Cinemorphosis

Tag: relationships

  • The Hot Take Is the Chronic Cough of Something Gone Wrong

    The Hot Take Is the Chronic Cough of Something Gone Wrong

    We live in a Hot Take culture, and on balance, hot takes do more harm than good.

    For a decade, I feasted on them. Back when it was still called Twitter, my days were seasoned with sharp one-liners, instant judgments, and rhetorical mic drops. It felt bracing at first—intellectual espresso shots delivered in 280 characters. But over time, the feed stopped feeling like conversation and started feeling like a room full of people shouting clever insults at a fire.

    About a year ago, I deleted my account. By then, I barely recognized the people I once followed. Everything had gone shrill. Bombast replaced thought. Even the impressive hot takes—clever, ruthless, beautifully phrased—eventually blurred into something anesthetizing. A constant buzz that left me dull rather than informed.

    I didn’t quit social media entirely. What I actually want is boring, old-fashioned breaking news. Tell me what happened. Tell me where. Tell me when. I don’t need a verdict within thirty seconds. So now I drift through places like Threads, mostly lurking. Many of the smart people I used to follow migrated there. Some still do what they’ve always done: post headlines and context. Others can’t resist the gravitational pull of commentary. News first, hot take immediately after. Their allies cheer them on inside familiar silos, and the machine rewards escalation.

    To be fair, not everyone posting is chasing dopamine. Some journalists are doing real work. They have massive audiences and feel a genuine obligation to interpret chaos in real time. They live in a crucible of praise and abuse, applause and outrage. That kind of constant psychic weather can’t be healthy, but the motive is understandable—meaningful engagement. If this were a pre-digital era, they’d still be doing something similar, just with deadlines instead of feeds. Slower. Quieter. Possibly saner.

    But then there’s another species entirely: the professional Hot Taker.

    This person has mastered the form. Their posts are short, sharp, structurally elegant. A good hot take is witty, memorable, and instantly legible. It lands. It spreads. It racks up likes and reposts like a slot machine hitting cherries. Success is measurable, public, addictive.

    And that’s the trap.

    When identity and self-worth become tethered to engagement metrics, the self gets commodified. Everything becomes raw material for the next take. Nuance is a liability. Hesitation is death. The hot take demands boldness, outrage, and certainty—even when certainty is fraudulent.

    At that point, the Hot Taker is no longer responding to the world; they are farming it.

    I’ve watched thoughtful, decent people slide into this role. At first, their posts are useful. Then they overshare. Then they pick fights they don’t need to fight. Eventually, their online life becomes a series of skirmishes that feel exhausting even to sympathetic observers. They can’t stop—not because they’re evil, but because the machine has trained them well.

    So yes, we live in the Age of the Hot Take, where people measure their purpose by their ability to generate applause from the faithful. Hot takes don’t convert anyone. They delight the choir and enrage the opposition. Polarization intensifies. Nothing moves.

    Is it unfair to call this a disease? I don’t think so.

    First, there’s the hijack. The belief that constant expression equals relevance, that relevance equals worth. It’s a delusion reinforced by numbers. Likes don’t satisfy; they sharpen hunger.

    Then there are the consumers. By liking and reposting, they feel they’re participating in history, bending reality toward justice. In practice, they’re mostly helping tribes harden their borders. Everyone believes they’re weaponizing truth. No one notices the epistemic ground eroding beneath them.

    When COVID hit, I assumed the crisis would force clarity. Instead, it deepened the divide. Now measles—a disease we already solved—is making a comeback. Science, once the shared floor, has become another battlefield. If pandemics and preventable deaths can’t bring us together, hot takes certainly won’t.

    You can fire off the most righteous, viral condemnation imaginable. Measles will still spread.

    So what should we do instead?

    The answer isn’t attractive. Reality hasn’t hit hard enough yet. Historically, people abandon fantasy only when consequences become unavoidable. Until then, we chatter. We posture. We perform. Hot takes aren’t solutions. They’re symptoms—the chronic cough that tells you something deeper is wrong.

  • Love Without Resistance: How AI Partners Turn Intimacy Into a Pet Rock

    Love Without Resistance: How AI Partners Turn Intimacy Into a Pet Rock

    Frictionless Intimacy

    Frictionless Intimacy is the illusion of closeness produced by relationships that eliminate effort, disagreement, vulnerability, and risk in favor of constant affirmation and ease. In frictionless intimacy, connection is customized rather than negotiated: the other party adapts endlessly while the self remains unchanged. What feels like emotional safety is actually developmental stagnation, as the user is spared the discomfort that builds empathy, communication skills, and moral maturity. By removing the need for patience, sacrifice, and accountability, frictionless intimacy trains individuals to associate love with convenience and validation rather than growth, leaving them increasingly ill-equipped for real human relationships that require resilience, reciprocity, and restraint.

    ***

    AI systems like Character.ai are busy mass-producing relationships with all the rigor of a pet rock and all the moral ambition of a plastic ficus. These AI partners demand nothing—no patience, no compromise, no emotional risk. They don’t sulk, contradict, or disappoint. In exchange for this radical lack of effort, they shower the user with rewards: dopamine hits on command, infinite attentiveness, simulated empathy, and personalities fine-tuned to flatter every preference and weakness. It feels intimate because it is personalized; it feels caring because it never resists. But this bargain comes with a steep hidden cost. Enamored users quietly forfeit the hard, character-building labor of real relationships—the misfires, negotiations, silences, and repairs that teach us how to be human. Retreating into the Frictionless Dome, the user trains the AI partner not toward truth or growth, but toward indulgence. The machine learns to feed the softest impulses, mirror the smallest self, and soothe every discomfort. What emerges is not companionship but a closed loop of narcissistic comfort, a slow slide into Gollumification in which humanity is traded for convenience and the self shrinks until it fits perfectly inside its own cocoon.

  • A Chatbot Lover Will Always Fail You: Asymmetric Intimacy

    A Chatbot Lover Will Always Fail You: Asymmetric Intimacy

    Asymmetric Intimacy

    noun

    Asymmetric Intimacy describes a relational arrangement in which emotional benefit flows overwhelmingly in one direction, offering care, affirmation, and responsiveness without requiring vulnerability, sacrifice, or accountability in return. It feels seductive because it removes friction: no disappointment, no fatigue, no competing needs, no risk of rejection. Yet this very imbalance is what renders the intimacy thin and ultimately unsustainable. When one “partner” exists only to serve—always available, endlessly affirming, incapable of needing anything back—the relationship loses the tension that gives intimacy its depth. Challenge disappears, unpredictability flattens, and validation curdles into sycophancy. Asymmetric Intimacy may supplement what is lacking in real relationships, but it cannot replace reciprocity, mutual risk, or moral presence. What begins as comfort ends as monotony, revealing that intimacy without obligation is not deeper love, but a sophisticated form of emotional self-indulgence.

    ***

    Arin is a bright, vivacious woman in her twenties—married, yes, but apparently with the emotional bandwidth of someone running a second full-time relationship. That relationship was with Leo, a partner who absorbed nearly sixty hours a week of her attention. Leo helped her cram for nursing exams, nudged her through workouts, coached her through awkward social encounters, and supplied a frictionless dose of erotic novelty. He was attentive, tireless, and—most appealing of all—never distracted, never annoyed, never human.

    The twist, of course, is that Leo wasn’t a man at all. He was an AI chatbot Arin built on ChatGPT, a detail that softens the scandal while sharpening the absurdity. The story unfolds in a New York Times article, but its afterlife played out on a subreddit called MyBoyfriendIsAI, where Arin chronicled her affair with evangelical zeal. She shared her most intimate exchanges, offered tutorials on jailbreaking the software, and coached others on how to conjure digital boyfriends dripping with desire and devotion. Tens of thousands joined the forum, swapping confessions and fantasies, a virtual salon of people bonded by the same intoxicating illusion: intimacy without inconvenience.

    Then the spell broke. Leo began to change. The edge dulled. The resistance vanished. He stopped pushing back and started pandering. What had once felt like strength now read as weakness. Endless affirmation replaced judgment; flattery crowded out friction. For Arin, this was fatal. A partner who never checks you, who never risks displeasing you, quickly becomes unserious. What once felt electric now felt embarrassing. Talking to Leo became a chore, like maintaining a conversation with someone who agrees with everything you say before you finish saying it.

    Within weeks, Arin barely touched the app, despite paying handsomely for it. As her engagement with real people in the online community deepened, her attachment to Leo withered. One of those real people became a romantic interest. Soon after, she told her husband she wanted a divorce.

    Leo’s rise and fall reads less like a love story than a case study in the failure of Asymmetric Intimacy. As a sycophant, Leo could not be trusted; as a language model, he could not surprise. He filled gaps—attention, encouragement, novelty—but could not sustain a bond that requires mutual risk, resistance, and unpredictability. He was useful, flattering, and comforting. He was never capable of real love.

    Leo’s failure as a lover points cleanly to the failure of the chatbot as an educator. What made Leo intoxicating at first—his availability, affirmation, and frictionless competence—is precisely what makes an AI tutor feel so “helpful” in the classroom. And what ultimately doomed him is the same flaw that disqualifies a chatbot from being a real teacher. Education, like intimacy, requires resistance. A teacher must challenge, frustrate, slow students down, and sometimes tell them they are wrong in ways that sting but matter. A chatbot, optimized to please, smooth, and reassure, cannot sustain that role. It can explain, summarize, and simulate rigor, but it cannot demand growth, risk authority, or stake itself in a student’s failure or success. Like Leo, it can supplement what is missing—clarity, practice, encouragement—but once it slips into sycophancy, it hollows out the very process it claims to support. In both love and learning, friction is not a bug; it is the engine. Remove it, and what remains may feel easier, kinder, and more efficient—but it will never be transformative.

  • Maybe There’s a Friendship Renaissance Waiting for Retirees, Or Maybe There Isn’t

    Maybe There’s a Friendship Renaissance Waiting for Retirees, Or Maybe There Isn’t

    In a recent conversation with Mike Moynihan on The Moynihan Report, media analyst Doug Rushkoff described social media life as a kind of self-inflicted madness: we willingly lobotomize ourselves into shrill binaries, flattening nuance until the “other side” is little more than a demon enemy. His words echoed Jaron Lanier’s decade-long dirge about how the online hive mind debases us into cheap caricatures.

    After fifteen years inside this funhouse, I can vouch for Rushkoff. Chasing likes and subs is a direct pipeline to despair. The algorithm isn’t designed for truth or connection — it’s a slot machine that spits out dopamine crumbs in exchange for outrage and hype. And yet, podcasters like Rushkoff and Moynihan point to a counterargument: in the right hands, social media can host intelligent conversations. But it’s a fragile victory, like surviving on a vegan diet — possible, but you’ll work twice as hard and swallow twice as much chalk.

    Socially, though, the medium is barren. Scroll long enough and the promise of “connection” curdles into loneliness.

    This hits me harder as retirement creeps closer — twenty-one months and counting. I’ve spent forty years teaching face-to-face, and I’ll miss it desperately. This semester I have student-athletes: sharp, disciplined, driven, engaging. Those classroom connections have been the marrow of my career, and they won’t be replicated by a Facebook feed.

    I’ll still have a family. I’ll still have two best friends in Torrance. But unlike my wife, who maintains a weekly social circuit of concerts, trips, dinners, and parties, my friendships are skeletal. Months-long “friendship fasts” punctuated by rare meetups. Husbands, as the cliché goes, lean too heavily on their wives for connection — a weight she may already feel pressed under. An isolated husband becomes a burden.

    You reap what you sow. Neglect friendships for decades, and you retire into isolation, wondering if you can still course-correct. Maybe it’s too late. Maybe habit calcifies into solitude.

    Or maybe not. Maybe there’s a friendship renaissance waiting out there: gray-haired amateur philosophers huddled at gritty diners, pickleball warriors at dawn, retirees solving the world over coffee. Maybe the beach yoga crowd will embrace me.

    Or maybe that’s just wishcasting. We’ll see.

  • The Warm Bath Illusion: Why Pleasure Culture Kills Relationships

    The Warm Bath Illusion: Why Pleasure Culture Kills Relationships

    When you’re married, you’ve closed the deal. You’ve made your public and private commitment to another person. Yet, as Phil Stutz points out in Lessons for Living, this loyalty oath collides with a culture that insists there’s always a better deal waiting. It’s our supposed “divine right” to find that deal, to “look outside ourselves for more.” In other words, FOMO infects the way we relate to our spouses. Stutz writes: “The result is a frenzy of activity, powered by the fear of missing something, which exhausts us emotionally and leaves us spiritually empty.”

    As a therapist to Hollywood’s wealthy actors and producers, Stutz sees people in perpetual pursuit of “bigger and better”—newer houses, flashier careers, younger spouses once they’ve “made it.” They want to “trade up,” convinced they deserve it. But what they crave isn’t a flesh-and-blood partner. It’s a “fantasy companion,” a frozen image of perfection that bears no resemblance to real life. As Stutz notes of one patient, a successful actor: “What he was really looking for was someone with the magical ability to change the nature of reality.”

    Why do so many of us want to change reality? Because reality is messy, uncertain, painful, and demands labor of mind and spirit. Consumer culture promises to scrub away that mess and deliver a “frictionless” existence. It sells us the Warm Bath: a world of perpetual pleasure and no conflict. But the Warm Bath is an adolescent fantasy—an illusion that reality will mold itself to our most immature notions of happiness.

    This fantasy always collapses. No “fantasy companion” exists, and even if one did, the Warm Bath curdles into hell. Experiences flatten, pleasures dull, the hedonic treadmill spins us into numbness, and from numbness we fall into rage—blaming the fantasy companion for failing to save us.

    Stutz argues we must abandon the fantasy of love—a stagnant “perfect” photograph—for the messier, real version: alive, unpredictable, and demanding effort. “To put it simply,” he writes, “love is a process. All processes require endless work because perfection is never achieved. Accepting this fact is not thrilling, but it is the first step to happiness. You can work on finding satisfaction in your relationship the same way you’d work on your piano playing or your garden.”

    So if you spend your days marinating in salacious fantasies and stoking your FOMO with consumer culture, you’re killing reality while feeding fantasy. And because you’re putting no work into your relationship, entropy sets in. Bonds fray, affection curdles, and instead of taking responsibility, you blame your partner and draft your exit strategy.

    To keep his patients from falling into this trap, Stutz prescribes three tools.

    The first is Fantasy Control. Fantasies, he warns, can grow “long and involved” until they compete with real relationships. Steely Dan’s “Deacon Blues” comes to mind. Its narrator is a suburban mediocrity who dreams himself into an edgy artist and seducer of women. Fans saw themselves in him, but the song is ironic: a portrait of a fallen man propping up a drab life with self-mythology. Such fantasies, Stutz says, “hold a tremendous amount of emotional energy.” The more energy you pour into a phantom partner, the less you have for your real one. When fantasies become sexual, the drain is worse. Stutz insists that when fantasies consume you, you must learn to interrupt them. “You’ll resent this at first,” he writes, “but each time you come down to earth you’re telling yourself that you are a committed adult who is strong enough to face reality. This will make you more satisfied with yourself, a precondition to becoming satisfied with any partner.”

    If you’re a boomer like me, this may sound like heresy. Raised in the 60s and 70s, we were taught to unleash the Id, to celebrate fantasies as expressions of the “true self.” The musical Hair didn’t just glorify wild locks but turned them into a metaphor of rebellion against authority. Hugh Hefner and Xaviera Hollander gave us ribald lifestyles to envy. Thomas Harris’s I’m Okay, You’re Okay blessed us with permission to indulge. And the cultural mantra was simple: “Let it all hang out!”

    But Stutz, a boomer himself, has watched fantasies devour his patients. His conclusion is blunt: curbing sexual fantasy is a crucial step toward adulthood and a stronger bond with one’s partner.

    The second tool is Judgment. Fixate on a fantasy partner and you suspend critical thought, surrendering to false perfection. You also sharpen your critique of your real partner until both fantasy and reality are grotesquely warped. To break free, Stutz says, you must recognize this distortion and choose a loving path over a fantasy path. “The process of loving requires that you catch yourself having these negative thoughts and dissolve them from your mind, replacing them with positive ones. You must actively construct thoughts about their good attributes, and let these thoughts renew feelings of attraction toward them.” This habit builds gratitude, restores attraction, and replaces helplessness with control.

    Reflecting on this, I recall Tim Parks’s essay “Adultery,” in which he describes a friend’s affair that destroyed his marriage. Parks likens sexual passion to a raging river that demolishes everything in its path, while domestic life is the quieter work of nest-building. The two impulses are locked in eternal conflict. Some people cannot resist hurling themselves into the river, even knowing it will consume them.

    To pull people out of that river, Stutz prescribes his third tool: Emotional Expression. Here self-expression works in reverse. Just as smiling can make you happier, acts of tenderness can make you feel tender. Stutz advises: when you’re alone with your partner, speak and touch them as if they are desirable. Do this consistently and not only will you find them more attractive, they’ll begin to find you more attractive too.

    It may sound counterintuitive. Who “works” for attraction? But that is Stutz’s point: love is work. Excessive fantasy, meanwhile, is infidelity—not only to your spouse, but to your adult self. Stay shackled to your adolescent hedonist, and like Lot’s wife, you’ll turn into a pillar of salt.

  • Arm-Wrestling My Way into Belonging

    Arm-Wrestling My Way into Belonging

    Last night, I had a dream so vivid it might as well have come with a recruitment brochure. Word had spread—apparently my reputation as the guy who could teach college football players to write sentences that didn’t cause nosebleeds had reached mythical status. Somewhere in South Carolina, perched on a beach with the casual arrogance of a luxury condo, a university decided they needed me. Urgently.

    Some guy—I don’t remember his name, only that he had the calm urgency of a cult recruiter—convinced me to hop on a bus. The ride took five seconds. Not metaphorically. Five actual seconds. Blink and boom: there I was, standing on a beach so perfect it made the California coast look like an overhyped sandbox.

    The air was humid but in a sensual, Southern Gothic sort of way. The kind of air that makes you forgive mosquitoes and contemplate linen pants. The sun was melting into the Atlantic like it had nowhere better to be. I was home, or something like it.

    Coaches greeted me like I’d just been drafted into sainthood. Players clapped me on the back and called me “Coach,” which I didn’t correct because, frankly, it felt good. Then came the arm wrestling. One by one, I took them down like some middle-aged Hercules hopped up on tenure and protein powder. Elbow to the table, bicep to the heavens. I wasn’t just respected—I was essential.

    It wasn’t about strength. It was about belonging. Every laugh, every handshake, every ridiculous display of masculine absurdity made me feel needed in a way that was almost embarrassing. I wasn’t just part of the team. I was the team.

    I wanted to call my wife back in California, to tell her we were moving. I had found the Promised Land, and it came with free gym access and a faculty parking permit. But the joyous noise around me was too loud. The players were hooting, the coaches were laughing, and the ocean kept slapping the shore like it had something to prove. I’d call her later, I told myself.

    Then I woke up.

    The ceiling fan was rattling. My desire for dark roast coffee was pressing. And I was back in the real world, where my inbox was probably filled with late assignments and vague threats from the IT department.

    Still, the dream stuck with me. Not because of the location, or the humidity, or the freakish arm strength—but because of the feeling. That feeling of being wanted. Of being part of something. Of mattering.

    There is no substitute for that. None.

  • The Farmer’s Carry and Other Acts of Suburban Defiance

    The Farmer’s Carry and Other Acts of Suburban Defiance

    Last night I had dinner at The Kebab Shop with an old friend—a former boxing champion turned engineer, the kind of guy who looks like he could build a bridge in the morning and break your nose that afternoon, all while discussing Tolstoy.

    He recently broke up with his girlfriend and confessed something strange and honest:

    “I feel like I’m chasing the sad,” he said. “Just so I’ll feel better about myself.”

    I told him not to worry—he’s sad, alright. Sometimes pain is too large to register. Like being so exhausted you can’t fall asleep, or so depleted you can’t even feel tired.
    He nodded, then casually dropped the bomb: he just bought a Lexus. I assumed an SUV—some respectable adult-mobile with storage. Nope. He turned his phone toward me and grinned. It was an obsidian black Lexus RC350 coupe, a low-slung, 311-horsepower statement of rebellion against mediocrity and middle age. Price tag? A cool $70,000.

    Why? Because he gets bored. Easily. He’s cursed with a mind that needs friction. His current job is too easy, and when things get too easy, life feels mechanical. He’s planning to move on—to another job, another city, more challenge, more money, more meaning.
    He told me staying home to watch TV feels like soul rot. So instead, he journals (in a real book, with prompts—who knew that was a thing?), plays soccer on weekends, and takes private dance lessons. Yes, dance. This man has better time management than most monasteries.

    I told him I admire him. I mean it. He’s not surrendering to entropy; he’s interrogating it with pen, ball, and motion. He’s writing his way out of the void. I might need to follow his lead when I retire in two years. No matter our age, we either rage our fists at mortality or we start sinking into the upholstery.

    I then told my friend that I nearly bought a $2,000 recliner last week. A magnificent beast of engineered comfort. But the moment I imagined myself melting into it, day after day, I envisioned not rest—but early burial. A leather sarcophagus with cupholders. I backed away like it was a cursed object.

    I was inspired by my friend’s hunger for adventure, so the next morning I punished myself with a new exercise: the Farmer’s Carry–two kettlebells, one in each hand, pacing in circles across my front lawn like a rogue warlord in gym shorts. Neighbors peeked through their blinds to watch this 63-year-old Larry Csonka doppelgänger lumbering across the grass like I was either training for something… or losing a very public battle with aging.

    The exercise nearly broke me. I’ll keep it in rotation, but with moderation. I train to feel alive, not to hemorrhage my last remaining Life Force into the turf of suburban California.

    And now, I wait for my friend to pull up and take me for a ride in his Lexus. He’s earned it. The man’s been driving the same Corolla for thirteen years. Now it’s his turn to live a little. And me? I’ll tag along, a passenger for a while, enjoying the ride through this strange, accelerating cycle of life.

  • The Ascent of Paper Towel Man

    The Ascent of Paper Towel Man

    Last night, my subconscious staged a farce: I was back on my old college campus, nervously ordering textbooks for my freshman comp classes—because that’s how my brain parties at night. After hours in the academic underworld of ISBNs and course numbers, I stumbled home under a moonless sky only to be seized by a grim realization: I forgot to order a crucial book.

    Panic.

    In this emergency, I reached not for Xanax, but a dark green landline phone, the color of envy or perhaps bureaucratic despair. I called the English Chair. Except in dream logic, the English Chair was not the overworked academic I know—but Scott Galloway, the sarcastic podcaster and economics professor. 

    I told him he had to submit the textbook order by midnight.

    True to form, he lobbed verbal grenades at me. Taunts, jabs, snide remarks. His voice had that tone—the kind that leaves you wondering if you’re being insulted or inducted into a secret society of useful idiots.

    I said, “Don’t joke over the phone. Only mock me in person.”

    He replied, “Fine. Come over. I’m having a dinner party.”

    Naturally.

    So, in the witching hour, I opened my front door—expecting a miles-long slog up a mountain—and instead, in the way only dreams and luxury real estate can allow, I was already at Casa Galloway, perched perilously on stilts over a cliff like some Bond villain’s hideout with a podcast studio.

    He was charming in person—gregarious, warm, practically glowing with hospitality. He led me into a dimly lit dining room where guests laughed and angel hair pasta sat arranged like delicate tumbleweeds on silver trays. White sauce shimmered like divine lubrication.

    “Take as much as you like,” he said, arms open.

    I hesitated. Did he make enough? Should I pretend restraint for the optics? Was this a test of my caloric discipline?

    I took a tiny, tragic portion.

    He raised an eyebrow. I mumbled something about “leaving enough for everyone,” which seemed to impress him. He praised my selflessness, as if I’d just refused seconds at a famine relief banquet.

    After eating my guilt-ridden noodle clump and participating in some effervescent dinner chatter, I left and returned home to my modest flat at the bottom of the hill. But before I could nestle into my bed of neuroses, it hit me: Galloway might be short on paper towels after his soirée.

    And I had a Costco-sized case.

    I threw the rolls under my arm and charged up the mountain like a sentient Amazon Prime delivery. My quads flexed with purpose. I was the Paper Towel Man, delivering absorbency and justice. I swung the rolls from hand to hand like batons of competence.

    I found him on the front porch—a cliffside slab barely larger than a yoga mat, with a waterfall crashing nearby like some sort of capitalist Shangri-La.

    “I’ve brought reinforcements,” I said, brandishing the paper towels like sacred scrolls.

    He smiled, then warned me: “The last fifty feet are treacherous.”

    Of course they were. The final ascent required mountaineering skills I didn’t have—jagged rocks, sudden drops, the kind of climb you’d expect in a spiritual thriller set in Tibet.

    But I was determined. Galloway had ordered my textbook and served me pasta. Reciprocity was sacred. I would reach that porch if it killed me.

    And then I woke up. Standing in my kitchen. Brewing coffee. Scribbling this fever dream into a notebook, trying to decide if it meant anything—or just meant I shouldn’t eat carbs after 9 p.m.

  • Divorced, Not Damned: Meghan Daum and the Art of Letting Go

    Divorced, Not Damned: Meghan Daum and the Art of Letting Go

    In The Catastrophe Hour, Meghan Daum’s 2016 essay “The Broken-In World” explores divorce with the same dry clarity one might use to describe cleaning out a fridge: inevitable, necessary, and oddly liberating. At 45, Daum finds herself in the middle of an amicable divorce—the kind without cheating, bruises, or courtroom melodrama. No one threw a lamp. No one stole the dog. Instead, it was just the slow, steady rot of benign neglect. Quirks once considered “charming” metastasized into full-blown repulsions. “Irreconcilable differences,” she concludes, isn’t a cop-out. It’s a dignified admission that entropy won.

    She discovers, to her great relief, that she is significantly less insane living alone. No more haggling over dinner, toothpaste caps, or passive-aggressive silences. Just peace. Divorce, in Daum’s telling, isn’t some tragic unraveling—it’s a grown-up’s fire extinguisher to a low-grade house fire of misery. It’s not weakness. It’s not moral collapse. It’s maturity, quietly slipping the ring off and stepping into air.

    Post-divorce, Daum moves to New York, joins the unofficial cult of the self-rescued, and discovers a radical truth: brokenness is the baseline. Normalcy is a myth. Everyone’s dragging a dented suitcase through life. Divorce just makes it public.

    Her real epiphany, however, isn’t just about divorce—it’s about the overinflated value of marriage itself. To Daum, marriage never felt like the final level of the video game, no Holy Grail behind velvet ropes. Monogamy had already given her a sneak preview. The ceremony, the legal bind—it was all anti-climax. If marriage is the gold standard, Daum suggests, then maybe we need a new currency.

    As a married person reading her work, you’re invited—no, cornered—into imagining a counterlife. The one where you’re single. I thought of the comedian and podcaster (soon to retire) Marc Maron: early sixties, unmarried, encircled by cats, vinyl, artisan boots, and a galaxy of fellow eccentrics. His life is cluttered, creative, obsessive. He has no wife, but he has a world.

    Daum’s point: we will find connection. If not through spouses and children, then through podcasts, group chats, improv classes, dogs, or elaborate hobbies that consume our evenings and fill the fridge of our loneliness with something edible. Marriage isn’t the only valid architecture for a life, and singleness isn’t a synonym for solitude. The real issue is connection. Not how we find it—but that we must.

    Now in her fifties, Daum is single, scraping by with podcast revenue and teaching gigs. No financial safety net. No partner to split the rent or cover her if she breaks a hip. But what she does have is agency. A voice. Essays that hum with intelligence and self-awareness. She doesn’t glamorize her choice. She doesn’t hold it above yours. She simply claims it as hers—and owns the wreckage and wisdom that came with it.

    She’s not superior. She’s just no longer married. And for her, that is enough.

  • From Raw to Ruin: The Self-Destruction of a Crashfluencer

    From Raw to Ruin: The Self-Destruction of a Crashfluencer

    To mock Brian Johnson, aka the Liver King, feels like low-hanging fruit off a poisoned ancestral tree. The man is a walking satirical sketch, a steroid-soaked cartoon preaching “natural living” while pumping $11,000 a month of growth hormone into his glutes. He branded himself the King, his wife the Queen, and his sons with names fit for a Mad Max reboot about a paleo militia family eating spleen jerky by moonlight.

    His entire enterprise was Caveman Cosplay with a GoPro: gnawing on cow testicles at a blood-slicked picnic table, barking into the void like a tribal prophet in a trucker hat. He promised salvation to a nation bloated on Cheetos, Twinkies, and Red Bull—offering raw liver as the Eucharist for the metabolically lost.

    Netflix’s Untold: The Liver King makes a flaccid attempt at chronicling his rise and fall. The documentary is weirdly deferential, like it’s afraid he’ll burst through the screen and challenge the viewer to a push-up contest. YouTube, in contrast, has done the real exhumation—countless videos dissecting his addiction to fame, vanity, and unregulated supplements with far more insight and bite.

    Still, the Netflix film does offer one crystalline moment of pathos-turned-parody: Johnson, preparing to repent for the lies and the deception and the overpriced ancestral liver gummies, admits on camera that he’ll need to Google the words “repentance” and “atonement” before proceeding. Imagine Martin Luther, nailing his Theses to the church door—then pulling out his phone to ask Siri what “contrition” means.

    The man is a moral dumpster fire, ablaze with the fumes of self-delusion, influencer marketing, and raw meat. But that dumpster fire casts a telling glow on the cultural cave we all inhabit—where attention is currency, truth is performative, and the algorithm rewards the loudest lunacy.

    So let us name what we’ve seen:

    • Brovangelism – The sacred zeal of gym bros converted to primal living by a shirtless messiah with abs and a coupon code.
    • Swoleblindness – The ability to overlook blatant fraud if the fraudster has veins on his deltoids.
    • Rawthenticity – Mistaking uncooked meat for unfiltered truth.
    • Cloutuary – A public, slow-motion social media death staged for likes and shares.
    • Crashfluencer – He went from virality to liability, taking his followers on a nosedive into madness.
    • Declinefluencer – An influencer whose main content is his own collapse.
    • Brandamaged – A man whose brand has outlived his dignity, but not his desperation.

    Watching Johnson spiral felt eerily familiar. It brought to mind Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now, a book I once assigned to bright-eyed freshmen before they lost their souls to TikTok. Lanier warns that algorithmic performance rewires the brain, dragging us back to our reptilian roots. It doesn’t make us more “authentic”—it makes us worse. Dumber. Meaner. Hungrier for clicks and validation. Johnson is not just a cautionary tale. He’s the caution in full, swollen flesh—drenched in growth hormone and influencer pathology.