Cinemorphosis

Tag: history

  • Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    In “Someone Finally Wants to Hire Philosophers,” Lila Shroff reports what would have sounded like a punchline only a decade ago: philosophy majors may finally be getting the last laugh. For years, philosophy occupied an awkward place in the public imagination—a discipline associated with coffee-shop debates, existential handwringing, and the noble art of explaining to relatives why you were unemployed. At best, the philosopher was a thoughtful gadfly. At worst, a professional overthinker. But the rise of artificial intelligence has suddenly transformed philosophy from an intellectual curiosity into a marketable skill. Major technology companies are hiring philosophers. Universities are recruiting scholars who specialize in both AI and philosophy. The old joke about philosophy leading nowhere is beginning to age badly.

    As Shroff notes, this development should not surprise us. Philosophers have been wrestling with questions about intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of artificial minds for centuries. Long before Silicon Valley executives promised to change the world, philosophers were already asking whether a machine could think, reason, or possess something resembling a mind. Today, thinkers such as Nick Bostrom have become influential voices in the AI conversation. His book Superintelligence warned more than a decade ago that humanity might create machines whose capabilities outstrip our ability to control them. What once sounded like speculative science fiction now reads more like a boardroom agenda.

    The marriage between AI and philosophy arises from a practical concern. Technology companies want their products to appear ethical, trustworthy, and safe. A machine that accidentally promotes fraud, discrimination, or social chaos is difficult to market. Consumers are more likely to embrace AI systems that project wisdom, fairness, and restraint. In the increasingly crowded AI marketplace, virtue has become a product feature. Safety, ethics, and responsibility are not merely moral concerns; they are branding opportunities.

    Yet Shroff’s essay leaves several uncomfortable questions lingering in the air.

    First, philosophers disagree about nearly everything. That is practically the job description. If ethical questions routinely produce competing schools of thought, which philosophers do AI companies choose to hire? A utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, a libertarian, and a nihilist might evaluate the same problem and arrive at wildly different conclusions. When an AI company claims to be guided by philosophy, whose philosophy is it talking about?

    Second, corporations do not operate in a vacuum. They pursue growth, market share, influence, and profit. Given those incentives, it seems unlikely that technology companies will eagerly recruit philosophers whose views fundamentally conflict with corporate objectives. The philosopher who questions the legitimacy of the enterprise may not receive the same warm welcome as the philosopher who helps polish its public image.

    Third, what happens to philosophy itself when it becomes a lucrative career path? If technology firms reward certain ethical frameworks and ignore others, philosophers may gradually adapt their views to become more employable. Intellectual independence has always been easier to defend when no one is writing the check. Once prestige, influence, and six-figure salaries enter the picture, even the most principled thinkers may find themselves sanding off inconvenient beliefs.

    This is why I remain skeptical of any celebration of philosophy’s new status in the AI economy. There is no such thing as pure philosophy floating above human ambition. There are only human beings, complete with incentives, blind spots, loyalties, and self-interest. The partnership between AI and philosophy may produce genuinely useful ethical guidance. Or it may become an elaborate exercise in corporate virtue theater—a dazzling display of moral concern performed beneath bright lights while the machinery of profit hums steadily backstage. Whether philosophers become the conscience of artificial intelligence or merely its public relations department remains an open question.

  • Voyeurs of Violence: Media Spectacle and the Commodification of Crime

    Voyeurs of Violence: Media Spectacle and the Commodification of Crime

    Few crimes provoke stronger public outrage than the exploitation of children. In the digital age, however, the pursuit of justice has increasingly merged with the logic of entertainment, viral media, and online spectacle. Social media platforms, livestreams, YouTube channels, and reality-style investigations now allow audiences to consume criminal exposure as a form of emotional entertainment. While many of these productions claim to protect vulnerable victims and raise public awareness, they also raise troubling ethical questions about voyeurism, vigilantism, humiliation, and the commodification of suffering.

    The 2025 documentary Predators and the film Nightcrawler both explore societies increasingly addicted to turning pain, fear, scandal, and criminality into spectacle. Predators examines the culture surrounding online predator stings, public exposure, and internet vigilantism, asking whether these efforts genuinely serve justice or merely transform human tragedy into viral entertainment. Nightcrawler similarly critiques a media culture in which violence and suffering become profitable content consumed by emotionally detached audiences. Together, these works suggest that modern media systems often blur the line between public service and exploitation.

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay responding to the following claim:

    The transformation of crime, suffering, and public humiliation into entertainment ultimately corrupts justice by encouraging voyeurism, emotional exploitation, and spectacle-driven morality.

    In your essay, you may defend, challenge, or complicate this claim. As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Does public exposure deter criminal behavior and raise legitimate awareness, or does it encourage reckless vigilantism and mob psychology? At what point does crime reporting become entertainment? Can media exposure serve justice responsibly, or does the pursuit of ratings, clicks, and viral attention inevitably distort moral judgment? Why are audiences drawn to spectacles involving humiliation, revenge, fear, and public punishment?

    You should also analyze how both works critique audience complicity. To what extent are viewers themselves participating in the commodification of suffering? How do modern media systems reward emotional extremity, outrage, and voyeuristic curiosity? Does the public consume these stories out of genuine concern for justice, or because tragedy and scandal have become emotionally addictive forms of entertainment?

    In addition to analyzing the themes of both works, examine the rhetorical and cinematic methods used by the filmmakers. Consider how tone, imagery, editing, suspense, emotional manipulation, interviews, satire, and spectacle shape the audience’s reaction. How does Nightcrawler especially critique the relationship between media consumers and those who profit from violence and tragedy?

    You must also include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that aggressive public exposure is necessary because traditional institutions and law enforcement often fail to protect vulnerable victims. Others may argue that disturbing media coverage serves an important social function by forcing society to confront uncomfortable realities. Respond to these objections by evaluating the ethical responsibilities of media creators and audiences alike.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger cultural implications of these works. What do Predators and Nightcrawler suggest about modern society’s relationship with violence, humiliation, revenge, and spectacle? What happens to a culture when entertainment and morality become increasingly inseparable?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from both works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, quotations, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about media spectacle, voyeurism, justice, and audience complicity

  • The Loneliness Crisis: Social Isolation and the Rise of American Hostility (college essay prompt)

    The Loneliness Crisis: Social Isolation and the Rise of American Hostility (college essay prompt)

    Read David Brooks’ essay “How America Got Mean” and Derek Thompson’ essay “The Anti-Social Century.” Then watch Roy Wood Jr.’s comedy special Lonely Flowers.

    In the comedy performance Lonely Flowers, Roy Wood Jr. argues that increasing loneliness and social disconnection are contributing to rising anger, hostility, tribalism, and violence in American culture. Brooks and Thompson similarly describe a society that is becoming more fragmented, isolated, distrustful, and emotionally brittle. Together, these works raise an important question: What happens to individuals and societies when meaningful human connection begins to collapse?

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the claim that social isolation is a major cause of America’s rising hostility, cruelty, and social dysfunction. Your essay may support, challenge, or complicate Roy Wood Jr.’s argument, but you must engage deeply with the ideas presented by Brooks and Thompson as you develop your position.

    As you develop your argument, consider how these writers and performers describe the psychological and cultural effects of loneliness, alienation, and declining social trust. How do social isolation, digital life, political tribalism, economic pressure, social media, declining community institutions, and weakened friendships contribute to anger and resentment? To what extent do modern Americans increasingly experience one another not as neighbors or fellow citizens but as abstractions, enemies, audiences, or online avatars?

    You should also consider competing explanations for cultural hostility. Is loneliness truly the central problem, or are broader forces—economic inequality, political polarization, consumer culture, technological addiction, family breakdown, declining religion, or social media algorithms—more responsible for rising social tension? Does loneliness cause hostility, or does hostility itself drive people further into isolation?

    In addition to analyzing the ideas presented in these works, examine how each creator communicates their message. Consider the differences between Brooks’ social criticism, Thompson’s cultural analysis, and Roy Wood Jr.’s use of comedy, storytelling, exaggeration, and observational humor. Why might comedy be an especially effective way to address painful subjects such as loneliness, disconnection, and social fragmentation?

    You must include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that modern technology and online culture have actually expanded social connection rather than weakened it. Others may argue that Americans are not truly isolated but are instead forming new kinds of communities online. Respond to these objections by evaluating the quality and depth of modern social relationships.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger implications of these works. What do they suggest about the future of friendship, community, empathy, and civic life in America? If loneliness and social fragmentation continue to grow, what might happen to the culture, politics, and mental health of the nation?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from all three works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific examples, scenes, or passages rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about loneliness, social fragmentation, and cultural hostility
  • Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    Using Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass, bell hooks’ essay “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class,” Ahmir ‘Questlove’ Thompson’s documentary Summer of Soul, and Elvis Mitchell’s documentary Is That Black Enough for You?!? as your central texts, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the claim that art, music, film, education, and literacy function as weapons against cultural erasure and oppression.

    As you develop your argument, examine how dominant cultures maintain power not only through physical oppression and economic inequality but also through controlling memory, representation, literacy, visibility, and storytelling itself. Consider how marginalized groups are often denied the power to narrate their own existence and how reclaiming narrative ownership becomes an act of resistance, survival, and humanization.

    In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, analyze how slavery denied enslaved people literacy, birthdates, ancestry, and historical identity in order to reduce them to property rather than persons. Consider how Douglass presents reading and writing as revolutionary acts that allow him to reclaim his humanity and resist a system designed to silence him. How does his memoir itself function as an act of historical recovery and resistance against cultural erasure?

    In “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class,” analyze how bell hooks describes education as both a pathway toward empowerment and a site of alienation, performance, and cultural conflict. How does hooks show that race and class shape access to power, belonging, and self-definition? Why do marginalized students often feel pressure to erase or reinvent parts of themselves in elite educational spaces? To what extent does education demand assimilation into dominant cultural codes?

    In Summer of Soul, analyze how the Harlem Cultural Festival celebrated Black artistry, spirituality, joy, and political consciousness during a period of racial upheaval. Why was this massive cultural event largely erased from mainstream historical memory while Woodstock became mythologized as the defining music festival of the era? How does Questlove use archival footage, music, interviews, and storytelling to recover a forgotten history and challenge the marginalization of Black cultural memory?

    In Is That Black Enough for You?!?, analyze how Elvis Mitchell critiques Hollywood’s long history of reducing Black identity to stereotypes while marginalizing Black filmmakers, actors, and stories. How did Black cinema in the 1960s and 1970s challenge Hollywood’s control over representation? How does Mitchell argue that recovering overlooked Black films and artists becomes an act of cultural restoration and resistance against historical erasure?

    As part of your argument, analyze not only the ideas presented in these works but also the rhetorical and artistic methods used by the creators themselves. Consider how autobiography, music, archival footage, imagery, storytelling, editing, voice, and film structure shape audience perception and resist cultural invisibility.

    You must also address at least one counterargument. For example, some critics may argue that art, music, and representation alone are insufficient forms of resistance because symbolic visibility does not necessarily produce economic equality, political power, or institutional change. Others may argue that mainstream culture eventually commodifies resistance movements and transforms them into profitable entertainment. Respond to these objections by evaluating the actual power and limitations of cultural expression.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger implications of narrative control. Why do oppressive systems repeatedly attempt to regulate literacy, storytelling, education, historical memory, and representation? What happens to individuals and societies when marginalized groups lose the power to preserve and narrate their own histories? Finally, consider how modern digital culture, social media, AI, and algorithm-driven entertainment continue to shape which voices are amplified, marginalized, archived, or forgotten.

    For your introductory paragraph, explain how the struggle for the dominant narrative is presented in the documentary We Beat the Dream Team and how the film shows that battles over narrative power extend far beyond race into many areas of culture. Analyze how individuals and groups compete to control public memory, define legitimacy, shape historical perception, and claim symbolic victory. Show how the documentary demonstrates that the fight for the dominant narrative is ultimately a struggle over identity, status, recognition, and cultural power.

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • MLA Works Cited page with 5 sources
    • Use evidence from all five texts
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, passages, quotations, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about the relationship between narrative ownership, cultural memory, identity, and power

  • Learning to Speak Rich

    Learning to Speak Rich

    Known publicly as bell hooks in honor of her grandmother, hooks explores in her essay “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” a deeply conflicted relationship with education, class mobility, race, and selfhood. Her story is not a simple celebration of academic success. It is the story of a woman who discovers that entering elite educational spaces often demands a painful reshaping—even partial erasure—of the self.

    hooks describes growing up in a deeply religious working-class black family defined by economic scarcity and moral restraint. Her parents taught her not to expect luxury, comfort, or indulgence. Desire itself carried a faint odor of danger and shame. Material appetites were viewed not as healthy ambitions but as temptations capable of corrupting the soul. As a result, hooks explains that she learned “the art of sublimation and repression,” training herself to suppress wants, ambitions, and emotional needs in the name of survival and moral discipline.

    When she entered college close to home, she found herself stranded in an overwhelmingly white social environment populated by affluent young women whose values seemed completely foreign to her own. Many of these students treated her with ridicule, cruelty, and casual contempt. hooks describes them almost as alien life forms—young women so economically secure and psychologically entitled that they moved through the world with complete confidence in their own importance. They expressed their desires openly and unapologetically, behaving as though comfort, pleasure, beauty, and success were their birthrights.

    To the young hooks, raised in a culture of modesty and self-denial, this behavior was shocking. She associated upper-class aspiration with vanity, ostentation, envy, and cruelty. Yet she also recognized that these women possessed a kind of social confidence unavailable to her own world of repression and apology. Their existence revealed how class shapes not only material conditions but body language, speech, appetite, ambition, and assumptions about one’s place in the world.

    Not all of the white students fit this mold. hooks found friendship with several women from modest economic backgrounds who shared her skepticism toward vanity and excess. These relationships gave her temporary relief from the alienation surrounding her.

    Still miserable at the college, hooks encountered an English professor educated at Stanford University who encouraged her to leave and attend Stanford instead. Her parents reacted with terror. To them, California represented a modern Babylon where humility dissolved into narcissism, vanity, materialism, and sinful desire. Yet hooks could not imagine remaining at the all-white college. Stanford at least offered the possibility of intellectual and racial community, so she persuaded her parents to let her go west.

    Stanford overwhelmed her senses immediately. The campus radiated wealth, ambition, appetite, and institutional power. The architecture itself seemed to proclaim that greatness—especially economic greatness—was the natural destiny of those who studied there. hooks realized quickly that elite universities do not merely educate students academically; they train them socially and psychologically for membership within elite classes. Networking, status management, and the performance of confidence were woven into the institution’s culture as thoroughly as lectures and exams.

    The message Stanford communicated was unmistakable: if you were already wealthy, your job was to become even wealthier and more powerful. If you were poor, your task was to abandon the habits, assumptions, insecurities, and cultural signals associated with poverty and remake yourself in the image of the elite.

    Although hooks found less overt racism at Stanford, she encountered something she found equally disturbing: unapologetic class contempt. Wealthy students and professors openly mocked and dismissed working-class people. She recalls hearing students speak about poorer Americans with startling derision, as though poverty itself reflected stupidity, vulgarity, or moral failure.

    Most shocking to hooks was discovering that this elitism extended into segments of the black intellectual community as well. She describes encountering members of the “black diaspora” who displayed the same contempt toward the poor and working class that she had seen among affluent whites. Poverty was treated not merely as an economic condition but as a psychological defect requiring correction and purification. hooks realized that race alone did not guarantee solidarity; class divisions fractured black communities from within.

    Over time, hooks came to believe that academic success for poor students often requires a painful form of self-renunciation. To become educated within elite institutions meant learning new codes of speech, dress, posture, behavior, and intellectual performance. One had to absorb the language and cultural signals of the privileged classes while distancing oneself from working-class origins. In effect, students from poorer backgrounds often succeed only by engaging in a kind of controlled self-erasure.

    Education, then, becomes morally complicated. It is not simply enlightenment or liberation. It is also performance. Mimicry. Adaptation. Sycophancy. Reinvention.

    By the time hooks earned her doctorate and became a professor herself, she felt not uncomplicated pride but deep ambivalence. She had entered the world of privilege while remaining emotionally loyal to the working-class culture that shaped her identity. She occupied elite academic spaces while refusing to sever her connection to the people and values from which she came.

    I have had the privilege of teaching hooks’ essays to college students since the 1980s—across five different decades of teaching. Of all her works, “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” remains my favorite because it exposes the emotional and psychological costs hidden beneath the mythology of higher education.

    Next semester, I plan to assign an essay asking students to evaluate the claim that hooks ultimately portrays higher education as a process requiring painful self-transformation. According to this interpretation, success in college often demands that students distance themselves from their past, imitate the language and cultural behaviors of professors and elites, and absorb the social signals associated with wealth and status. Education therefore becomes not merely intellectual growth, but a complicated mixture of genuine learning, shame, performance, ambition, self-betrayal, and social reinvention.

    Here is the 1,000-word argumentative essay prompt:

    In her essay “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class,” bell hooks presents higher education not simply as a path toward knowledge and liberation, but as a psychologically painful process of social transformation. As a working-class black woman moving through predominantly white and elite educational spaces, hooks experiences education as both empowering and alienating. She discovers that academic success often requires students from poorer or marginalized backgrounds to adopt new forms of speech, dress, behavior, ambition, and self-presentation associated with wealth and class privilege. At times, this transformation feels less like intellectual growth and more like self-erasure.

    hooks argues that elite colleges and universities do more than teach information. They also train students to perform class identity. Students learn not only what to think, but how to speak, dress, network, express ambition, suppress insecurity, and project confidence in ways that signal belonging within elite professional culture. For hooks, the process becomes morally complicated because upward mobility often demands distance from one’s family, working-class roots, cultural identity, or former self. Success may require what hooks describes as forms of repression, performance, mimicry, and reinvention.

    Write a 1,000-word argumentative essay in which you evaluate the following claim:

    To become successful and “educated” within elite academic culture, students from working-class or marginalized backgrounds often feel pressure to reinvent themselves by adopting the language, behaviors, attitudes, and social codes of the privileged classes, even when doing so creates feelings of shame, alienation, self-betrayal, or disconnection from their past.

    In your essay, analyze how hooks portrays education as both liberating and psychologically costly. To what extent do you agree with her argument? Does higher education genuinely expand human freedom and opportunity, or does it pressure students into performing a new identity in order to gain acceptance and success? Is adapting to elite academic culture a necessary form of growth and professional development, or does it require students to abandon important parts of themselves?

    As you develop your argument, you may consider some of the following questions:

    • How do class, race, and economic background shape a student’s experience in college?
    • What social “codes” do elite universities teach beyond academics?
    • Is there a difference between education and social performance?
    • Does professional success require conformity?
    • Can students remain loyal to their working-class roots while entering elite institutions?
    • Does higher education reward authenticity or performance?
    • Is self-reinvention a healthy form of growth or a form of self-betrayal?
    • How do speech, clothing, confidence, networking, and cultural tastes function as markers of class?
    • Are elite universities spaces of liberation, assimilation, or both?

    You may use personal observations, contemporary examples, films, books, interviews, or other sources to support your argument. Possible connections could include social media culture, networking culture, corporate professionalism, influencer culture, first-generation college experiences, code-switching, or the pressure to cultivate a “successful” personal brand.

    Requirements:

    • Clear argumentative thesis
    • At least three mapping components in the thesis
    • Counterargument and rebuttal
    • Specific references to hooks’ essay
    • MLA format
    • Approximately 1,000 words

    Your goal is not merely to summarize hooks’ experiences, but to evaluate the larger argument her essay makes about education, class mobility, identity, and the hidden emotional costs of social advancement.

  • From Coffeehouse to Clickbait

    From Coffeehouse to Clickbait

    Invoking the word democracy in an essay feels like trying to sell a ghost–intangible, shapeless, and increasingly irrelevant to an audience fixated on the price of eggs and the cost of gasoline. We live in a state of Democratic Abstraction Fatigue, where civic ideals have been repeated so often and defined so poorly that they’ve lost all emotional voltage. Democracy has become a word people nod at politely while checking their grocery receipts.

    Salience is the problem. Democracy competes poorly in a culture that values immediacy over abstraction, sensation over structure. A fluctuating gas price commands attention because it hurts now. Democracy, by contrast, whispers about norms, institutions, and procedures–important, yes, but bloodless in the moment. When everything urgent is concrete and everything essential is abstract, the essential loses.

    We can attempt a definition to anchor the word: a democracy is a system of fair elections, peaceful transfers of power, and a citizenry capable of resisting manipulation by charlatans, influencers, and political opportunists whose incompetence would, in a sane society, disqualify them on sight. But even this definition now feels aspirational, almost quaint.

    Because the truth is harder: those guardrails are eroding. Adam Kirsch, in “The Era of Rational Discourse Is Over,” reminds us that American wars have often been sold under false pretenses–the Spaniards sank the USS Maine, Iraq hoarded weapons of mass destruction. But what distinguishes the present is not deception; it is indifference. The machinery no longer bothers to persuade. There is no narrative to construct, no public to convince, no Congress to consult. The decision is the justification. We have entered a phase of Executive Drift, where power operates with minimal friction and even less explanation.

    How did we arrive here? Kirsch turns to Jürgen Habermas, who witnessed the collapse of Nazism and the fragile rebirth of democratic life in Germany. For Habermas, democracy depended on what he called “communicative action”–a culture of dialogue where ideas are tested, challenged, refined, and, occasionally, improved. Democracy was not just a system of voting; it was a system of thinking.

    That system now shows signs of collapse. We inhabit an era of Communicative Decay, where discourse has splintered into tribal fragments, each sealed off from contradiction, each sustained by outrage. Argument has been replaced by performance. Listening has been replaced by waiting for your turn to strike.

    In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas imagined democracy as an expanded coffeehouse—a literate, engaged public exchanging ideas with rigor and civility. It was a world in which communication flowed in two directions: we spoke, and we listened. Today, we scroll. We absorb. We react. But we do not engage.

    The modern condition might be better described as a dopamine democracy, where public opinion is shaped not by deliberation but by stimulation. Algorithms reward the loudest, the angriest, the most unhinged voices. Complexity is punished. Nuance is buried. What rises instead is spectacle–content engineered to trigger, not to inform.

    The consequences are predictable. Citizens become passive, then inert. Critical thinking atrophies. Conspiracy theories flourish in the vacuum. Truth becomes negotiable, then irrelevant. We do not fall from democracy in a single dramatic collapse; we degrade into a version of ourselves that no longer demands it.

    Mass media and weaponized misinformation accelerate the decline. Lies are no longer liabilities; they are tools. Identity replaces evidence. Tribe replaces truth. You are not expected to think–you are expected to align.

    And so we arrive at the most unsettling feature of our moment: the people who ascend in this environment are not the most disciplined, the most thoughtful, or the most competent, but the most performative, the most shameless, the most willing to exploit the system’s weaknesses. Infantilism becomes a strategy. Narcissism becomes an asset.

    A culture that rewards such traits should provoke alarm. It should trigger a course correction. But instead, we drift–distracted, entertained, anesthetized.

    Democracy has not been overthrown.

    It has been neglected.

    And like anything neglected long enough, it begins to disappear–quietly, gradually, while most of us are still asleep.

  • When Theft Becomes a Fashion Statement

    When Theft Becomes a Fashion Statement

    In his Atlantic essay “Theft Is Now Progressive Chic,” Thomas Chatterton Williams takes a scalpel to a peculiar strain of moral vanity—the kind that treats petty theft as a political accessory. His targets include Jia Tolentino and Hasan Piker, figures who flirt with the idea that swiping lemons from Whole Foods, sharing passwords, or hopping paywalls is not merely harmless but faintly heroic. Williams calls it what it is: a breezy contempt for the social contract dressed up as rebellion. When small theft is rebranded as civic virtue, even Vicky Osterweil, the author of In Defense of Looting, begins to look like the sober one in the room.

    I confess the whole thing landed on me with the sting of belated education. I had not realized there were circles where breaking the law could be laundered into moral performance. Apparently, this is not an isolated glitch but a trend. The next day, another Atlantic writer, Graeme Wood, weighed in with “Something Is Happening to America’s Moral Code,” invoking James C. Scott’s notion of “anarchist calisthenics”—those small acts of rule-breaking meant to keep the spirit of rebellion limber. Wood’s diagnosis is less romantic: a set of half-formed ethics, offered with confidence and examined with indifference.

    What came to mind was Rob Henderson’s idea of “luxury beliefs”—ideas that burnish the speaker’s status while exporting the costs to people who can’t afford them. Consider the casual encouragement of shoplifting. In theory, it’s a minor jab at corporate excess. In practice, it lands on the backs of people like my students—working-class college kids who clock retail hours to pay for what they own.

    They tell me what it looks like on the floor. Managers instruct them not to intervene—too risky, too litigious. So they stand there, professionally inert, as merchandise walks out the door. The result isn’t liberation; it’s demoralization. They watch others take what they themselves budget and sweat to buy. And the losses don’t evaporate into the ether—they reappear as higher prices, a quiet tax that falls hardest on those already counting dollars.

    This is the part that doesn’t make it into the manifesto. It’s easy to romanticize petty theft when you’re insulated from its consequences. It’s harder to maintain the pose when you’re the one absorbing the cost.

    There’s a particular kind of intellectual decay that sets in when smart people talk only to one another, applauding the cleverness of their own provocations. The room gets warmer, the ideas get softer, and reality is politely asked to wait outside. I’ve admired Tolentino’s work for its sharpness and nuance. But there’s a difference between insight and indulgence, and when the latter starts masquerading as the former, credibility takes a hit.

    At some point, the performance of rebellion stops looking brave and starts looking careless. And the people paying for it are the ones least invited to the conversation.

  • The Business Model of Suffering and Abuse on Reality TV

    The Business Model of Suffering and Abuse on Reality TV

    We were discussing their current essay assignment: an excavation of cruelty masquerading as inspiration in the TV show The Biggest Loser. The facts alone read like satire written by a misanthrope: contestants more than 200 pounds overweight were pushed through eight-hour training days, incinerating close to 8,000 calories while being rationed roughly 800. Add caffeine pills, a chorus of screaming trainers, and the steady drip of public humiliation, and you have less a fitness program than a stress test for organ failure. That none of the contestants died feels less like good management and more like statistical luck. That millions watched—enthusiastically—says something unflattering about us.

    I show them Fit for Life documentary, which functions as a kind of aftermath report. Former contestants speak with the clarity that only distance provides. They describe trauma, yes, but also something more complicated: the show gave them structure, purpose, a narrative. It brutalized them and, perversely, steadied them. Most gained the weight back. Some now lean on GLP-1 drugs, their appetites chemically negotiated into submission. But all of them remember the same thing—the mercilessness was not incidental; it was the engine.

    I asked my students why I had assigned this essay. What, exactly, were they supposed to uncover?

    At the micro level, we peeled back the familiar myths. The cult of self-discipline—so comforting in its simplicity—lets us ignore biology, environment, and the sheer stubbornness of appetite. Bodies become symbols: power or failure, virtue or laziness, depending on who’s looking. We noted the obvious but rarely confronted statistic—most Americans are overweight—and the uncomfortable reality that GLP-1 drugs may be the only intervention that consistently works at scale.

    Then the room shifted. One student volunteered that she was on a GLP-1. The first weeks were a gauntlet of nausea and vomiting, but now the drug—Mounjaro—had quieted her hunger to a whisper. Thirty pounds gone in two months. Another student offered a counterpoint that landed harder: her father had been one of the exceptions. The drug didn’t help him lose weight. It helped him lose kidney function. As she spoke, she mentioned he was now on dialysis. The room absorbed that in silence. Miracle and risk, side by side, no clean narrative available.

    So we zoomed out.

    To design a show that courts physical danger and guarantees humiliation—for ratings, for merchandise, for the grotesque satisfaction of watching someone crack—is not an accident. It’s a business model. That’s the first kind of evil: deliberate, calculated, fully aware. Cynical evil. The producers know exactly what they’re doing. They understand the cruelty, and they monetize it.

    The second kind is quieter and more common. It belongs to the audience. Viewers sense the moral problem—on some level they know this is exploitation—but they file that knowledge away so it won’t interfere with their evening entertainment. They watch, they flinch, they keep watching. Call it willed ignorance. A cultivated habit of not asking questions that might ruin the pleasure.

    I told them, half-serious but not really joking, that if we were ranking things, cynical evil is a ten. Willed-ignorant evil sits comfortably at a seven—less flamboyant, more pervasive.

    Something clicked. The word evil—unfashionable, blunt, almost embarrassing in academic settings—cut through the fog. The discussion woke up. Students leaned in, argued, confessed discomfort, revised their positions in real time. The assignment stopped being an exercise and became a lens.

    That was the moment worth noticing. Sometimes you have to pull the camera back. Stop pretending the essay is about structure and sources and let students see the larger architecture: what the topic reveals about us, what it demands we confront, and why it matters that we do.

  • The Sovereign Appetite: How Wealth Devours the Soul

    The Sovereign Appetite: How Wealth Devours the Soul

    In “What I Learned About Billionaires at Jeff Bezos’s Private Retreat,” filmmaker Noah Hawley dissects the moral corrosion that accompanies extreme wealth—a corrosion fueled not by scarcity but by excess. The old adage comes to mind: the more you feed the demon, the hungrier it gets. Only now the demon eats without consequence, outside the jurisdiction of any moral law. The rules that bind ordinary people—limits, restraint, accountability—simply dissolve. In their place emerges what can only be called the Sovereign Appetite Doctrine: an unspoken creed in which desire, once backed by sufficient capital, becomes its own justification, rendering restraint unnecessary and morality negotiable.

    Hawley’s invitation to a 2018 Bezos retreat in Santa Barbara offered a front-row seat to this phenomenon. What he encountered was not insight but spectacle: a carousel of TED Talk-style presentations untethered from any coherent theme, a parade of ideas without consequence or urgency. These talks did not enlighten so much as signal—a kind of intellectual flex, as obligatory to the setting as Wagyu skewers and caviar. Surrounded by this polished emptiness, Hawley found himself asking the only honest question available: “Why am I here?”

    The retreat itself bordered on the absurd. His wife slipped on wet grass and broke her wrist; he and his children contracted hand, foot, and mouth disease, their faces erupting in red blisters. It was less a summit of visionaries than a fever dream of excess, where discomfort and decadence coexisted without irony.

    Bezos, at the time, still seemed to believe in performance. Clad in a tight T-shirt, laughing a little too hard, projecting a curated affability, he appeared invested in being seen as morally intact. There was effort in the act—a sense that the audience still mattered. He had not yet fully surrendered to the Sovereign Appetite Doctrine.

    But, as Hawley notes, that restraint has since evaporated. Today, figures like Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk no longer perform for approval. They have crossed into something colder and more insulated. In Hawley’s words, “They float in a sensory-deprivation tank the size of the planet, in which their actions are only ever judged by themselves.”

    Here lies the true seduction of wealth. It is not the acquisition of luxury goods but the eerie power of living in a world where everything is “effectively free.” Loss—the very mechanism that gives life weight—disappears. When nothing can be meaningfully lost, nothing can be meaningfully gained. Stakes vanish. Experience flattens. Life becomes curiously hollow, a theater without tension. This is the Infinite Buffer Effect: wealth so vast it absorbs every setback, neutralizing consequence and draining life of narrative shape.

    And yet, this emotional flattening coincides with a grotesque expansion of power. The wealthy, insulated from consequence, begin to experience a counterfeit omnipotence. They act without friction and, in doing so, lose the ability to perceive others as real. As Hawley writes, “If everything is free and nothing matters, then the world and other people exist only to be acted upon, if they are acknowledged at all.”

    At this point, they no longer inhabit the same moral universe as the rest of us. Cause and effect no longer apply in any meaningful way. They have become full converts to the Sovereign Appetite Doctrine.

    The word that clarifies this condition is solipsism—not as an abstract philosophy but as a lived reality. The world contracts until only the self remains vivid. Everything else fades into backdrop. Hawley shows how extreme wealth accelerates this contraction. When “everything is free and nothing matters,” the presence of other people—their inner lives, their suffering—loses its immediacy. Power without resistance breeds a dangerous illusion: that one’s actions carry no moral weight. Others become instruments, props, scenery. Empathy atrophies. Reality itself begins to feel negotiable. The self expands to fill the entire field of meaning, mistaking insulation for sovereignty.

    Hawley closes by contrasting today’s ultra-wealthy with the robber barons of the Gilded Age. However ruthless, those earlier figures “engaged with the world around them.” Today’s elite, by contrast, drift above it, severed from consequence, history, and meaning. They suffer from what Hawley calls “a disassociation from the reality of cause and effect, from meaning, and history.”

    This is not freedom but its grotesque parody—a form of plutocratic dissociation in which the individual floats outside shared reality, unbound not only from constraint but from significance itself.

    It is no accident that Hawley, the creator behind Fargo, can render this psychological landscape with such precision. He has long been fascinated by characters who drift beyond moral gravity. Here, he turns that same lens on the most powerful figures in our world—and what he reveals is not triumph, but a slow and chilling disappearance of the human.

  • The Narrative of Justified Cruelty and Heroic Delusion (college essay prompt)

    The Narrative of Justified Cruelty and Heroic Delusion (college essay prompt)

    When disturbing acts of manipulation or cruelty appear in documentaries, viewers often search for a simple explanation. One explanation is psychological: the person must be mentally unstable. Another explanation is moral: the person knowingly chose to harm others. Yet many real cases resist this clean distinction. Individuals who commit harmful acts rarely see themselves as villains. Instead, they construct narratives that justify their behavior. They portray themselves as victims, defenders, truth-tellers, or heroes correcting an injustice.

    The documentaries The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish explore this unsettling dynamic. In both films, individuals escalate conflict through patterns of deception, resentment, and obsessive grievance. At times their behavior appears irrational or emotionally unstable. At other moments their actions seem deliberate, strategic, and calculated. What makes these stories disturbing is not simply the harm they cause, but the way the individuals involved interpret their own actions. Each person constructs a story that makes their behavior appear reasonable—even righteous—from their own perspective.

    These documentaries raise an important question about human behavior:

    How do people justify cruelty to themselves?

    Psychologists often describe this process as moral disengagement—the ability to harm others while preserving the belief that one is still a good or justified person. People may blame the victim, exaggerate their grievances, reinterpret their actions as self-defense, or frame themselves as the victim of a hostile world. Or they may see themselves as heroes in their own drama. Some people commit harmful acts while believing they are the morally righteous or aggrieved protagonist in a moral drama. Both documentaries actually illustrate that pattern remarkably well. When these narratives take hold, the line between psychological instability and moral wrongdoing becomes difficult to distinguish.

    Essay Task

    Write a 1,000-word comparative argumentative essay analyzing how The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish portray the stories people tell themselves to justify harmful behavior.

    Your essay should develop a thesis that addresses this question:

    Do the individuals in these documentaries appear primarily mentally unstable, morally responsible for their actions, or trapped inside narratives that allow them to see cruelty as justified?

    Thesis Requirement

    Your introduction must include a thesis that:

    1. Takes a clear position on the role of self-justifying narratives in the documentaries.
    2. Maps the major reasons that will organize your body paragraphs.

    Example thesis with mapping:

    The destructive behavior portrayed in The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish becomes understandable when we examine the self-justifying narratives constructed by the individuals involved: each person frames themselves as a victim of injustice, interprets retaliation as moral correction, and gradually loses the ability to see their actions from the perspective of others.

    Mapping components:

    • victim narratives
    • retaliation framed as justice
    • loss of empathy or perspective

    Each of these becomes a body paragraph.

    Essay Requirements

    Your essay must include:

    • a clear thesis with mapping components
    • comparison of both documentaries throughout the essay
    • analysis of specific moments from the films
    • a counterargument that challenges your interpretation
    • a rebuttal defending your position
    • a concluding paragraph reflecting on what these documentaries reveal about human moral reasoning

    Possible Directions for Your Argument

    You might argue that:

    • people justify cruelty by constructing victim narratives
    • resentment allows individuals to reinterpret retaliation as justice
    • deception becomes easier when someone believes they are morally right
    • psychological instability intensifies but does not fully explain destructive behavior
    • the documentaries reveal how ordinary people can become morally dangerous when they stop questioning their own stories