Cinemorphosis

Tag: politics

  • How a Zip Code Became a Retirement Plan

    How a Zip Code Became a Retirement Plan

    When my students and I discuss wealth inequality in America, I tell them to stop looking at abstract charts and start looking at real estate. Wealth has many hiding places, but its favorite address is prime property in desirable zip codes. If you want to know who has money, look at who owns the houses everyone else wants but cannot afford.

    Some people inherit these advantages. Others stumble into them through timing. My wife and I are not rich, but in 2002 we purchased a house in Southern California for $450,000 in a neighborhood perpetually described by realtors with the same reverential phrase: “a shortage of inventory.” There are always more buyers than homes. The schools receive high ratings. The tax base is stable. Crime exists, as it does everywhere, but burglaries and auto thefts are footnotes rather than defining features of daily life.

    Over the years, that shortage of inventory became a wealth-generation machine. Today our house could sell for roughly three times what we paid for it. My wife is fifty. I am sixty-four. In about a year, our mortgage will disappear entirely. We did not achieve this outcome through extraordinary brilliance. We happened to buy at a particular moment in history and then stayed put. Age, timing, and geography worked together like silent business partners.

    That reality grants us a degree of financial power that younger generations often do not possess. We are not unusual. Millions of older Americans are sitting atop appreciating assets that have quietly transformed them into members of an accidental property aristocracy.

    The disparity between older and younger Americans has become so pronounced that it may represent the deepest fault line in contemporary American life. This tension forms the backdrop of Joshua Rothman’s essay “Are Americans Too Old?” in which he examines historian Samuel Moyn’s provocative argument that the defining conflict of our era is not between left and right, labor and capital, or urban and rural Americans, but between the young and the old.

    In Gerontocracy in America, Moyn argues that the nation’s character is increasingly shaped not by people in their youth or prime but by those in the final third of life. A less academic translation of the title might simply be: Rule of the Old.

    The demographic trends are difficult to ignore. Americans are having fewer children. People are living longer. The traditional age pyramid is slowly morphing into what Rothman describes as a “top-heavy trapezoid.” In 1920, fewer than five percent of Americans were over sixty-five. By 2060, roughly one-quarter of the population will be.

    Meanwhile, many of the most visible positions of political power remain occupied by people old enough to remember rotary phones, three-network television, and cigarette ads featuring physicians. Younger Americans often feel as though they have been handed a bill for a party they never attended.

    The American Dream once followed a familiar script: go to college, get a job, buy a house, build a family, accumulate wealth. For many Boomers, that script worked remarkably well. To younger generations, however, it can seem as though the ladder was pulled up immediately after the Boomers reached the roof. Young adults today face soaring housing costs, burdensome debt, delayed family formation, and a labor market that often demands far more while offering far less.

    Yet Rothman identifies an irony at the heart of this story. Economically, America increasingly resembles a gerontocracy. Culturally, however, it remains obsessed with youth. The people who hold much of the wealth spend billions attempting not to look old. Every wrinkle is treated as a design flaw. Every gray hair becomes a problem to be solved. We celebrate youthful energy, youthful innovation, youthful disruption, and youthful beauty while entrusting enormous economic and political power to people collecting Social Security.

    The contradiction is almost comic. The nation is governed by senior citizens while being marketed to adolescents.

    Still, Rothman is skeptical of reducing America’s problems to a generational battle. He points to writer Nathan J. Robinson, who argues that Moyn is making a category mistake. The true divide is not primarily between old people and young people. It is between rich people and everyone else.

    Robinson notes that a relatively small slice of older Americans controls a disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth. Most seniors are not oligarchs lounging atop mountains of stock certificates. Wealth is not concentrated among the elderly as a class. It is concentrated among the wealthy as a class.

    That distinction matters.

    The retired schoolteacher living on a modest pension has little in common economically with a billionaire hedge-fund manager, even if both qualify for senior discounts at Denny’s.

    In the end, Rothman lands somewhere between the two positions. He agrees that older generations wield disproportionate political influence and that this imbalance deserves scrutiny. Yet he rejects the idea that America’s future should be framed as a generational war.

    After all, every generation is heading in the same direction. The young become middle-aged. The middle-aged become old. Time drafts all of us into the same army eventually.

    The challenge, then, is not to pit generations against one another but to create a society in which each generation can realistically pursue the promises that define the American Dream: economic security, good health, meaningful work, and a hopeful future.

    Otherwise, the dream becomes something stranger and far less noble—a competition to see who can pull the ladder up fastest.

  • When Evil Goes Viral

    When Evil Goes Viral

    In “Andrew Tate’s Empire of Abuse,” Heidi Blake examines the disturbing world built by influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan from their base in a wealthy enclave north of Bucharest known as the American Village. What emerges is not merely a pornography business but an entire ideology. According to Blake’s reporting, the Tate brothers are accused of recruiting and exploiting women while simultaneously constructing an online empire designed to sell young men a vision of unrestrained power. Through a private network called the War Room, Tate promises liberation from what he describes as the imprisonment of conventional morality. In its place, he offers a creed of domination in which women become trophies, commodities, or servants to male desire. One woman’s experience illustrates the cruelty of this worldview. After recruiting her, Tate reportedly subjected her to humiliation, financed cosmetic procedures, and had the words “Tate Owned” tattooed on her body, branding another human being as though she were property.

    Tate’s worldview is so grotesque that it often feels less like reality than an abandoned screenplay rejected for lacking subtlety. Hollywood villains are usually granted complexity, vulnerability, or redeeming traits. Tate seems determined to eliminate all such nuances. He openly cultivates the image of a man who views empathy as weakness and domination as virtue. Yet what makes him truly alarming is not the extremity of his beliefs but the enthusiasm with which he markets them. Tate does not hide from accusations of evil. Instead, he recasts himself as a prophet. To his followers, he presents himself as a shepherd leading lost men toward a promised land of wealth, sexual conquest, and absolute freedom from moral restraint.

    The nightmare grows darker when one considers the size of his audience. Tate possesses what our culture increasingly values above wisdom, character, or integrity: clout. He commands a vast social-media following and uses it to promote a lifestyle assembled from luxury watches, cigars, supercars, conspicuous wealth, and an aggressively performative version of masculinity. His genius, if one can call it that, lies in understanding the mechanics of attention. In an age where visibility often substitutes for virtue, influence itself becomes evidence of success. The result is that millions of young men encounter Tate not as a fringe extremist but as a glamorous symbol of aspiration.

    Tate is also intensely political. He boasts of shifting the Overton window, expanding the boundaries of what can be publicly said and tolerated. In his telling, this is a triumph. In reality, it often resembles an effort to normalize ideas that were once regarded as beyond the pale. The objective is not simply to win arguments but to redefine the moral landscape itself, widening the escape hatch through which cruelty, misogyny, and contempt can pass into public life disguised as courage or authenticity.

    When Tate faced arrest on human-trafficking charges, he was defended by a collection of prominent allies and media figures who viewed him as useful to broader political and cultural battles. In a polarized age, alliances are increasingly forged not through shared principles but through shared enemies. The question ceases to be whether a person is decent and becomes whether that person can help advance a cause. Under such conditions, moral judgment is replaced by strategic calculation.

    It has often been said that shamelessness is a superpower. There is truth in that observation. Shame restrains. Conscience hesitates. Moral reflection slows us down. The shameless suffer from none of these inconveniences. They can say anything, excuse anything, and justify anything. But if shamelessness is a superpower, it is one purchased at a tremendous cost. To embrace figures like Tate is to announce that power matters more than virtue and influence more than decency. It is to make one’s bargain with the devil publicly visible.

    What Blake’s article ultimately reveals is not merely the story of Andrew Tate but the story of a culture increasingly intoxicated by clout. In a society obsessed with metrics, followers, engagement, and influence, visibility itself becomes a moral credential. The result is a world in which people who openly celebrate cruelty can become celebrities while those who practice humility and integrity are rewarded with obscurity. Tate thrives because he understands this reality better than most. He has discovered that in the attention economy, notoriety often pays better than goodness. The tragedy is not simply that men like Andrew Tate exist. The tragedy is that so many people have decided he is worth following.

  • Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    The subscription platform OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial features of the digital economy. Supporters argue that it gives creators greater control over their labor, income, and personal brand while allowing consumers to purchase content from consenting adults. Critics argue that the platform commodifies intimacy, encourages emotional manipulation, weakens traditional moral norms, and profits from loneliness and social dysfunction.

    One way to understand this debate is through the conflict between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Moral absolutists argue that some actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of circumstances, consequences, or cultural changes. From this perspective, OnlyFans is morally problematic because it encourages the commercialization of sexuality, undermines values such as fidelity and honesty, and profits from emotional and relational vulnerabilities. Moral relativists, however, argue that moral judgments must be understood within specific social, economic, and cultural contexts. From this perspective, creators and subscribers are autonomous adults making voluntary choices in response to changing economic realities, technological developments, and evolving social norms.

    In a 1,200-word argumentative essay, develop a thesis that evaluates whether the moral absolutist or moral relativist perspective provides the more convincing interpretation of OnlyFans. You may defend one position, critique one position, or argue that the reality is more complex than either framework fully captures.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Is OnlyFans primarily a form of exploitation or a form of economic empowerment? Does the platform provide meaningful opportunities for autonomy and entrepreneurship, or does it encourage the commodification of intimacy and human relationships? To what extent are creators and subscribers exercising free choice, and to what extent are their decisions shaped by loneliness, economic pressures, social isolation, or broader cultural forces? Should morality be grounded in timeless principles, or should moral judgments adapt to changing social and economic conditions?

    Your essay should present a clear thesis, analyze the assumptions behind both moral absolutism and moral relativism, address at least one counterargument, and explain why your interpretation offers the most persuasive understanding of the ethical questions raised by OnlyFans and the modern digital economy.

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

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

    The documentary We Beat the Dream Team suggests that history is not merely a collection of facts but a contest over narrative power. The film explores how individuals and groups compete to shape public memory, define legitimacy, claim symbolic victory, and control the stories that future generations will remember. Although the documentary focuses on sports, it demonstrates that struggles over narrative ownership extend far beyond athletics into race, education, art, film, and cultural identity.

    Using this idea as your conceptual framework, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay comparing two of the following works:

    • Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass
    • “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” by bell hooks
    • Summer of Soul directed by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson
    • Is That Black Enough for You?!? directed by Elvis Mitchell

    In your essay, analyze the claim that controlling narrative, memory, and representation is one of the most powerful ways dominant groups maintain authority and one of the most important ways marginalized groups resist erasure.

    As you develop your argument, examine how the works portray struggles over literacy, education, historical memory, cultural visibility, artistic representation, and identity. How do powerful institutions shape public understanding of reality? How do marginalized individuals and communities reclaim the right to tell their own stories? To what extent do autobiography, education, music, film, and art function as tools of resistance against cultural invisibility?

    You should also analyze the rhetorical and artistic methods used by the creators. Consider how autobiography, storytelling, archival footage, music, imagery, editing, voice, and narrative structure influence audience perception and challenge dominant narratives.

    As part of your essay, address at least one counterargument. For example, some critics may argue that representation and cultural visibility are insufficient forms of resistance because they do not necessarily produce economic equality, political power, or institutional change. Others may argue that dominant cultures eventually absorb and commodify resistance movements, transforming them into marketable products. Evaluate these criticisms and explain the strengths and limitations of cultural expression as a form of resistance.

    As you conclude, consider the broader implications of narrative control. Why do individuals, institutions, and societies fight so fiercely over memory, legitimacy, and representation? What happens when people lose the ability to preserve and narrate their own histories? Finally, consider how social media, AI, and algorithm-driven platforms continue to shape who gets to tell the story and whose stories are forgotten.

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Compare two of the four works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, passages, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about narrative ownership, cultural memory, identity, and power
  • 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

  • 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.