels so missing from our body politic and our national dialogue.

I saw it in the Delaware State Senate on both sides of the aisle, whether it’s Republicans in Delaware joining on to be cosponsors on an L.G.B.T.Q. panic defense bill that I was the prime sponsor of. Whether it was the discourse being much kinder and more civil on a whole host of culture war issues — I saw that grace has the effect of lowering the temperature, removing some of the incentives to go after vulnerable people in this country, in our state.

I saw it with my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, who didn’t vote for bills that were deeply personal to me, and yet we still found ways to work together. We still found ways to develop friendships.

And look, I know that places more of a burden on me than it does on them. I know that when you’re asking a marginalized person to extend grace in a conversation, you’re asking much more of that marginalized person. But change-making isn’t always easy, and it’s not always fair.

And why would we expect that the extra burdens and barriers of marginalization would cease at the point of overcoming the marginalization, of creating the change necessary to eliminate prejudice and create equal opportunity in our society?

No — that’s where the barriers are going to be greatest. That’s where the burdens are going to be greatest.

It reminds me of a line that I hear less now, but I used to see it a lot, which is: It’s not my job to educate you.

I always thought about that line because on one level, I understood it. It’s probably not your job to educate anyone.

But if you’re in politics, if what you’re trying to do is political change, I always found that line to be almost antipolitical.

Yes.

That if what you want to do is change a law, change a society, change a heart, and you’re the one who wants to do it — well then, whose job is it? And who are you expecting to do it?

It’s an understandable frustration, but it’s the only way forward.

I don’t believe that every person from an underrepresented or an unrepresented community needs to always bear the brunt and burden of public education. I don’t believe that every L.G.B.T.Q. person has to be out and sharing their story and doing all of that hard work. But for the folks who are willing to do it, we need to let them.

One of the problems we’ve had is that we’ve gone from: It’s not my job as an individual person who’s just trying to make it through the day to educate everyone — to: No one from that community should educate, and frankly, we should just stop having this conversation because the fact that we are having this conversation at all is hurtful and oppressive.

Maybe it is hurtful, but you can’t foster social change if you don’t have a conversation. You can’t change people if you exclude them. And I will just say, you can’t have absolutism on the left or the right without authoritarianism.

The fact that we have real disagreements, the fact that we have difficult conversations, the fact that we have painful conversations is not a bug of democracy. It’s a feature of democracy. And yes, that is hard and difficult — but again, how can we expect that the process of overcoming marginalization is going to be fair?

The discourse has taken this understandable critique of society and the way we operate and the burdens we place on marginalized people, and we’ve somehow said: Well, the one place that we have control over whether we allow for that marginalization is in the strategies we use to overcome it. So we’re not going to engage in that because it’s self-oppression.

And I think that is such a self-defeating and counterproductive approach.

We are in the most illiberal era of my lifetime in American politics. And I don’t mean liberalism in the sense of supporting or not supporting universal health care but in terms of due process, in terms of tolerance, in terms of the basic practice of politics and living amid each other.

It has also made me think about the need to clearly define what the practice of illiberalism itself is. What do you think it is?

I think it is the recognition that in a free society, we are going to live and think differently. It is the allowance of that disagreement in the public square and the tussle of that disagreement in the public square.

And that is uncomfortable. That is not easy. And yes, there are going to be people in that conversation for whom it’s going to be more difficult and more uncomfortable. But in the internet world, you can’t suppress diversity of thought. It will always bubble up. But it will bubble up, if suppressed, with an extra bitterness and an extremism fostered in that echo chamber that it’s been suppressed to. It will inevitably bubble up like a volcano. I think that’s what we’re seeing right now.

I will say, while the left made this mistake of fostering an illiberalism based on a false sense of cultural victory, the right is now making the exact same mistake. I think they’re overplaying their hand.

They’re interpreting the 2024 election to be a cultural mandate that is much greater than what it actually is. And if they continue to do that, there will be a backlash to the illiberalism — the cultural illiberalism, not just the legal illiberalism — of the right, in the same way that there’s been a backlash to the cultural illiberalism of the left.

I couldn’t agree with that more. We’re going to get to that.

I want to talk for a minute about the 2024 election and the aftermath. There’s been a lot of rethinking and self-recrimination among Democrats.

One of the comments that got a lot of attention came right after the election when your colleague Seth Moulton, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, said: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

What did you think when you heard that?

One, that it wasn’t the language that I would use.

But I think it came from a larger belief that the Democratic Party needed to start to have an open conversation about our illiberalism. That we needed to recognize that we were talking to ourselves. We were fighting fights that felt viscerally comforting to our own base, or fighting fights in a way that felt viscerally comforting to our own base, rather than maintaining proximity to the public and being normal people. [Chuckle.]

The sports conversation is a good one because there is a big difference between banning trans young people from extracurricular programs consistent with their gender identity and recognizing that there’s room for nuance in this conversation. The notion that we created this “all-on” or “all-off” mentality, that you had to be perfect on trans rights across the board, use exactly the right language, and unless you do that, you are a bigot, you’re an enemy. When you create a binary all-on or all-off option for people, you’re going to have a lot of imperfect allies who are going to inevitably choose the all-off option.

What ends up happening is the left excommunicates someone who not only — Seth voted against the ban on trans athletes, but we would excommunicate someone who uses imperfect language — yes, again, not language I would use. But we would excommunicate someone who’s saying that there’s nuance in this conversation and use this language that we don’t approve of — yet still votes “the right way”? That’s exactly what’s wrong with our approach.

And look, Seth is not going anywhere, but for a lot of everyday folks, if they think how Seth thinks or if they think that there’s room for nuance in this conversation and we tell them: You’re a bigot, you’re not welcome here, you’re not part of our coalition, we will not consider you an ally? The right has done a very good job of saying: Listen, you have violated the illiberalism of the left, you have been cast aside for your common sense — welcome into our club.

And then once you get welcomed into that club, human nature is: Well, I was with the Democratic Party on 90 percent of things, maybe against them on 10 percent of things or sort of in the middle on 10 percent. Once you get welcomed into that other club, human psychology is that you start to adopt those positions. And instead of being with us on 90 percent of things and against us on 10 percent of things, that person, now welcomed into the far-right club, starts to be against us on 90 percent of things and with us on only 10 percent of things.

That dynamic is part of the regression that we have seen. Not only that, but the hardening of the opposition that we’ve seen on trans issues.

We have been an exclusionary tent that is shedding imperfect allies, which is great. We’re going to have a really, really miserable self-righteous, morally pure club in the gulag we’ve all been sent off to.

[Laughs.]

I think this goes to your point in a way. After Moulton made those comments, The Times reported that a local party official and an ally had compared him to a Nazi cooperator, that there were protests outside his office.

I was always struck by which part of his comments got all that attention. It was the part I just read to you, but he also said this: “Having reasonable restrictions for safety and competitive fairness in sports seems like, well, it’s very empirically a majority opinion.” He’s right on that. “But should we take civil rights away from trans people, so they can just get fired for being who they are? No.” He was expressing opposition to what was about to be Donald Trump’s agenda.

Yes.

And this space of his divergence, from an issue that had already been lost — the polling was terrible on it — that was where people on the left focused. And his expression of support and allyship, as I saw it, barely ever got reported or commented on. It struck me as telling.

I think it absolutely is telling. The best thing for trans people in this moment is for all of us to wake up to the fact that we have to grapple with the world as it is, that we have to grapple with where public opinion is right now, and that we need all of the allies that we can get.

Again, Seth voted against the bans. If we are going to defend some of the basic fundamental rights of trans people, we are going to need those individuals in our coalition. If you have to be perfect on every trans rights issue for us to say you can be an ally and part of our coalition, then we are going to have a cap of about 30 percent on our coalition. If we are going to have 50 percent plus one — or frankly, more, necessarily 60 percent or more — in support of nondiscrimination protections for trans people, in support of our ability to get the health care that we need, then by definition, it will have to include a portion of the 70 percent who oppose trans people’s participation in sports.

Right now, the message from so many is: You’re not welcome, and your support for 90 percent of these policies is irrelevant. The fact that you diverge on one thing makes you evil.

It also misunderstands the history of civil rights in this country. “You can’t compromise on civil rights” is a great tweet. But tell me: Which civil rights act delivered all progress and all civil rights for people of color in this country? The Civil Rights Act of 1957? The Civil Rights Act of 1960? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Voting Rights Act of 1965? The Civil Rights Act of 1968? Or any of the civil rights acts that have been passed since the 1960s?

That movement was disciplined, it was strategic, it picked its battles, it picked its fights, and it compromised to move the ball forward. And right now, that compromise would be deemed unprincipled, weak, and throwing everyone under the bus.

And that is so counterproductive. It is so harmful, and it completely betrays the lessons of every single social movement and civil rights movement in our country’s history.

We have an example of a very successful social movement in recent history with marriage equality. Where would we have been in 2007 and 2008 if not only we had not tolerated the fact that Barack Obama was ostensibly not for marriage equality then, but if we had said to voters: Even if you vote against the marriage ban, but aren’t quite comfortable with marriage yet, then you’re a bigot and you don’t belong in our coalition — where would that movement have been?

The most effective messengers were the people who had evolved themselves. We had grace personified in that movement, and it worked beyond even the advocate’s wildest expectations in terms of the speed of both legal progress and cultural progress. Because we created incentives for people to grow, we created space for people to grow, and we allowed people into our tent, into that conversation who weren’t already with us.

You mentioned the period in 2008 when Barack Obama was running for president, and at the very least his public position — many of us suspected it was not his private position — was that he opposed gay marriage. That was the mainstream position at that point in the Democratic Party, and there was a compromise position they all supported, which was civil unions.

Is there an analogy to the civil unions debate for you now?

In the sports conversation, it’s local control. It’s allowing for individual athletic associations to make those individual determinations, and in some cases they’ll have policies that strike a right balance. In some cases, they’ll have policies that are too restrictive. And I think that is the equivalent to the civil union’s position in that debate.

By allowing for democratic voters, independent voters — even some elected officials — to take that civil unions position, one that met voters where they were, it gave some of our politicians who needed it an offramp so that they didn’t have to choose between being all-on or all-off. And it allowed that conversation to continue and prevented more harm from being inflicted.

I want to pick up on the polling. There’s this YouGov polling from January that looked at all these different issues. There are a lot of issues around trans rights that actually poll great. Protection for trans people against hate crimes: plus 36 net approval. Banning employers from firing trans people because of their identity: plus 33. Allowing transgender people to serve in the military, which Donald Trump is trying to rescind: plus 22. Requiring all new public buildings to include gender-neutral bathrooms: This surprised me — plus seven.

Then there’s the other side. Everybody knows that the sports issue is tough in the polling, but banning people under 18 from attending drag shows — that’s popular. Banning youth from accessing puberty blockers and hormones — that’s very popular. Banning public schools from teaching lessons on transgender issues — that’s popular. Requiring transgender people to use bathrooms that match their biological sex — that is popular.

When you look at these lists of issues, what do you see as dividing them? What cuts the issues that you could win on now from those that have heavy disapproval?

Well, I think that there’s very clearly a distinction that the public makes between young people and adults. There is a distinction that is made in many cases when it comes to what people feel like is government support of or funding of — versus just allowing trans people to live their lives, allowing trans troops who are qualified to continue to serve, allowing trans people who are doing great jobs in their workplace to continue to work.

It all goes back to this notion of: Get government out, let people live their lives, and let families and individuals make the best decisions for themselves. That should be the through line of our perspective, a libertarian approach to allowing trans people to live fully and freely. There are some complicated questions, but those questions shouldn’t be answered by politicians who are trying to exploit those issues for political gain.

I was struck by your use of the word “libertarian” there. Because when I look at this polling, what I see is something quite similar, which is: Americans, by and large, aren’t cruel. Their view here is pretty “Live and let live.”

Yes.

They have different views, which we can talk about in a minute, on minors. But where the question is whether the government coming in and bothering you — “you” being any trans person — they don’t really want that.

What they don’t want to do is change their lives, or think something is changing for them in their society. Maybe those two things are not in all ways possible, certainly over the long term, but there are a lot of places where they are possible.

It seems to me that in 2024 and over the last couple years, what Republicans did very well — their approach to persuasion — was to pick the right wedge issues.

You would think that the entire debate over trans policy in America was about N.C.A.A. swimmers. Like this was the biggest problem facing trans people, the biggest problem in some ways facing the country. When it’s a pretty edge-case issue, and questions like nondiscrimination and access to health care are much more widespread.

What they did was they used their wedge issue, and they’re now attacking those majority positions. Trump is attacking discrimination — he wants people discriminated against. He doesn’t want trans people to be able to put the identity they hold and present as on their passports. Which is not a huge winning issue for him.

So there’s this question of picking the right wedge issues. Is there a wedge issue for you that you wish Democrats would pick?

Listen, I think that we do much better when we keep the main thing. Defending Medicaid in this moment is the main thing.

For everybody.

For everyone, for everyone. And look, I think abortion to some degree had been a wedge issue that was to the Democrats’ advantage, not to the Republicans’ advantage.

But I think we have to reorient the public’s perception of what our priorities are as a party. When we lean into the culture wars and lean into culture war wedge issues, even if they benefit us, they reinforce a perception that the Democratic Party is unconcerned with the economic needs of the American people.

When you ask a voter: What are the top five priorities of the Democratic Party, what are the top five priorities of the Republican Party, and what are the top five priorities for them as a voter? Three out of the five issues that are the top issues for that voter appear in what their perception of the top five issues for the Republican Party is. Only one of their top five priorities appears in their perception of the top five priorities for the Democrats. That’s health care — and it was fifth out of five. The top two were abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. issues.

And I don’t care what your position is on those two issues, you are not going to win an election if voters think that those two issues are your top issues, rather than their ability to get a good wage and good benefits, get a house and live the American dream.

We have to, in this moment, reinforce our actual priority as a party — which is making sure that everyone can pursue the American dream, which has become increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible; that everyone should be able to get the health care they need; be able to buy a home; be able to send their child to child care without breaking the bank, if they can even get a spot. That needs to be our focus.

When we have this purity politics approach to L.G.B.T.Q. issues or abortion, what we communicate, even if we’re not talking about those issues, is those are threshold issues, and therefore the voter reads that as those are priority issues. The only way to convince the voter that those are not our priority issues, that that’s not what we’re spending our capital and time on — but rather on giving them health care and housing — is to make it abundantly clear to people that our tent can include diversity of thought on those issues.

Something that I notice in the broad coalition of groups and people and funders who identify as or support Democrats is that they all want the issue they care most about to be the issue that gets talked about the most. People who fund anything from climate to trans rights, to any of the hotter issues in American life — you could actually imagine a strategy where those groups and that money went to making every election about Medicaid, because Medicaid is just a killer issue for Democrats. And then the people who get elected are better on those other issues, too. But it doesn’t. That money, those groups that are organizing, what they often want Democrats to do is publicly take unpopular positions on their issues.

I think all the time about the A.C.L.U. questionnaire that asked candidates, and in this case Kamala Harris, whether she would support the government paying for gender reassignment surgery for illegal immigrants in prison. Even if your whole position in life is to make that possible, the last thing you’d want is for anybody to claim it out in public. You would want nobody to ever think about that question ever at all.

And it’s something I’ve heard Democrats talking about more after the election — just rethinking on some level, this question of: Is the point of all this organizing to get politicians to commit to the most maximalist version of your issue set? Or is the point of this organizing to somehow figure out how to win Senate seats in Missouri and Kansas? So you have very moderate Democrats who nevertheless make Chuck Schumer the Senate majority leader rather than John Thune.

I think that there is an incentive from money and from social media — and those also go hand in hand sometimes with grass-roots donations — that incentivize the groups to want to show their influence and their effect by having politicians fight the fights that they want them to fight in ways that feel viscerally comforting to their own community that they’re representing.

I get that. I understand that. One, we have to be better as elected officials in saying no, in saying: Public opinion is everything. And if you want us to change, you need to help foster the change in public opinion before you’re asking these elected officials to betray the fact that they are, at the end of the day, representatives who have to represent in some form or fashion the views of the people that they represent.

At some point, you will represent the people’s positions — or they will find someone else who will. So it is just an unsustainable dynamic for the groups to continue to ask elected officials to take these maximalist positions, to ignore where their voters are. They have to do the hard work of persuasion.

There’s always going to be a tension between the groups and elected officials. Everyone has to do their own job, but there has to be some degree of understanding.

I always think this is such an interesting question for politicians to work with because there is the internal and the external push to authenticity.

Yes.

We don’t want these poll-tested politicians. And it’s also your job to represent.

Yes.

On issues personal to you, on issues not as personal to you, how do you think about balancing “They elected you” versus “You are their servant”?

Look, all of these decisions inevitably require a balancing of my own views, my own principles and the views of the people that I represent. But I think one thing you always have to do is you have to go: OK, here’s an issue that I feel very strongly about. If I vote against this, what are the second, third and fourth order consequences of voting against or voting in favor?

You might abstractly agree with something as an ideal, but if you were to pursue that or implement that policy, it would have, in the medium- to long-term, a regressive effect because there’s a backlash to pushing too hard or taking too maximalist of a position by the mainstream in our politics.

One of the problems we’ve had is that we have said: Not only do you have to vote the way we want you to vote, but you have to speak the way we want you to speak.

And I always have said, even when I was an advocate: If we can get the policy vote that we want and the compromise we are accepting is essentially a rhetorical compromise, that is a pretty darn good deal.

Again, we have to be willing to have these conversations out in the open. We have to recognize that there’s complexity, there’s nuance — and that means not just in the policy space but in the political space. That it’s authentic, to say: These are some really difficult conversations, and sometimes I’m going to get it right and sometimes I’m going to get it wrong, and sometimes I’m voting exclusively with what I think is the right thing to do, even if my voters disagree. But also, sometimes I’m going to have to take a balanced view of this. And that’s democracy.

I want to pick up on speech. It’s true on trans and gender issues — it’s also true on a bunch of other issues in the past couple of years — that a huge number of the fights that ended up defining the issue were not about legislation. They were about speech.

I’ve always myself thought this reflects social media, but the number of people who have talked to me about the term “birthing persons,” which I think virtually nobody has used, or “Latinx” was a big one like this — there is in general this extreme weighting of: Can you push changes of speech onto the people who agree with you and possibly onto society as a whole?

And the strategy worked backward from the speech outcome, not the legislative outcome. How do you think about that weighting of speech versus votes?

There is no question in my mind that the vote is much more important than the rhetoric that they use. We have discoursed our way into: If you talk about this issue in a way that’s suboptimal from my perspective, you’re actually laying the foundation for oppression and persecution.

Maybe academically that’s true, but welcome to the real world. We are prioritizing the wrong thing, and it’s an element of virtue signaling — like: I’m showing that I am the most radical, I’m the most progressive on this issue because I’m going to take this person who does everything right substantively and crucify this person for not being perfect in language.

It’s a way of demonstrating that you’re in the in-group, that you understand the language, that you understand the mores and the values of that group, and it’s a way of building capital and credibility with that in-group. I think that’s what it is.

It’s inherently exclusionary. And that’s part of the thing that’s wrong with our politics right now. All of our politics feel so exclusionary. The coalition that wins the argument about who is most welcoming will be the coalition that wins our politics.

I think that’s such an interesting point, and I think probably true.

I’d also be curious to hear your thoughts on this: I think there’s a very interesting way that speech and its political power confuse people because it’s two things at once. It’s extremely low cost and extremely high cost.

Pronouns, for instance, are a very easy thing. And basically, if you won’t use somebody’s preferred pronouns, I think you’re an [expletive]. That’s my personal view of it. But trying to execute a speech change where everybody lists their pronouns in their bio, where every meeting begins with people going around the circle and saying their name and their pronouns — that feels very different to people.

It seems small. You don’t have to pay anything out of pocket, you don’t have to go anywhere — and yet the language we use is very, very important to us.

Yes, I think you’re absolutely right there. And I think the thing with pronouns, too, is a prime example of where we’ve lost grace, though.

Me calling people [expletive] is not graceful? [Laughs.]

Well, no, no. I think there is a difference between someone who’s intentionally misgendering someone and people who make mistakes.

Yes, totally.

And I think that there has been, whether warranted or not, the perception that people are going to be shamed if they make mistakes.

But then I think you’re absolutely right, too, that there is a distinction between treating me the way I want to be treated, and everyone changing their behavior and requiring this sort of in-group language that exceeds just calling the person in front of you what they want to be called.

And I think it gets to something we were talking about earlier. There are two pieces to the politics of this. One is fairly popular, at least for now, and the other is a much tougher lift.

I think most people have that basic sense of politeness. If you want to be referred to in a certain way, yes, I might slip up. But if I’m being a decent person, I’m going to try.

Yes.

Versus the move from pronouns to the move for calling things cisgender — that was a much bigger effort that in some ways wasn’t described as such.

And I feel like there’s been a dimension to the politics here where things that were very academic arguments became political arguments, and then people were a little bit unclear on what the political win would be.

To destabilize the fundamental gender binary that people understand as operating is touching something very deep in society. Versus treating other people with respect and courtesy and decency and grace is a much easier sell. And I think it’s OK to want to do the former, but I think people kept mixing up which their actual project was.

At the end of the day, the thing that we lost is that we’re just talking about people trying to live their lives, trying to live the best lives they can.

We got into this rabbit hole of academic intellectual discourse that doesn’t actually matter in people’s lives. We got into this performative fighting to show our bona fides to our own in-group, and we lost the fundamental truth that all of those things are only even possible once you’ve done the basic legwork of allowing people to see trans people as people.

When you allow trans people to be seen as human beings who have the same hopes and dreams and fears as everyone else, once that basic conception of humanity exists, then all the other things, all the other conversations sort of fall into place. Language inevitably changes across society, across cultures, across time, but it is a byproduct of cultural change.

And I just think we started to have what maybe were conversations that were happening in academic institutions, or conversations that were happening in the community, and we started having those out in public on social media. And then we demanded that everyone else have that conversation with us and incorporate what the dominant position is in that conversation in the way they live their lives.

And that’s just not how this happens. Let’s just talk about human beings who want you to live by the golden rule. Let’s just talk about the fact that trans people are people who can be service members and doctors and lawyers and educators and elected officials, and do a damn good job at that.

That is the gateway to everything else, and it has always been in every social movement.

The place where not just the politics but also the answers are complicated is around children.

We talked about the N.C.A.A. swimmers and the edge-case nature of that. But schools are broader. And a lot of what the Trump administration is doing, a lot of what you see Republicans are doing in states, is around schools and minors. And that’s tougher.

Parents want to know what their kids are doing. On the one hand, if you’re a kid with gender dysphoria, taking puberty blockers early matters. On the other hand, there are a lot of things parents don’t let their kids do young because they’re not sure what they’re going to want in a couple years.

How do you think about that set of issues? The leave-them-alone approach makes a lot of sense for adults. But we don’t leave kids alone. Kids exist in a paternalistic system where their parents and schools have power over them. So the question of policy there becomes very profound.

Yes. First off, I think in that instance we rightfully acknowledge the important role that parents play in decisions for their children.

Look, you can recognize that there’s nuance here. You can say that there needs to be stronger standards of care, that maybe things got too lenient.

But ultimately politicians aren’t the people who should be making these decisions. The family should be making these decisions. The family, in consultation with a doctor, should be making these decisions.

And I think that is a fair balance in recognizing the need for every child to get medical care and also the right of parents to make decisions, including health care decisions for their children.

But in some European countries right now, you do see the government setting tighter standards. There have definitely been a lot of arguments about whether or not the research was good, whether or not the research was ideologically influenced.

So there’s some government role here, some role for professional associations, some context in which families and doctors make these decisions. What is that role?

I think you just hit on that distinction, which is that in many European countries, the distinction between the health care system and the government is fuzzier. In many cases, you have government-operated hospitals.

Here, you have health care systems. You have standards of care developed by providers in those medical associations. And that is where those decisions should be left up to, in terms of establishing the standards of care. And then when applying those standards of care, allowing the practical application of those standards of care to happen between patients, families and providers. Because it’s fundamentally a different kind of system.

I think the critique and the fear from the right that I hear is that some of these same dynamics — toward pushing out people who question the evidence, toward there being things you can say and things you cannot say — took hold. And that the results of that can’t be trusted — that everything you said is happening in politics is also happening in medicine and elsewhere.

We actually started to see a pretty difficult but important conversation within WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, about the standards of care for youth care before government started intervening. They started having a conversation about how to adjust the standards of care, recognizing perhaps that they needed to tighten them.

And that’s true across health care: Standards of care across different forms of care are constantly evolving.

That conversation was starting to happen. You cannot tell me that it’s the role of the government to pre-empt those conversations. Those conversations should not be settled in legislative bodies by politicians who aren’t looking at the data, don’t understand the data and certainly aren’t objectively interpreting the data.

And look, the conversation changes when people understand what it means to be trans. Because I think right now we think of it as a choice. We think of it as an intellectual decision. Like: I want to be a girl. I want to be a boy. And I want to do this because of these rewards, or I don’t want to do it because of these risks.

But that’s not what gender identity is. It is much more innate. It is a visceral feeling. It’s not the same as whether you get a tattoo or what you have for dinner. It’s not a decision. It’s a fact about who you are.

I think the challenge in the conversation around gender identity that differs from sexual orientation is that most people who are straight can understand what it feels like to love and to lust. And so they’re able to enter into conversations around sexual orientation with an analogous experience.

The challenge in the conversation around gender identity is that people who aren’t trans don’t know what it feels like to have a gender identity that differs from your sex assigned at birth.

For me, the closest thing that I can compare it to was a constant feeling of homesickness, just an unwavering ache in the pit of my stomach that would only go away when I could be seen and affirmed as myself.

And I think that because we stopped having that conversation, because we stopped creating space for people to ask questions, for people’s understandable — perhaps invasive, but understandable — curiosity to be met with an openness and a grace, not by everyone, but just the people who were willing to do it — we stopped people having an understanding of what it means to be trans. And it allowed them to start to see it. Or it allowed for their pre-existing perception that this is some sort of intellectual choice to manifest.

And in some cases, the perfect “discourse” started to reinforce that.

Say how.

We started to get to this place where you couldn’t be like: I’m born this way.

We policed the way even L.G.B.T.Q. people or trans people talked about their own identities — to be this perfect sort of academic —

Why can’t you say “I’m born this way”? I’m not saying you’re saying it, but this is a thing I’ve not been aware of.

There was sort of an academic perception that people should have agency over their sexual orientation and gender identity, even if it’s not “innate.” And there was this acceptance of a mainstream perception of sexual orientation and gender identity that was a one-size-fits-all narrative around L.G.B.T.Q. people that didn’t necessarily include people whose understanding was more fluid or whose understanding evolved over time or those who feel like they want to transgress gender norms because of a reason that’s not this innate sense of gender.

And when you take that capacity for us to authentically talk about our experience away from us — because it’s not academically the purest narrative that creates space and room for every single, different lived experience within that umbrella — you give people justification to say or think: This is a choice, and if it’s a choice, the threshold to allow for discrimination becomes lower.

I’ve known a number of people who have transitioned as adults.

The degree to which most of us avoid doing anything that would cause us any social discomfort at all times is so profound — how much we live our lives trying to not make anybody look at us for too long.

It must be such a profound need to make that decision — to come to your family, to your wife or your husband, to your kids, to your parents.

So the right-wing meme that emerged around it — that people are transitioning because they opportunistically want to be in another bathroom or in another locker room or get some kind of cultural affirmative action — always struck me as not just absurd but deeply unempathic. Not thinking for a moment what it must mean to want that that much. So then it’s interesting to hear you say that there was a pincer movement on that.

I’m sure there is agency, and people make decisions here. But the pull from inside of everybody I’ve known is really profound. Usually they’ve been trying to choose the other way for a long time — and eventually just can’t anymore.

That’s exactly what my experience was.

It’s funny because sometimes there’s discourse that the only reason I’m an elected official is because I’m trans. I see on the right this notion that I’m a diversity hire.

But it’s like: Well, voters chose me. It’s kind of an insult to voters that they didn’t choose me because they think that I’m the best candidate or reflective of what they want, but they just chose me because of my identity.

But it also just undersells such a larger truth, which is that my life would be so much easier if I weren’t trans.

I’m proud of who I am. I’m proud that this is my life experience for a whole host of reasons. But this is all a lot harder because I’m trans.

Are there moments where I get a microphone or — if I were a nontrans freshman Democrat, would I be sitting here? Maybe not. Maybe I would, but maybe not. We probably would be having a different conversation.

But navigating this world as a trans person has always been — and even more so now — it’s incredibly hard. And all any of us are asking — or at least all that most of us are asking — is to just let us live the best life we can. A life with as few regrets as possible. A life where we can be constructive, productive, contributing members of society.

You might not understand us. It is hard to step into the shoes of someone who is trans and to understand what that might feel like. But I spent 21 years of my life praying that this would go away.

And the only way that I was finally able to accept it was: One, realizing this was never going to go away. Two, becoming so consumed by it that it was the only thing I really was able to think about because the pain became too all-encompassing.

And three, the only way I was able to come out was because I was able to accept that I was losing any future. I had to go through stages of grief. And the only way I was able to come out was to finally get to that stage of acceptance over a loss of any future.

It’s really scary, and it’s really hard. And right now it is particularly scary and hard.

And to your point earlier, most people are good people, and they just want to treat other people with respect and kindness. But unfortunately, in this moment, in our politics — we were recently at something where someone gave us some information, and they said that when a voter was asked to describe the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, it was “crazy” for the Republican Party and “preachy” for the Democratic Party.

I think that undersells something that’s more true, which is that a voter will look and say: The Republican Party is [expletive] to other people. I don’t like that. But the Democratic Party is an [expletive] to me. And if I have to choose between the party that’s an [expletive] to me because I’m not perfect or a party that’s an [expletive] to someone else, even if I don’t like it, I’m going to choose the party that’s an [expletive] to someone else.

When you entered Congress, you were quite directly targeted by some of your Republican colleagues, led by Nancy Mace, on which bathrooms you could use — a thing that would not have happened if you were not a trans legislator.

This is the majority party in the House. You have to work with these people. You’re on committees with them. What has your experience been like both absorbing that and then trying to work with people whom you know may or may not have given you much grace in that moment?

The first thing I’d say is that the folks who were or are targeting me because of my gender identity in Congress are folks who, at this point, are really not working with any Democrats and can barely work with their own Republican colleagues.

I’ve introduced several bills. Almost all have been bipartisan. I’ve been developing relationships with colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Part of my responsibility in this moment is to show that when someone like me gets elected to public office, we can do the whole job. And that means working with people who disagree with me, including on issues that are deeply personal.

The folks who are coming after me — I mean, look, that’s been hard. But I know that they are coming after me not because they are deeply passionate about bathroom policy. They’re coming after me because they’re employing the strategies of reality TV. And the best way to get attention in a body of 435 people is to throw wine in someone’s face. That gets you a little attention. But if the person you’re throwing wine on, if they respond by throwing wine in your face, it creates a beef, which gets you a season-long story arc.

I knew that they were trying to bait me into a fight to get attention, and I refused to be used as a political pawn. I refuse to give them not only the power of derailing me but the incentive to continue to come after me.

And this was a prime example of fighting smart that is demonized on our own side. Because the grace that I didn’t get wasn’t just on the right. There was a lot of critique on the left.

I understand that, when you’re a first, people viscerally feel your highs, and they also viscerally feel your lows. But what would my fighting back in that moment have done? It wouldn’t have stopped the ban, and it would only have incentivized further attacks and continued behavior like that.

Sometimes we have to understand that not fighting, not taking the bait, is not a sign of weakness. It’s not unprincipled. Discipline and strategy are signs of strength.

And I think in the social media world, we have lulled ourselves into thinking the only way to fight is to fight. It’s to scream and it’s to yell and it’s to do it in every instance. And any time you don’t do it, you’re normalizing the behavior that’s coming your way.

It’s a ridiculously unfair burden to place on every single human being — to have to fight every single indignity.

But also by that logic, the young Black students who were walking into a school that was being integrated in the late ’50s and ’60s, who were walking forward calmly and with dignity and grace into that school as people screamed slurs at them — by that definition, that student was normalizing those slurs by not responding.

Instead, what that student was doing was providing the public with a very clear visual, a very clear contrast, between unhinged hatred and basic dignity and grace, which is fundamental to humanity.

And for me, one of the things that I struggled with after that was the lack of grace that I got from some in my own community, who said that I was reinforcing the behavior of the people who were coming after me, that I was not responding appropriately to the bullying that I was facing.

When the reality is: That behavior has diminished significantly because I removed the incentive for them to continue to do it. Because the incentive was so blatantly about attention, and I wasn’t going to let them get the attention that they wanted.

You’re reminding me of something I heard Barack Obama say many years ago when he was getting criticized for trying to negotiate, trying to reach out to people who, by that point, many on the left thought he was naive for trying to work with.

And he said something like: He had always felt that the American people could see better if the other side had clenched their fist, if he opened his hand.

I always thought there was a lot of wisdom in that.

Yes, absolutely. Early on in those first few weeks, I had some folks text me as I was responding the way that I was. And they said: You should watch “42,” which is the movie about Jackie Robinson.

I am not comparing my experience to Jackie Robinson’s at all. At all. But there’s a scene in that movie that’s so illustrative of these dynamics: He’s meeting with the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, and the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers is trying to provoke him into anger. And when he sort of succeeds, the owner basically says to him: You have to understand that when you are a first, if you respond to a slur with a slur, they’ll only hear yours. If you respond to a punch with a punch, they’ll say: You’re the aggressor.

If we go in and say to these folks: We’re never going to work with you, because you’re never going to work with us — then we get the blame for never working with them. Not them.

If we go in and we respond to their hatred with vitriol and anger, they’re going to blame us. And that’s the reality of the double standard in our politics. That’s the reality that a first always has to navigate.

Let them put their anger, their vitriol, on full display. Let us provide that contrast with our approach.

Look, it’s not going to always work out, and it’s not always going to create the outcome that you desire. But people need us to demonstrate that contrast to them, for them to truly see it.

I’ve been having a conversation in a very different context than this, but I’m curious to hear your answer to it.

I’ve been having this conversation about whether or not good politics always requires clear enemies. Do you believe it does?

No. I believe that you can tell a compelling story with an enemy. There’s no question. It sometimes is an easy out in our politics.

But I think that there’s something to be said about a politics that is rooted in opposition to an enemy that is fundamentally that regressive. That anger is fundamentally conservative in its political outcome.

Barack Obama — and Bill Clinton, for that matter — did a good job of putting forward an aspirational politics that wasn’t defined by who we are against but by what we are for and about who we can be.

And I think that is a more successful path for progressive politics than an enemies-based politics, which so often devolves to anger. And which, more often than not, facilitates in the medium- and long-term, a regressive politics.

Look, I’m not saying it can’t always be effective politics. But you can have effective politics and good politics and better outcomes with an aspirational politics. With a politics that isn’t just about what it’s opposed to, but about what it can build and about who we can be.

Because I think everyone has their own internal struggle between their own better selves and their better angels and their base instincts.

Much earlier in the conversation I had asked you about liberalism, which was a little bit of a weird question to drop in there.

I don’t really have a question here, it’s just something I’m thinking about. But you actually strike me as one of the most liberal as a temperament — liberal in the classical sense — politicians I’ve talked to in a long time.

And I’ve been starting to read a lot of older books about liberalism because it feels to me that it is an approach to politics that even liberals lost.

Yes.

And one of the reasons I think we lost it — and I very much count myself as a liberal — was a feeling that liberalism’s virtue was also its vice. That its openness to critique, its constant balancing, its movement toward incremental solutions and its skepticism of total solutions — that those had been conditions under which problems never truly got solved. Systemic racism and bigotry festered.

And as it began to absorb that critique, it lost a lot of confidence in itself.

In a way, Barack Obama was the apex of the liberal leaders, and he hadn’t brought about utopia. And so liberalism seemed exhausted.

And I think alongside that, there was some way in which I cannot — I still need to figure this out, but I’ll say it because I believe it’s true: I think there’s something about the social media platforms that is illiberal as a medium.

We now have X and Bluesky and Threads, and none of them are good. They all lead to bad habits of mind. Because simplifying your thoughts down to these little bumper stickers and then having other people who agree with you retweet them or mob you just doesn’t lend itself to the pluralistic balancing modes of thought that liberalism is built to prize. They’re illiberal in a fundamental way.

So I don’t think it’s an accident that as liberalism began to lose its own moorings, illiberalism roared back.

And just one experience I’ve had of this whole period with Donald Trump’s second term is realizing that the thing that we were trying to keep locked in the basement was really profoundly dangerous. Even compared to his first term.

The attacks on due process, the trying to break institutions, the disappearance machine — if you let that all out, things can go really badly.

And there’s something about liberalism that is so unsatisfying. The work you just described having to do sounds so unsatisfying and frustrating. And yet.

I guess just that — and yet.

And yet it is the approach and the system that, while imperfect, is the most likely and most proven to actually lead to the progress that I and so many others seek.

Look, people have one life. And it is completely understandable that a person would feel: I have one life, and when you ask me to wait, you are asking me to watch my one life pass by without the respect and fairness that I deserve. And that is too much to ask of anyone.

And that is. It is our job to demand “now,” in the face of people who say “never.” But it’s also our job to then not reject the possibility for a better tomorrow as that compromise.

I truly believe that liberalism, that our ability to have conversations across disagreement, that our ability to recognize that in a pluralistic, diverse democracy, there will inevitably be people and positions that hurt us. But when you’re siloed and when you suppress that opposition underground in that basement — to use your word — they’re alone in there. And not only does that sense of community loneliness breed bitterness, but it also breeds radicalization.

Liberalism is not only the best mechanism to move forward, but it is also the best mechanism to rein in the worst excesses of your opposition.

Yes, the compromise is that you don’t get to do everything you want to do. But that is a much better bet than the alternative, which is what we have developed now — an illiberal democracy in so many ways in our body politic.

One where, yes, we might have temporary victories, but as we are seeing right now, those victories can be fleeting, and the consequences can be deadly.

Was this always your political temperament, or was it forged?

I have grown and changed. There are things that I did and said five, 10, 15 years ago that I look back and regret, because I think that they were too illiberal. Because I bought into a culture online that didn’t always bring out the best in me.

But I do think that those were exceptions, and even when I was an advocate, I was always perceived as one of the more mainstream respectability advocates. I was always considered someone who was too willing to work across disagreement and engage in conversations that we shouldn’t be having. I was always considered someone who was too willing to work within the system.

And so I think I’ve fundamentally always had the same perspective and fundamentally have always believed that we cannot eliminate grace from our politics and our change-making. And that’s rooted in watching my parents grow and change after I came out.

My parents are progressive people. They embraced my older brother, who’s gay, without skipping a beat. But I knew when I shared that I was trans with them, it was going to be devastating — to use a word that my mother uses. And I knew that if I responded by shutting down the conversation, by refusing to walk with them, by refusing to give them grace and assume good intentions when they would inevitably say and do things that might be hurtful to me, I would stunt their capacity to take that walk with me.

I saw us as a family move forward with a degree of grace toward each other, that we were all going to inevitably say and do things that we would come to regret, that might hurt a little bit, but that if we assumed good intentions and walked forward, my parents would go from saying: What are the chances that I have a gay son and a trans child? — from a place of pity to a place of awe and the diversity of our family and the blessings that have come with that diversity. And that only came from grace.

And then I saw it working in Delaware, passing nondiscrimination protections. I’ve seen it time and time again. And so I have borne witness to change that once seemed so impossible to me as a kid that it was almost incomprehensible not only become possible but become a reality, in large part because of grace in our politics. And yes, because I was willing to extend that grace to others.

Grace, blessings, witness — are these, for you, religious concepts?

They tap into my religion. I’m Presbyterian. I’m an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church.

But I think they go to something for me that transcends religion and my faith, and tap into my sense of beauty toward the world and my sense of beauty at life and the joy that I get to live this life, that I get to be myself and that I get to live a life of purpose.

I know I’m lucky in that respect, and I want everyone to have that same opportunity. And I have seen that approach and that grace. It has allowed me to be a better version of myself, a happier version of myself, which I think has actually unlocked those opportunities.

That’s interesting. Is it a practice?

When you say that it has allowed you to be a better version of yourself, is that something that you cultivate intentionally? And if so, how?

Yes. I think it’s often an intentional choice.

So many of the problems that we face are rooted in the fact that hurt people hurt people.

And I think that we are in this place where we are in this fierce competition for pain. Where the left says to the right: What do you know about pain, white, straight, cis man? My pain is real as a queer, transgender person.

And then the right says to the left: What do you know about pain, college-educated, cosmopolitan elite? My pain is real in a postindustrial community ravaged by the opioid crisis.

We are in this competition for pain when there is plenty of pain to go around. And every therapist will tell you that the first step to healing is to have your pain seen and validated. While it requires intentionality and effort sometimes, I think we would all be better off if we recognized that we don’t have to believe that someone is right for what they’re facing to be wrong.

I also think that there’s one other aspect of this that I think we have lost, which is the intentionality of hope. We have fallen prey in our online discourse and our politics to a sense that cynicism is in vogue, that cynicism shows that we get it.

And I think one of the things that we have to recognize is sometimes hope is a conscious effort. And that sense of inevitability, that organic sense of hope that we felt in this post-1960s world, is the exception in our history.

And you have to step into the shoes of people in the 1950s, people in the 1930s, people in the 1850s, and to move past the history that we view with the hindsight of inevitability and go into those moments and recognize: Every previous generation of Americans had every reason to give up hope.

And you cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for hopelessness then.

So you’re saying there’s something audacious about hope?

There is something audacious —

Some audacity in it.

You have to summon it. You have to summon it.

Optimism is about circumstance. It’s about evaluating likelihood. Hope is something that transcends that.

And when we lull ourselves into this sense of cynicism and we give up on hope, that is when we lose.

My editor has this habit of sharing these very Delphic sayings that I have to then think about for a while afterward. A week ago, he said to me that cynicism is always stupidity. In the conversation we were having, I didn’t ask him about it.

He is not here to tell me I’m wrong, but I think that what he meant is that cynicism is the posture that we both know what is happening and we know what is going to happen — that we’ve seen through the performance into the real, grimy, pathetic backstage, and we know it’s rigged. We know it’s plotted and planned. And so it’s this knowing posture of idiocy.

It’s that. And it’s easy. It’s easy.

I think that’s the place to end. Always our final question: What are three books you’d recommend to the audience?

To this conversation, I think one of the best books on political leadership and understanding how to foster public opinion change is “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It’s one of my favorite books.

Two, I’ve been reading over time — it’s not new — “These Truths” by Jill Lepore, a one-volume history of the United States that helps to reinforce that so many of the challenges and dynamics that we face in this moment are actually not unique, even if the specifics are, how cyclical our challenges are and our history is.

And then the final one that I’m actually rereading — I read it in the first term of Trump — is “The Final Days” the sequel to “All the President’s Men.” And you realize, reading that, how often it felt like Nixon was going to get away with everything. That he’d stay in office and it would be fine for him. And how many instances that it appeared to be done and that he had won — until Aug. 9, 1974, happened, and he resigned.

And I think for me, it’s a helpful reminder that it often seems impossible until it’s inevitable.

Congresswoman Sarah McBride, thank you very much.

Thank you.

[bloomzone]

2025 : #24 the mental diet : How , what u consume Is secretly sabotaging ur growth

You wouldn't eat garbage all day and expect to feel energetic and healthy right ? yet most of us are doing exactly that with our minds ! . We're gorging ourselves on information junk food while wondering why we feel anxious, depressed, stuck, and constantly comparing ourselves to others. because ur information diet is probably destroying your potential and you don't even realize it's happening .

The hidden addiction that's rewiring ur brain

Every piece of content you consume is literally rewiring your neural pathways. When you scroll through social media seeing everyone's highlight reels, your brain starts believing that everyone else has it figured out while you're falling behind. When you binge-watch videos about toxic relationships, narcissistic abuse, or trauma content, you're training your mind to see problems and threats everywhere you look. When u consume news that's designed to make you outraged and afraid, you're programming yourself to live in a state of chronic stress and helplessness. ur brain doesn't distinguish between what you're experiencing directly and what you're consuming through screens. If you're constantly feeding it content about why life is hard, why people can't be trusted, why the world is falling apart, or why you're a victim of circumstances, that becomes your reality. Not because it's true, but because that's what you've trained your brain to focus on and expect.

Think about the last week of your information consumption. How much of it made you feel empowered, inspired, capable, and optimistic about your future? How much of it made you feel anxious, inadequate, angry, or hopeless? If you're honest, the ratio is probably pretty disturbing. Most people are consuming 80% mental junk food and wondering why they can't seem to create the life they want and they keep saying. "Look how x is pretty and I'm not" (bruh 💀)

The victim content trap that keeps you stuck

There's a particularly insidious type of content that people get addicted to without realizing it's keeping them trapped:

victim content. This includes anything that reinforces the idea that you're powerless, that other people are the problem, that the world is against you, or that your past determines your future. It feels validating in the moment because it explains why your life isn't what you want it to be without requiring you to take responsibility for changing it.

Trauma content, relationship advice focused on identifying toxic people, political content that makes you angry about things you can't control, self-help content about why you can't help yourself allllll of this creates a feedback loop where you become addicted to feeling like a victim because it's become your identity. You start seeking out content that confirms this worldview because it feels familiar and comfortable, even though it's slowly poisoning your ability to see opportunities, solutions, and your own power....

The algorithm feeds into this perfectly. Social media platforms make money by keeping you engaged, and negative emotions like anger, fear, and outrage are incredibly engaging. So the more victim content you consume, the more the algorithm serves you, creating an echo chamber that reinforces learned helplessness. u end up in a bubble where everyone agrees that life is hard, people can't be trusted, and there's nothing you can do about your circumstances.

The comparison trap that destroys Self-worth

Social media has turned comparison into a full-time job. You wake up and immediately start your day by looking at carefully curated highlight reels of other people's lives. Their vacations, their relationships, their achievements, their bodies, their homes ... all presented without context, struggle, or the messy reality behind the scenes. ur brain takes in this information and creates a story that everyone else has something you don't that you're falling behind, that you're not enough.

But hear me out you're comparing your behind-the-scenes reality to everyone else's highlight reel performance. For example It's like watching a movie and comparing your life to the finished product, forgetting that what you're seeing took months to create, involved dozens of people, multiple takes, professional editing, and perfect lighting. The comparison is literally impossible to win because it's not even real.

The people who seem to have it all together online are often struggling with the same things you are. The difference is they're not posting about their anxiety, their relationship problems, their financial stress, or their moments of self-doubt. They're posting the 2% of their life that looks Instagram-worthy and you're comparing it to the 98% of your life that's just regular human existence.

The self-help paradox

Even positive content can become problematic when consumed in the wrong way. There's a type of self-help consumption addiction where people become perpetual students instead of practitioners. They watch endless videos about mindset, read countless books about success, follow dozens of coaches and experts, but never actually implement what they're learning because they're too busy consuming the next piece of advice.... (No hate towards any self help youtuber ⚠️)

This creates an illusion of progress. You feel like you're working on yourself because you're learning so much, but you're actually avoiding the uncomfortable work of actually changing. Consuming content about transformation becomes a substitute for the actual discomfort of transforming. You become an expert on the theory of change while remaining stuck in the same patterns.

The strategic information diet

A real information diet overhaul requires being ruthless about what you eliminate. This is about being strategic with your mental resources and protecting your ability to see opportunities, solutions, and your own power.

ıllı Immediate cuts:

- Social media first thing in the morning and last thing at night

- News consumption beyond what's directly relevant to your decisions

- Content creators who make you feel worse about yourself or your situation

- Trauma content that reinforces victim identity rather than promoting healing

- Comparison-inducing content (lifestyle, success, relationship highlight reels)

- Political content that makes you angry about things you can't control

- True crime and disaster content that feeds anxiety without serving any purpose

- Endless self-help consumption without implementation

The 24-Hour Rule:

Before consuming any content, ask yourself: "Will knowing this information make me a better person, help me make better decisions, or improve my life in some concrete way in the next 24 hours?" If the answer is no, skip that shi . Your mental bandwidth is limited and precious protect it like you would protect ur parents or money or whatever..

The Strategic Information Diet: What to add

Once you've cleared out the mental junk food, you need to deliberately choose content that serves the person you're becoming. This requires being intentional about seeking out information that expands your possibilities rather than limiting them.

High-Value content:

- Success stories from people who have overcome what you're dealing with

- Educational content that teaches you actual skills you can implement

- Content from people living the kind of life you want to create

- Biographies and case studies of people who have built what you want to build

- Philosophy and wisdom that helps you think more clearly about life

- Content that challenges you to grow rather than confirming your existing beliefs

- Art, music, and creative content that inspires and elevates your mood ect ect ..

The aspiration test:

Choose content creators and sources based on this question: "If I consumed this person's content for a year, would I become more like the person I want to be?" If someone's content consistently leaves you feeling empowered, capable, and focused on solutions, they earn a place in your information diet. If they leave you feeling victimized, anxious, or focused on problems, they need to go.

Creating Information boundaries

Just like you wouldn't eat every meal at a buffet you need structure around your information consumption. This means creating specific times, places, and purposes for different types of content rather than grazing mindlessly all day long.

Morning protocol:

Never start your day with social media, news, or any content that puts you in a reactive state. Instead, begin with content that puts you in a creative, proactive mindset something educational, inspirational, or strategic for ur goals. The first hour of your day sets the tone for everything that follows.

Evening boundaries:

STOP consuming stimulating content at least an hour before bed pleassse . This includes news too, social media, work-related information, or anything that might trigger stress or comparison. Your brain needs time to process and wind down, and ur sleep quality directly impacts your ability to handle challenges the next day.

Purpose-driven consumption:

Before opening any app or clicking any link, pause and ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish. Are you looking for specific information to help with a decision? Are you trying to learn a particular skill? Are you seeking inspiration for a project? Or are you just bored and looking for distraction? Only consume content when you have a clear purpose this prevents mindless scrolling that usually leads to feeling worse. (We are here to protect ur mind btw)

The 30-Day information detox challenge

Real change requires a complete reset of your information consumption patterns. This means going cold turkey on the mental junk food long enough for your brain to recalibrate and remember what it feels like to not be constantly stimulated, outraged, or comparing yourself to others.

Week 1: Complete Social Media Elimination

Delete social media apps from your phone entirely. If you need them for work, access them only from your computer during designated work hours. Notice what comes up when you reach for your phone out of habit. What emotions are you trying to avoid? What gaps in your life are you trying to fill with distraction?

Week 2: News Fast

Stop consuming news entirely unless it directly impacts a decision you need to make. This includes news websites, news podcasts, news videos, and news discussions. Notice how much mental space this frees up and how your stress levels change.

Week 3: Positive Input only

Only consume content that educates, inspires, or helps you grow. This might be books, educational videos, music that u love and make u happy , inspiring vloggers , podcasts with people you admire, or content related to skills you want to develop. Pay attention to how different types of content affect your mood and energy levels.

Week 4: Mindful reintegration

Gradually reintroduce some information sources, but with strict boundaries and intentionality. Notice which sources serve you and which immediately pull you back into old patterns of comparison, anxiety, or victimization.

Measuring the impact

The real test of your information diet overhaul isn't what you're consuming , it's who you're becoming as a result. After 30 days of strategic information consumption, you should notice significant changes in ur mental state, energy levels, and outlook on ur life.

Positive indicators:

- Waking up with energy and optimism rather than dread

- Feeling more focused on your own goals rather than distracted by others' lives

- Having more mental space for creative thinking and problem-solving

- Feeling more capable and empowered rather than victimized by circumstances

- Sleeping better because your mind isn't overstimulated

- Having more meaningful conversations because you're not constantly consuming surface-level content

- Making faster progress on your actual goals because you're not mentally scattered

Warnings signs u need to adjust:

- Feeling out of touch with reality or important developments

-Becoming preachy about information consumption

- Using the information diet as another form of perfectionism or control

- Feeling isolated from friends who are still consuming the content you've eliminated

- Swinging too far into toxic positivity and avoiding all challenging information

Making It sustainable :

Like any diet, the information diet overhaul only works if you can maintain it long-term. This means finding a sustainable balance rather than trying to maintain perfectionist standards that will eventually lead to a binge .

The 80/20 Rule:

Aim for 80% high-value information consumption and allow yourself 20% flexibility for entertainment, social connection, or keeping up with current events. This prevents the all-or-nothing mentality that leads to failure.

Regular Audits:

Every month, review what you've been consuming and how it's affecting you. Information sources that served you six months ago might not serve the person you're becoming now. Stay willing to evolve your information diet as you evolve.

Community standards:

Find people who are also intentional about their information consumption. This might mean joining groups focused on personal development, finding accountability partners for your goals, or having honest conversations with friends about how certain types of content affect your relationships.

The compound effect of clean Information

The impact of changing your information diet compounds over time in ways that are hard to imagine when you're stuck in the old patterns. When you stop feeding ur brain a steady diet of problems, comparison, and victimization, it naturally starts looking for opportunities, solutions, and possibilities. You begin to see the world through the lens of what's possible rather than what's wrong.

Your relationships improve because you're not constantly triggered, anxious, or focused on drama. Your productivity increases because your mental energy isn't scattered across a dozen different sources of artificial urgency. Your confidence grows because you're not constantly comparing yourself to carefully curated highlight reels. Your creativity expands because your mind has space to think original thoughts rather than just reacting to other people's content.

Most importantly, u start to trust yourself again. When you're not constantly consuming other people's opinions, problems, and perspectives, you remember that you have your own wisdom, your own judgment, and your own ability to navigate life. You stop looking for external validation or permission because you're not constantly reminded of how everyone else is supposedly doing it better.

The person you become through a strategic information diet overhaul isn't someone who's avoiding reality they're someone who's choosing to focus their limited mental resources on what they can actually influence and improve. They're not less informed they're more discerning. They're not living in a bubble n they're living intentionally.

laaaast note :

Your information diet is one of the most powerful tools you have for shaping who you become. I’m not saying you need to delete social media forever or become some monk who never scrolls again 💀This isn’t about demonizing the internet or pretending that all content is bad. Social media isn’t inherently toxic but unconscious consumption is. The goal isn’t to eliminate connection, inspiration, or entertainment. The goal is to choose what you consume instead of being controlled by it.

@bloomzone ⌨️

[mintconditioned]

attention is currency. stop giving it away for free.

every platform wants your attention because your attention = profit. tiktok, youtube, even your student portal — everything’s designed to keep you scrolling, spending, or stressing. time is a resource. start protecting it like your money.

but what does that actually mean?

it means that you’re not the customer on most apps — you’re the product. companies profit by selling your attention and data to advertisers. algorithms are designed to hijack your brain’s reward system—likes, follows, autoplay, endless scroll. none of that is an accident.

recently, the ftc hosted a 2025 workshop called “the attention economy: how big tech firms exploit kids and hurt families,” highlighting how platforms intentionally hook users.

studies show that 1 in 5 teens spends over 2 hours daily on tiktok—over recommended limits—and higher usage is linked to anxiety and lower self-esteem.

researchers also warn that algorithmic amplification (like tiktok’s for-you feed) fuels compulsive use by reinforcing targeted content deep into feeds.

here’s how to take your attention back and why it matters:

1. delete one app every weekend. just for two days. a brief digital detox, like removing social media apps over a weekend, can reduce stress and improve focus.

2. if you wouldn’t pay to see it, don’t give it your full attention. time is a resource—if content wouldn’t earn your money, don’t give your attention. treat it like currency.

3. make your phone boring. moving apps off your home screen and switching your phone to grayscale can reduce its addictive pull .

4. start “micro budgeting” your attention. time-blocking your screen use—like budgeting money—improves control and awareness over where your time goes .

5. set one hour a week as “no input” time. intentionally unplugged time helps spark creativity and mental clarity.

6. stop doomscrolling as “being informed.” reading endless crisis content at night increases anxiety—limiting you to scheduled, credible news consumption is healthier.

7. pay attention to what content energizes or drains you. teens who develop awareness of what content affects their mental health can proactively curate their online feeds.

your attention is your mental energy, your focus, your time. tech companies spend billions trying to hijack it. you don’t have to quit the internet — but you should treat your attention like money. once you give it away, you can’t get it back.

and your future, your mind, and your goals deserve better. sources:

federal trade commission. the attention economy: how big tech firms exploit children and hurt families. workshop, federal trade commission, 4 june 2025, ftc.gov/news-events/events/2025/06/attention-economy-tech-firms-exploit-children. accessed 25 june 2025.

bilali, angeliki, et al. “association between tiktok use and anxiety, depression, and sleepiness among adolescents: a cross‑sectional study in greece.” pediatric reports, vol. 17, no. 2, 2025, p. 34, doi:10.3390/pediatric17020034.

“teens, social media and mental health.” pew research center, 22 apr. 2025, pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/. accessed 25 june 2025.

foo, bart. “can’t stop scrolling! adolescents’ patterns of tiktok use and digital well‑being.” humanities and social sciences communications, 2024, nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03984-5. accessed 25 june 2025.

[lonelyroommp3]

i loooooove the patronising little PSAs to new users that pop up on here every time shit hits the fan on another social media platform. if i was an american tiktok user deciding to reactivate my old tumblr account (let's be real, who in the year 2025 is resorting to tumblr as their alt social platform if they've not been here before at least briefly) and the first thing i saw was someone going "listen up buckaroo ☝️ just remember we are a very special website 🤩 and we don't care about follower counts because we are all fwends 🫂 and you don't have to say seggs instead of sex 🤯 i am going to explain this to you as if you were born yesterday because i'm sure your brain has been rotted into goo by the Algorithm 🥰" then i would probably log right back off again and devote myself to a nomadic life in the wilderness

[watchersleuth]

I didn't think I'd use this blog to make a post like this, but I'm seeing more and more comments and posts criticizing Watcher for their recent decision to layoff their production staff, and I want to try to explain some things. I also have experience working in film and television production so I hope that's helpful in this case.

For background, on March 17, 2025 people discovered via LinkedIn that Katie LeBlanc had ended her employment with Watcher. This, of course, caused some alarm.

I'm not in the habit of sharing things posted in the Wiscord, but Shane did let everyone know an important detail that I think is getting overlooked

I want to point out the part where he said that they were taking some "full-time positions and converting them to freelance"

Note: Almost every US television show that you watch from a major network runs on a freelance model

Yes, that one that you're thinking of right now. Also that one. Most exceptions to this would be a show like a news program or talk show that runs year-round and doesn't only film for a few months out of the year. When a crew member is freelance and one job ends, they use their networking connections to find another job. That's the way it's been done for over a hundred years in Hollywood.

This isn't ideal for everyone, for many reasons. And of course it would be preferable to live in a society where we valued creative work and people could get steady employment and benefits from being in this, or any artistic, field.

That's why Watcher hired folks on full-time as soon as they could. Remember in the 2022 Making Watcher when Steven talked about how they doubled their staff from 10 to 21 and how they were reinvesting into their own company? That was by design to try to give as many creative folks a shot at a regular full-time gig and I'm so proud of them for that!

Knowing this, I would bet that Watcher didn't WANT to convert anyone to freelance positions. People need to stop talking about the layoffs like this is something they wanted to do. They told us last year that they were launching the streamer to stay afloat, because YouTube isn't as beneficial as it used to be for creators.

Not to sound parasocial, but if you think that any of the Watcher Founders wanted to layoff the staff that they've worked with for years - people that have been with them since Worth It and Unsolved - then you don't know them at all.

Even if you think that they laid off everyone just for fun, consider that now when Watcher wants to film a new season of say Puppet History they will need to ask their previous staff if their schedule aligns with their filming time so they can be hired on to work the shoot. If not, they will have to advertise or go word of mouth, to find crew. That's more time and resources spent to staff a shoot than pulling from their regular crew.

TLDR; There's no controversy behind this news. This is normal for many media companies and is what Watcher had to do to remain in business.

It's not ideal, and I wish the streamer would have been so successful that they could've went the other direction like they planned all along - to bring on new hosts and make the diverse shows they've wanted to since 2019.

If you want to help Watcher:

-Subscribe to Watcher TV if you can. They've been running constant promo deals for the past year so if you do get an annual subscription make sure you use the discount code. The banner is always on top of the site.

-Subscribe to their main and podcast channels on YouTube

-Watch the videos as they get uploaded to YouTube, even if you're already a Watcher TV subscriber. Try to watch within the first day or two of uploading to push it up the algorithm. Make sure you "like" it and leave a positive/friendly/funny comment too! YT is looking for engagement and watch time, so the likes and comments help. And so does watching the video all the way through. (Bonus: Watcher has been using audience comments from videos on their social posts and it's fun to see what they choose!)

-If you're short on time or don't want to rewatch a video you already saw on the streamer you can always put it on a separate tab on your browser and mute it. Let the new videos or your favorite playlist stream in the background while you surf the web!

-Share their videos with friends, family, co-workers, etc. The more people that watch them the better! The Watcher channel is one of the more diverse that I've seen on YouTube so there's something for everyone.

-Make posts about what you enjoy about their shows and you'll find more friends that way.

Thanks for everyone who read this far. Comments are open if anyone wants to ask general production questions and I'll try to answer. Probably can't speak for Watcher specifically but maybe I'll know the answer from a Making Watcher video I can point you to.

And if you read all of this and still feel like you want to choose chaos (ie. harassing Watcher via their social media posts with accusations about the economy that they can't control) then I would urge you to direct that energy at your elected officials no matter what country you're in, find a fandom you enjoy engaging with instead, and maybe go touch some grass.

[anim-ttrpgs]

We reached our minimum funding goal for December and can continue operations!

Woo!

Thanks to the support of our fans, we have ended December 2024 above our minimum funding goal with $1,182.94/$950! Thank you so much for your support, and we hope that you will continue to to support us and tell your friends to support us so that we can continue doing what we do for you like creating cool RPGs and giving lots of exposure and sales to other cool RPGs our TTRPG Book Club Discord Server! (and so i can keep up with my expenses)

At the time of writing this (January 1st, 2025), our new minimum funding goal for the month is $1,360.82. If you'd like to make sure we hit it and continue operations, here are some things you can do:

Follow us on tumblr and bluesky

(reblogging/retweeting/whatever our posts on these sites, even if you don't have many followers, makes a huge difference and is actually how we get most of our new fans and patreon subscribers.)

Join our TTRPG Book Club Discord Server and/or invite people there

(this not only makes people more aware of us, it also makes people more aware of all the other indie rpgs that we play and promote here)

Talk about us!

(play our games, tell your friends about them, make posts about your adventures or characters from our games, make homebrew stuff, etc. Like with the social media posts, this is the only way the word gets out about who we are and what we do! Without word-of-mouth, we're dead in the water.)

Subscribe to our Patreon

(you get monthly rewards such as Eureka updates, adventure modules, short stories, etc. Also we will be previewing a new game, Silk&Dagger, on patreon this month.)

Buy, or just download, our games on Itch.io

(money helps a lot, but even just downloading them for free gives us a boost in the algorithm and gets more eyes on us)

Donate on Ko-fi

(how this helps is pretty obvious)

Buy our snoop merchandise

(we only get a small cut of this, but the stuff is pretty cool, and they're good conversation starters)

Thank you again to all our supportive fans!