#Merit and Capital

[jiejing-lifechanyuan]

The Scope of Application of the Law of Positive and Negative Energy Summing to Zero

Xuefeng

January 26, 2024

(Translation edited by Qinyou)

While exploring the origin of the universe and the balance of cosmic energy, especially the principles of natural law, the mechanism of nature, and the principle of justice in Tao, I discovered this law, namely, “the sum of positive and negative energy is zero.”

If there is a positive universe, there is a negative universe; if there is positive energy, there is negative energy; if there is a positive electron, there is a negative electron; if there are people, there are anti-people; if there are gods, there are demons; if there is heaven, there is hell, etc. This law indicates that what is given and what is gained are equal, or in other words, giving + gaining = zero.

This law is the balance mechanism of the universe, ensuring that the development of anything does not go to extremes. This balance mechanism is the natural law and also embodies the justice of Tao. Understanding and applying this law, we will know the mechanism of nature.

Now a question arises, since the sum of positive and negative energy is zero, then, is happiness + pain = zero? Is love + hate = zero? Is cruelty + kindness = zero? Is enjoyment + suffering = zero? Etc.

There is a very obvious fact that seems to prove that this law only applies to the category of energy and does not apply to other categories. This fact is that the Super Celestial Beings in the Celestial Islands Continent of the Elysium World can enjoy eternity without worries and pains, and they will not suffer or be punished; while many lives trapped in hell are “irretrievable” and have to endure eternal pain; from the perspective of a single life form, the law of the sum of positive and negative energy being zero is not established, and there is no formula of happiness + pain = zero.

This means that the law of the sum of positive and negative energy being zero applies to the macroscopic, not to the microscopic; it applies to the whole, not to the individual.

Is this really the case?

Let some life or lives enjoy a good life forever for no reason, let some life or lives suffer pain and torture forever for no reason, is this possible? If it is possible, where is the natural law? Where is the justice of the universe? If it is not possible, where is the principle? Is it necessary to go through suffering and torture to enjoy a good and happy life? Do you have to endure hardship before you can go to heaven?

What I know and understand is that the law of the sum of positive and negative energy being zero applies to all fields, both macroscopic and microscopic, both the whole and the individual. There is no unprovoked blessing to enjoy, and there is no unprovoked sin to suffer. If you want to enjoy the benefits of heaven forever, you must meet the standards of heaven for life. This standard mainly depends on the following three items.

The quality of LIFE must meet the standard.

Have enough merit, that is, capital.

No worldly ties, no debt.

To meet the above three standards, it is actually a very difficult and painful process. In this sense, happiness + pain = zero is established. Once the standard is met, you can enjoy eternal happiness, but the possibility of meeting the standard is very small. It is a miracle if one percent of humans meet the standard. If you do not meet the standard, you will inevitably suffer endless suffering and torture, reincarnation endlessly, there is no end in sight, because we will find that we are suffering from pain and torture, but we are enjoying short-term happiness and joy, this is like a person, every day go to work to make money, spend all the money you earn every day, you can’t save a penny in the bank of heaven, where is the money to enjoy a good life in heaven? Some people complain that the Greatest Creator is unfair, saying that the common people are suffering pain, enduring hardship, and bearing sins; why doesn’t the Greatest Creator relieve the suffering of the common people?

I asked, “Who among the common people is willing to heed the call of the Greatest Creator and walk the path of the Greatest Creator? Can you find one? While disregarding the call of the Greatest Creator and complaining about the perceived injustice of the Greatest Creator, can you really blame the Greatest Creator?”

Perhaps someone might ask, “How is it that the law of the sum of positive and negative energy becoming zero fails for those wealthy individuals who, without enduring much pain or torment, enjoy a life of luxury?”

The law has not failed. The perceived failure of the law is due to two reasons: one, you have not seen the pressures and trials they have endured; two, you have not seen their future. They have shouldered more risk and mental strain than the average person, experiencing psychological and spiritual torment. Therefore, they are entitled to enjoy material wealth, but their future is bleak. The wealthier a person is, the greater their responsibility for the destruction of nature, the more money, the greater the sin. The more material wealth a person possesses, the heavier their sin, and the more severe their future punishment. Therefore, one should never envy or admire the rich, but rather pity them.

In summary, the law of the sum of positive and negative energy applies across all domains.

~~~

If you like this article and would like to know more about Lifechanyuan values, please check this link, thanks: https://lifechanyuanvalues.wordpress.com/2024/06/23/some-pdfs-of-lifechanyuan-values/

May Wisdom, Peace & Love from the Greatest Creator be with you.🙏

[worldstoforge]

I really wish we saw more Star Trek characters leave Star fleet to pursue passions. Most times when we see future versions of characters they are in administration or leadership and I think that that is a very materialistic and 20th century view of what success looks like. And frankly I don’t think that that is very Star Trek of them.

I wanna see Janeway not as an admiral but as the owner of a coffee shop just off the campus of Star fleet academy. Not because she “failed” in Star fleet but because she succeeded and retires to do the thing she has a passion for.

I don’t want to see Picard sad and depressed on a vineyard as short hand for “washed up and a failure”. It’s a post scarcity society. He can do whatever he wants. The idea that he has to grow grapes and that makes him less of a person than when he was an admiral feels gross.

Star trek should not only show us the possibilities of a bright future but also how that future has moved on from marking success as being in charge.

[lesbianslovebts]

I got mentioned in a thank-you email with my boss on it for saving $1.8M as a result of my analytics at just one of our locations. I believe it was closer to $6-7M total. I'm proud of myself, of course, but what puts everything into perspective is that my yearly salary is 1% of what I saved over the course of 8 months...

[xerith-42]

There's a version of Minecraft story mode in my brain... Okay hear me out on this and know that all, and I mean ALL of my familiarity with this game is playing it's early chapters when I was a kid, followed by watching some pig guy play it and complain the entire time.

But in Chapter 2 there's two different paths you can go down, and I find the difference between them and how that would hypothetically effect Jesse fascinating. Because Redstonia (god that's a dumb name) is a relatively chill place. Everyone there is weird, but you went to the nerd town, you met the nerds, you do some nerd stuff, it gets dangerous for a bit, and then you leave.

Meanwhile in Boomtown Jesse and Axel are literally fighting for their lives from second one and are constantly in the trenches the entire time they're there.

So we take two different designs of Jesse and just make them twins. One of them is named Jesse and the other is named Jessie and they refuse to change their names. They're basically inseparable, but then that can be part of the emotional climax that happens in chapter 1 when they realize that they have to separate from each other during a serious situation.

Jesse goes with Axel and comes back with hearing damage, new scars, a hatred of loud noises, and a lot of weird hand cramps. Jessie meanwhile gets to go on a nice little vacay with Olivia where they do a bunch of redstone and nerd out the entire time. Gives them a different outlook on things going forward that's bound to change when they reunite and other Horrors of the story happen.

[grim-echoes]

Any thoughts on what's up with the Accelerated Dynamics nightmare dungeon? The obvious surface is about corporate greed, but how does that relate directly to Jimmy's life like the other nightmare dungeons do?

i've been slacking on the analysis posts a hell of a lot but this is one of the dungeons i've been looking for an opportunity to talk about because it's another one of those inclusions in jatpm that i think gets overlooked because it doesn't have an immediately obvious interpretation like some others do (or, as obvious as is possible for your average jimmy fan). i've done a lot of thinking about it, and a while back had this realization (slight tw for very very brief suicide mention, also obvious spoilers ahead):

kasey definitely put a lot of his own personal grievances with capitalism into accelerated dynamics, but in my opinion it's an incomplete picture without taking megatropolis as a whole into consideration. terminal illness is extremely costly to treat and particularly in the US, it's (in my experience) much more terrifying to imagine being unable to afford the cost of healthcare than it is to actually fall ill and require treatment. even with insurance covering the cost of medical supplies and bills most people continue to struggle to feed, clothe, and house themselves, and that's assuming they do have health insurance that covers the right necessities to begin with.

i say this because i doubt jimmy's cancer treatment was at all affordable given that he's already been through chemotherapy once before, and has spent the entirety of his second battle comatose while his family continues to work not just to support themselves, but to try and save his life. this isn't to argue that money troubles were absolutely a factor in his family's life because of his illness because we don't know much at all about their financial situation--more that this is a terrifying reality for many, many families fighting illnesses, and megatropolis is representative of something that jimmy and his family don't have the luxury of anymore: leisure.

accelerated dynamics is set in a sprawling city landmarked by arcades, shopping malls, theaters, toy company headquarters, and a massive school campus, all adjacent to a high-class beach resort. it's a stark contrast in atmosphere that was likely very intentional--accelerated dynamics is devoid of personality and wonder in comparison to bonita vista or even shinryu and features workplace ambience as its area theme and visuals of skeletal employees hanged outside the office windows. i think a lot of people were incredibly disappointed in mr grouse as a character to see that his humble beginnings had led him to this point, but i think the commentary runs a lot deeper and touches on this incredibly grave aspect of illness and thus jimmy's personal life that can be easy to miss for the trees; mr grouse tells jimmy before the fight that he used to dream of his banking business growing bigger and bigger and that now, with the advent of it having grown so big that it's now expanded into an entire enterprise, he understands the power and influence that money can buy him, but more than anything he now conceptualizes how terrifying it is to lose that wealth.

his dialogue after the fight is an admission that wealth completely and utterly eroded his morals and that jimmy should enjoy his innocence while he can--this is the incomprehensible, horrifying world of adulthood that he couldn't possibly understand at this age--and it's very clear that this is (one of) the intended angle(s) of this dungeon's theme where jimmy will never live long enough to understand the complications of growing older and losing his innocence to concepts like late stage capitalism, but mr grouse phrases his dialogue like an earnest request for reflection, something for jimmy to consider in a way that his brain can more easily deconstruct--think of all the things you could do if you had practically infinite wealth, and the only thing you had to worry about was not having money.

if jimmy and his family had infinite wealth, then maybe they'd be able to afford luxury resorts and theme parks and theaters and shopping trips again. if jimmy and his family had infinite wealth, maybe they wouldn't need to work themselves into an early grave over their child's deathbed.

[goodolreliablejake]

I'm finally watching Jack Saint's video on Wonka, and I gotta say, it's really putting things together about the characters that are changing my perspective...

As a child, I gravitated to the character of Willy Wonka as portrayed by Gene Wilder because of his combination of melancholy and imagination. I really related to that feeling of the world being harsh and cruel and unyielding and wanting to create a sanctuary where you could live out your dreams, safe, if disconnected from the world.

Then as I grew, I couldn't deny the problematic element of his role as industrialist, capitalist. And I think I waved it off by basically saying "well, this is a story that is ignorant of that problematic element, that buys in too fully to the romantic image of the industrialist, which I don't believe in but which doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the story."

But now I see how intrinsically tied these two elements are, and how together they paint a picture of a very dark and tragic character. Willy Wonka is the tragedy of the sellout. He's a misanthrope that hates the world, but he's willing to perpetrate its worst crimes for the personal freedom of pretending he is separate from it. He is hidden and free in delusion, cut off from the world, and he hurts and exploits for the privilege.

I know this is a really random pull to compare it to, but... I can't help but think of the ending of Daniel Kaluuya's character in the Black Mirror episode Fifteen Million Merits. He hated the cruelty, the falseness, and the exploitation of the artificial, profit-driven world he was trapped in, but in the end even his rebellion was something that could be commodified and co-opted by the system. And he decided that it was a worthwhile deal to give himself the illusion of freedom. He sacrificed the real woman who was kind and funny and gave him an origami penguin made of trash for the solitude of a larger cell with a penguin statue.

Does seeing the cruelty of the system inspire solidarity, or does it drive you further into alienation?

[hinge]

Hinge presents an anthology of love stories almost never told. Read more on https://no-ordinary-love.co

[philosophicalgamer]

What Stage Capitalism

First some context: there is the idea that we are in a later-stage capitalism. My understanding is that it refers to the stage of capitalism where it has moved to multinational enterprise. This seems true. This post is largely questioning what stage of capitalism are we really in, as a society?

I think it is a false-cutoff. I think capitalism has more domains that it can enter beyond all countries of the world. For example, the previously public.

It already is happening, especially in countries like the United States, with things like private schools, private healthcare, and private prisons. As the world shifts ever more right-wing, so, too have more things become privatized.

This is also true of the digital domains. Much software used to be owned by a person, and are now becoming more transient ownership, like a crude rent. Even this blog is. The servers are owned by private owners, like Amazon or Tumblr.

Artificial intelligence also seems like another step in this. Similar to how clothing used to be made by the common people, and became an industry, it is making art no longer a public making. Writing as well.

I wonder more if we're not in late capitalism but an early point of it as notions of ownership become only private. Even in feudal societies, common land existed. Everything privatizing in tech is just more capitalism. Socialism is not necessarily even started or next. The idea that the workers would obtain the means of production has generally not been the common outcome, regardless of its merit or impacts.

If we go by the original definition, late seems apt. But as things continue privatization, and as a whole, I wonder if we're not really late at all. In economic terms, it seems the belief public institutions should exist is eroding and changing faster than the disbelief in private ones. Even in relative democracies, again like the United States, business leaders (or at least their presentation) are gaining sway.

Whether or not this is a good thing is not my point here. My point is it seems we're not on the end of capitalism, we're still entering it, for better and worse.

[zomb13s]

The Paradox of Entitlement: Luxurious Consumption and the False Merit of Hard Work

Introduction The modern world is characterized by a growing disparity between those with immense wealth and those struggling to survive. In many societies, the notion of “deserving” luxury and affluence has become an implicit cultural narrative. This essay critically examines the psychological and social implications of claiming entitlement to extravagant lifestyles based on the idea of “working…

[starryoak]

And what’s frustrating is that people respond to this by saying “well, things are still bad in real material ways now, that’s what I mean when I say peasants had it better!”

Well then just say that! You don’t have to invent an imagined past where things were perfect to just argue things should be better now. Just say that things should be better now! Because they should be!

But lying about the past does not make your point about the present stronger, it weakens it. Because to an outside listener, if you’re misinformed about one thing, who’s to say you aren’t misinformed about others?

girl help they're putting "modern people under capitalism work more than medieval peasants" posts on my dash again

[fozmeadows]

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

Years ago now, I remember seeing the rape prevention advice so frequently given to young women - things like dressing sensibly, not going out late, never being alone, always watching your drink - reframed as meaning, essentially, "make sure he rapes the other girl." This struck a powerful chord with me, because it cuts right to the heart of the matter: that telling someone how to lower their own chances of victimhood doesn't stop perpetrators from existing. Instead, it treats the existence of perpetrators as a foregone conclusion, such that the only thing anyone can do is try, by their own actions, to be a less appealing or more difficult victim.

And the thing is, ever since the assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, I've kept on thinking about how, in this day and age, CEOs of big companies often have an equal or greater impact on the day to day lives of regular people than our elected officials, and yet we have almost no legal way to redress any grievances against them - even when their actions, as in the case of Thompson's stewardship of UHC, arguably see them perpetrating manslaughter at scale through tactics like claims denial. That this is a real, recurring thing that happens makes the American healthcare insurance industry a particularly pernicious example, but it's far from being the only one. Because the original premise of the free market - the idea that we effectively "vote" for or against businesses with our dollars, thereby causing them to sink or swim on their individual merits - is utterly broken, and has been for decades, assuming it was ever true at all. In this age of megacorporations and global supply chains, the vast majority of people are dependent on corporations for necessities such as gas, electricity, internet access, water, food, housing and medical care, which means the consumer base is, to all intents and purposes, a captive market. We might not have to buy a specific brand, but we have to buy a brand, and as businesses are constantly competing with one another to bring in profits, not just for the company and its workers, but for C-suites and shareholders - profits that increasingly come at the expense of workers and consumers alike - the greediest, most inhumane corporations set the financial yardstick against which all others are then, of necessity, measured. Which means that, while businesses are not obliged to be greedy and inhumane in order to exist, overwhelmingly, they become greedy and humane in order to compete, because capitalism encourages it, and because there are precious few legal restrictions to stop them from doing so. At the same time, a handful of megacorporations own so many market-dominating brands that, without both significant personal wealth and the time and resources to find viable alternatives, it's all but impossible to avoid them, while the ubiquity of the global supply chain means that, even if you can keep track of which company owns which brand, it's much, much harder to establish which suppliers provide the components that are used in the products bearing their labels. Consider, for instance, how many mainstream American brands are functionally run on sweatshop labour in other parts of the world: places where these big corporations have outsourced their workforce to skirt the already minimal labour and wage protections they'd be obliged to adhere to in the US, all to produce (say) electronics whose elevated sticker price passes a profit on to the company, but without resulting in higher wages for either the sweatshop workers overseas or the American employees selling the products in branded US stores.

When basically every major electronics corporation is engaged in similar business practices, there is no "vote" our money can bring that causes the industry itself to be better regulated - and as wealthy, powerful lobbyists from these industries continue to pay exorbitant sums of money to politicians to keep government regulation at a minimum, even our actual votes can do little to effect any sort of change. But even in those rare instances where new regulations are passed, for multinational corporations, laws passed in one country overwhelmingly don't prevent them from acting abusively overseas, exploiting more desperate populations and cash-poor governments to the same greedy, inhumane ends. And where the ultimate legal penalty for proven transgressions is, more often than not, a fine - which is to say, a fee; which is to say, an amount which, while astronomical by the standards of regular people, still frequently costs the company less than the profits earned through their unethical practices, and which is paid from corporate coffers rather than the bank accounts of the CEOs who made the decisions - big corporations are, in essence, free to act as badly as they can afford to; which is to say, very. Contrary to the promise of the free market, therefore, we as consumers cannot meaningfully "vote" with our dollars in a way that causes "good" businesses to rise to the top, because everything is too interconnected. Our choices under global capitalism are meaningless, because there is no other system we can financially support that stands in opposition to it, and while there are still small businesses and companies who try to operate ethically, both their comparative smallness and their interdependent reliance on the global supply chain means that, even if we feel better about our choices, we're not exerting any meaningful pressure on the system we're trying to change. Which means that, under the free market, trying to be an ethical consumer is functionally equivalent to a young woman dressing modestly, not going out alone and minding her drink at parties in order to avoid being raped. We're not preventing corporate predation or sending a message to corporate predators: we're just making sure they screw other worker, the other consumer, the other guy.

All of which is to say: while I'd prefer not to live in a world where shooting someone dead in the street is considered a valid means of redressing grievances, what the murder of Brian Thompson has shown is that, if you provide no meaningful recourse for justice against abusive, exploitative members of the 1%, then violence done to those people will have the feel of justice, because it fills the void left by the lack of consequences for their actions. It's the same reason why people had little sympathy for the jackass OceanGate CEO who killed himself in his imploding sub, or anyone whose yacht has been attacked by orcas - it's just intensified here, because where the OceanGate CEO was felled by hubris and the yachts were random casualties, whoever killed Thomspon did so deliberately, because of what he did. It was direct action against a man whose policies very arguably constituted manslaughter at scale; a crime which ought to be a crime, but which has, to date, been permitted under the law. And if the law wouldn't stop him, can anyone be surprised that someone might act outside the law in retaliation - or that regular people would cheer for them when they did?

[zillyblog]

Seriously. Think about who would really benefit from a lack of copyright laws.

The indie artists who can afford to make some charms and stickers?

Or the huge corporations with enough money to buy adverts, screen time, movies and series and toys and books and anything imaginable PLUS billions of eyes from socmed and global news networks?

Like. Who do you really think is going to get more mileage here? It's not the little guy.

i do think a lot of indie artists' opposition to piracy and support for copyright is an extension of the western mindset of the temporarily embarrassed millionaire. these artists dream of one day hitting it big and owning the products of their labor but the vast majority of them will never be in a position of benefiting from copyright and are far more likely to be screwed over by it

[aurianneor]

Living with dignity

Far-right ideas are gaining influence around the world. Center and right-wing parties are adopting their ideas. They are attractive because they propose to restore dignity by affirming national identity.

Indeed, many areas have been abandoned (public services, healthcare, transport, etc.) in favor of the cities. The people who live there are deemed at fault by the omnipresent neoliberalism: if they fail, it’s their fault! If they’re unemployed or overweight, it’s because they’re undeserving. The far right wants them to think they’re above foreigners. Their heredity is enough; without doing anything, they gain value.

But there are ways of restoring dignity that are more in keeping with democracy and community life. There’s no need to attack immigrants. We need to recognize the existence of these “deplorable” people and give them back their place in society.

Sufficient income to feed ourselves in harmony with the environment (organic permaculture) and public services are essential. We need to invest massively in infrastructure and introduce an universal basic income.

Working well in good conditions means dignity! Competition must be banned when it does not respect quality, social and environmental criteria.

Subsidies are a trap. It doesn’t raise living standards, it just gives public money to the rich. For example, giving a housing allowance means that landlords can raise the price of rents, so that public money ends up in landlords’ pockets. Another example: subsidizing agriculture according to the quantity of pesticides used forces farmers to pay back what they receive to the agri-food industry.

Price controls on the essentials of food, housing and health are essential if we are to live in dignity. First and foremost, producers and breeders must be able to make a living from their work, instead of being subsidized by the community through conditional welfare payments. The selling price must be dignified so that producers or farmers can work according to their will, and be autonomous and responsible. Otherwise, Cargill, for example, will be able to buy products that do not respect nature for almost nothing. Secondly, urban housing excludes people from the countryside. It has become too expensive to find a place to live, and therefore to study. Rents need to be controlled.

What’s unacceptable here is unacceptable elsewhere. Conditions must be imposed on imports. Multi-nationals must be held accountable for their anti-social and anti-environmental actions at home and abroad.

Private property cannot be absolute. The pollution and the destruction of forests cannot be accepted. Freedom is limited by the need to avoid harming others.

Capitalism must be fought, because in a company, ownership gives full decision-making power. Employees and society must have their say, because they have contributed to the company’s success: roads, police, schools, training, etc. And they also have their say on the impact on the environment and the treatment of employees and animals. The future of the company must be in their hands, and they must be able to influence the future of their jobs. It’s true that owners take risks. But employees take risks too: they’ve invested with their studies, they’re moving, they’re sending their children to school. Capital moves freely and travels from one company to another. Property is not a sacred right. No empty houses when there are people sleeping in the street!

Charity doesn’t make you worthy. You have to be able to stand on your own two feet because you’re doing something positive for society. If people feel good, they get sick less and it costs society less. Those who own property and are responsible for the burn-outs and even suicides of their employees, and who pollute to excess for their own personal gain, are valued, whereas an unemployed person who cultivates his vegetable garden and looks after the young and the old is not.

To fight the far right, we need to stop simply demonizing it, even if it is true that it is a real danger to democracies and the values of the revolution. We need to propose measures that restore dignity to all, that enable us to live together without exclusion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solidarité Hélvétique: https://www.aurianneor.org/solidarite-helvetique-democratie-semi-directe/

Vivre dignement: https://www.aurianneor.org/vivre-dignement/

Humiliated by the Republic: https://www.aurianneor.org/humiliated-by-the-republic/

“Capitalism will eat democracy; unless we speak up”: https://www.aurianneor.org/yanis-varoufakis-capitalism-will-eat-democracy/

Basic Income is possible.: https://www.aurianneor.org/basic-income-is-possible-the-instrument-of/

Housing: https://www.aurianneor.org/housing/

Representation of capitalism trying to take all the resources and trying to make workers live nothing but work: https://www.aurianneor.org/representation-of-capitalism-trying-to-take-all-the-resources-and-trying-to-make-workers-live-nothing-but-work/

Cut out the middleman: https://www.aurianneor.org/cut-out-the-middleman/

How can we win back trust?: https://www.aurianneor.org/how-can-we-win-back-trust/

Restricting personal wealth: https://www.aurianneor.org/restricting-personal-wealth/

Freedom and coexistence: https://www.aurianneor.org/freedom-and-coexistence/

Fair trade and organic farming: https://www.aurianneor.org/fair-trade-and-organic-farming/

Immigration: https://www.aurianneor.org/immigration-2/

Nos ancêtres les marrons: https://www.aurianneor.org/nos-ancetres-les-marrons-il-nexiste-quune-seule/

[changeling-droneco]

Hi I'm that person who made the original post about "no doesn mean no" when a small bit of the mr beast company document was leaked, well, now we have the full document (thanks rosanna) so I'm going to go over it. Please note I am not a lawyer or a business man, I'm in college for psychology, so I might misunderstand some things or make the wrong conclusion. However, if this is a document made for the average mr. beast employee, if I cannot understand it properly, then im sure some employees also struggled

First of all, the opening paragraph. Like I get it's supposed to be like, to put people at ease, but

This is so strange? Like, first of all, this is your EMPLOYEE MANUAL, you should have run it through like, a spell check? Or had someone edit it? This is already incredibly unprofessional. Also the promising of a thousand dollars if you pass a quiz on it? It's bizarre and I'd love to see if it's an actual quiz.

Jimmy, hun, please god get an editor for this you're already trying my patience.

YOU SHOULD, you genuinely should, while interconnected these are all COMPLETELY different jobs, if you think you could write a separate manual for each branch you SHOULD

I'm sure I'm about to get an answer but what the fuck is the best YOUTUBE video then? If it's not comedy, its not production, its not quality, its not look, then what the hell is left? (monetization, it's monetization)

First of all, Jimmy, why are you using internet lingo in this, it's not a text message, this is not a place for, idc, and lol, and not capitalizing your headers correctly??? Also like I said, he's chasing trends for monetization, and also he's just wrong, there are plenty of hollywood level shows and the like on youtube. You fully admit you do not care about trends and actively rush things?

This is just fucked??? Like of COURSE IT MATTERS??? Results based company is bullshit, your employees that worked for five weeks and failed aren't "lesser" then James, it's a structural failure! They still worked for HOURS to try and succeed?? That shows merit and loyalty??? What the fuck???

Rosanna covers this one in her video but it's worth restating that this is FUCKED??? It's clear overwork "your job is your family" culture. Especially the use of the word obsessive? If you do not OBSESS over your work, you are considered poisonous. NO WONDER we have so many reports of employees doing things they feel is dangerous or unsafe, if they don't they're considered POISON to the company.

The formatting in this doc continues to fucking kill me, what are you DOING man GET AN EDITOR

This feels like such an easy fix of just...make the thumbnail after the fact? Or only make a rough draft of one first? Like if production makes a red bouncy castle instead of a yellow one, that feels like an easy fix to the thumbnail OR a communication error, and again, that's on management

A lot of the next stuff is like analytics stuff that for the most part I can't really speak on as someone who does not do any of this stuff. There are a few things though

Which like???? what??? a lull??? what do you mean "watching a video without even realizing they are watching a video??" That doesn't scream good or even mediocre content to me. If I'm actively tuning out as I watch a video, that's bad. Especially because there have been plenty of times I've been like half way through a video i go "hey this sucks actually" and click off. They actively want their audience to not be paying attention to the video so it runs all the way through, that's kinda pathetic.

I don't actually know if this is common or not in this industry, but as an outsider this seems INCREDIBLY micromanaging to me, to an immense degree.

Jimmy why are you putting swears in your employee manual?? sir??? and also something about this whole thing icks me out, I don't quite have the words but the whole emphasis on "im different im special no one else can be me" just reeks of something kind of manipulative

Why is production changing so much Jimmy??? Infinite growth is the mindset of a cancer cell Jimmy! This is incredibly unstable working conditions! Also again with the word obsession, if you take time out of your own day on your own time to watch hulu, that's seen as not being obsessed enough for the company. This is nonsensical!

Again, this is INSANELY micromanaging, and also so fucking unhinged??? "God himself couldn't stop you from making this video on time" is NOT a healthy work mindset, things HAPPEN!!!

In this segment he's actually talking normal things but I did just want to highlight his use of "freaken" who the hell puts that in an EMPLOYEE MANUEL

Again with the micromanaging, and the immense pressure on employees for problems OTHER people do. While he's not fully wrong that you should be in more contact with the contractor then the example, this is too much in the other direction. How much time in the day does he think people have?!

My kingdom for a fucking paragraph break dude, my fucking eyes. Also this is a lot of "im so great and do everything and you should do more for me and if i dont know something that's your fault" for something titled "I am not always right"

I'm getting lazy with my highlighting, but again, the micromanaging? If you're SOOO busy, the first question should be the ideal? it's quick and makes a quick decision, while the second one meanders and meanders

Again, Jimmy is pushing blame for HIS mistakes on OTHER PEOPLE. For again, a section called "i am not always right" hes taking NO accountability for that and just making the SAME excuses he's berating in other places.

I can't even tell what he means here AN EDITOR JIMMY

Autism Hell tm, PLEASE email me so I can DOUBLE CHECK IT, things in writing are SO useful

Again the language towards "C-Players" which as mr beast has said, are the people who y'know, are NORMAL employees who DON'T live and breathe this company

Okay first of all, a Lamborghini is like 300k so that's already A REALLY hard task, and i sure hope don't usually put typos in the tasks. SECOND of all the fact he thinks its okay to go "hey if the studio is literally on fire around you and you stop working to get the Lamborghini, you're not doing good enough" even if he claims it as a joke is NOT OKAY what the FUCK

We've covered this before, but to reiterate this segment is named after a sexual assault reference when it could have been named ANYTHING ELSE and harasses employees and pressures them to break rules, don't do that.

I'm not an editor, so maybe this is normal, but as someone from the outside it seems strange to put this much emphasis on dividing focus between so many videos at once.

Jimmy, hun, are you paying extra for this? Because if I'm an editor and you want me FILMING stuff then i want to be paid more for doing TWO jobs and I probably still wont be as skilled a TRAINED CAMERA MAN

First of all now THAT'S a type, consteatants. Also the fact they are aware that leaving contestants out in the sun is bad, why are you not doing MORE TO STOP IT BEYOND "hey maybe giving them three hours of heatstroke is bad, try only two next time"

Don't we love favoritism, more shitty unprofessional writings, and a completely unstable work environment?

If your people have to pull all nighters period something is wrong, and if something happens to an employees car that could have seriously hurt someone, i sure hope you care more then just "LOL FUNNY" Who's picking up the broken glass? Who's reimbursing the car owner? That one meme of "your first care should be commitment to the bit" is a MEME jimmy, it's not ACTUAL ADVICE

Ah shit I hit image limit, well, you've seen enough screenshots to know these are screenshots, we're almost done I'll put them in as quotes

"Let’s say you are tasked with finding us a castle to live in for 50 hours and while doing research you find a castle and a number to call for the owner. So you do call, and he answers. Only problem is he says he quit the castle renting business to pursue his dream of building a 100 foot tall lego catapult. You can obviously tell where i’m going with this. Ideally you’d recognize that’s badass as fuck and try to convince him to let us use it when we do find a castle. This is a bad example because it’s so obvious but if you’re doing your job right you will be doing an absurd amounts of calls and data collecting. While trying to complete your prios and prepare for the video you should always be on the lookout for new things you can bring to your creative team to inspire them. Because just like me, they don’t know what they don’t know and you can’t just say “i’m in production and i’m not very creative” because that’s literally the equivalent of saying I suck at what I do. You also need to apply this same mindset when problem solving because many people lose sight of this stuff when in the weeds. If a problem appears, always always always ask yourself if your new plan is whats best for creative, not just the easiest bandaid."

First of all it's really funny seeing all the red lines pop up, second of all this insistent blurring of everyone's job seems so strange? Again maybe this is normal, but it really feels like Jimmy wants everyone working every job, instead on focusing on what they are actually hired to do.

"What is the goal of our content?

To excite me. The goal of our content is to excite me. That may sound weird to some of you, especially if you’re new but to me it’s what’s most important. If I'm not excited to get in front of that camera and film the video, it’s just simply not going to happen."

That's fucking weirddddd, like I get that he's trying to be like "im authentic" but it always feels like a bad sign when the goal of a company is literally just "What amuses the boss" like...bad sign

"this is youtube and there are constraints. You know the video can’t be a minute so you’re obviously going to need a story to hold the viewers and there are rules to storytelling. Our audience is massive and because of that you have to be simple, for 50 million people to understand something it must be simple. Content can be anything but there is structure and rules that we must mold it into that I want to teach you about, because virality doesn’t just happen. Every frame of our videos will be seen by 10s of millions of people"

Gross

"I'd say the average MrBeast viewer is a teenage memer that likes video games."

Mr Beast is completely aware of his demographic and puts screen shots of it, he is very aware his stuff is aimed at kids, even when its about gambling or hiring people not around near minors

"I feel silly for having to write this but all the time I talk to 32 new people that have at most seen like 5 or 6 of our videos and it’s mind blowing that they don’t see a problem with that lol."

It's almost like your audience is teenage memer and that people who working here are not in fact, teenage memers.

"What you consume on social media, when you watch youtube, tv, the games you play, etc. are what I like to call your information diet.

How do you stay up to date on the latest memes? How do you know what’s going on with celebrities? What’s trending on youtube? What other creators are doing? What’s popping on tik tok? Your information diet. Consume things on a daily basis that help you write better content."

If my job as a creative writer had my boss tell me to have to see whats "popping on tik tok" as part of my job i'd quit also again, the micromanaging of someone's life as well pops up again, it's weirddd

"It’s okay for the boys to be childish

If talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them. (assuming they know all the risks and arn’t missing context on why it’s not safe) People like when we are in our natural element of stupidity. Really do everything you can to empower the boys when filming and help them make content. Help them be idiots"

More favoritism

"If you’ve made it this far you are probably at least semi interested in this being your career. So I wanted to chat about it. Because if you're ambitious and want to dedicate your life to work, you picked the best company in America to do it at. I really don’t care to hoard a bunch of money and I deeply believe in rewarding the people that help this business get where it needs to be. But before I get into that, let’s talk about the future. As I write this we have 2 teams, that will grow to 4 in the next year. (and possibly 8 in the next 2 years but I can’t talk about that cause james will kill me haha). We need more leaders in the company. Weneed hard working, obsessive, coachable, intelligent, grinders that can step up and take some of these leadership spots over the next 2 years. Every single department has an opportunity for you to grow in and you’re in luck because we don’t do yearly reviews. We do whenever the fuck you want reviewes"

Lack of communication from management, and more emphasis on grinding and crunch culture, goodie, all while riddled with typos! God.

"I see a world where this company is worth billions and one day 10s of billions. And those of you that help build this will be rewarded. I want nothing more then for you to go all in, obsessive all day everyday, and become so god dam valuable this company can’t operate without you. And in return for becoming so valuable I hope to give you incredible experiences, a fun place to work, and of course, more money then you could ever dream of making at any other company."

I feel like I'm reading a fucking pyramid scheme document here, "youre so so valuable spend literally every minute of every day on this company haha" good GOD man

[bossuary]

Neve is painless. Rook is real.

Lucanis likes Neve because she represents what he is desperate to regain. He wants to feel normal, to work and cook and focus on the things he used to enjoy (such as they were) before the Ossuary. He wants capital R Romance, right out of a book.

Most importantly, he wants to get rid of Spite. He wants to pretend that he is the man he was...not this abomination.

Without truly knowing her, Lucanis believes Neve is a pathway to all of that. He's attracted to her, and she to him. Their flirting has an edge, but it's also friendly. She dislikes Spite, and her presence makes Spite disappear.

Neve will tell Lucanis that he's still himself, and that Spite doesn't change that. She will never be the one to reconcile Lucanis with Spite, to get them to accept each other. So, yeah, he gravitates to the charming, flirty, warm person who (through no fault of her own, really) feeds his desire to pretend he's not an abomination.

Even early on, I think he's smart enough to know that accepting Spite is his only option, but he...just... can't. With what tools? Nothing in his life has prepared him to deal with this. Rook does that. When denial tears Lucanis apart, Rook puts him back together with acceptance. Rook accepts the reality of Spite, and deals with it head-on every time.

Neve will remind Lucanis that she's not going anywhere. She'll tell him to open his eyes and look at facts, but she (probably) won't be the one to push him out of his own prison. Lucanis knows this, so Spite knows this, and therefore Spite will not look to Neve for help.

It's important for Lucanis to accept that Spite has changed him. But when it's Rook who says it--for whom Lucanis has developed real feelings, not idealized ones--well, it destroys the fantasy Lucanis clings to so vehemently, the one where he isn't this.

For me, the Lucanis/Rook romance feels the way it does NOT because the writers "preferred" that Lucanis and Neve get together, but because Neve is simply easier for Lucanis to accept. She's easier to talk to, unchallenging. Easy isn't bad! Comfort isn't bad! God knows they both deserve some comfort.

Loving Rook is a profoundly complex choice. There's not a lot of cute ways to work that profundity into sexy banter. It makes sense, then, that Lucanis doesn't have as much dialogue for a romanced Rook as he does with Neve. What he can do is cook, make small gestures. He can, heartbreakingly, tell Rook, over and over, that he doesn't have the words to express how he feels. That's such an awful state, knowing that the person you care about needs to hear words you simply cannot locate. As soon as he does have the words, he shares them.

Rook is real. And real is not easy.

To Lucanis, Rook represents a difficult path to recovery, a path he has to keep choosing to follow, every day. At a time in his life where he is incapable of seeing Spite (and his own PTSD ) as anything but a 'distraction' to shove aside, Rook shows genuine interest in helping Lucanis heal. Rook takes consistent action toward that goal, particularly when it's clear that Lucanis doesn't know how.

Lucanis also has to believe that he's worth the effort, his own and his love's. Neve is great, love her, but I don't see this struggling cynic, this chronic worrier, being very helpful in the self-worth department. No, people in a relationship do not have to perform therapeutic roles. But, partners do have to respect each others' boundaries and needs.

Of course Lucanis goes all-in for Neve, romantically, even while he and Rook are dancing around each other. Accepting how much he loves and cares for Rook means looking at himself the way Rook does. That is so much harder than whatever will happen with Neve.

The fact that Lucanis isn't afraid to pursue Neve, even if Treviso is blighted, tells me that Neve is an indulgence for him. Again, that's not a value judgement. If they treat each other with respect, then the merits of the relationship don't have to fall on whether Lucanis 'heals' as a result. Sometimes not hurting all the time is enough.

BUT. Contrast the ease he feels with Neve with his feelings about Rook:

"When I was afraid to want you..."

That is a powerful admission.

What was he afraid of? The annihilation of neglect, worthlessness, and shame. The awful but knowable pillars of his existence.

Wanting Rook means that Lucanis wants to dismantle everything he knows in pursuit of something he doesn't. To love Rook is to love and accept himself, exactly as he is.

Then...then...Lucanis finds real comfort.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Feelings Don’t Care About Your Facts

Have you noticed that a lot of people on social media don't ever feel compelled to explain themselves?

You've seen this, right?

The folks who proclaim a strong moral view on a controversial topic...then use any excuse to avoid supporting it when they get any polite pushback or questions? The way personal feelings are elevated above objective facts or reasoning? The way they avoid or shut down any meaningful discussion?

I think this is caused by a set of related ideas and biases which are in ascendence and I think younger generations are more vulnerable to being manipulated by bad actors who capitalize on them.

Before we get into that, let's look at some of the ways this phenomenon manifests on social media...and the sorts of biases/concepts at play.

___

"I’m just speaking my truth."

Translation: "Challenging the conclusions I draw from my emotional experience is immoral."

This converts subjective perception into absolute truth, which not only discourages fact-checking, counterpoints, or curiosity, but labels them as oppressive.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning, Subjective Validation

___

"I don't have the emotional labor for this."

Translation: "I don't want be feel challenged, only validated."

This frames disengagement as a righteous act of self-care, rather than avoidance of intellectual discomfort.

Bias/Concept: Therapeutic Culture

___

"I feel attacked."

Translation: "You’ve introduced an idea that unsettles me."

This reframes an intellectual disagreement as personal harm, making the speaker immune to critique.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning

___

"That’s problematic"

Too often, this means "This topic made me feel bad, conflicted, or uncertain - and I don’t want to examine why."

It shuts down discussion without defining terms or explaining logic. It implies moral failure without needing to explain the moral reasoning.

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Virtue Signaling

___

"Centering [X] is violence."

Translation: "I disagree with your priorities and framing that as harm makes me morally right."

This uses inflated, exaggerated, hyperbolic language to shut down any competing narratives or uncomfortable truths.

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Emotional Reasoning

___

"It's not my job to educate you."

Translation: "I don’t want to explain, defend, or support my belief. That would risk them being challenged on their merits. I just want my feelings validated and for my community to affirm I have expressed the correct views."

This avoids meaningful dialogue by asserting moral high ground and demanding deference...without reciprocity.

Bias/Concept: Virtue Signaling, Social Identity Theory

___

"As a [victim identity], I shouldn’t have to…"

Translation: "My group affiliation makes my views untouchable, questioning them makes you a bigot."

This uses identity to shield ideas from scrutiny. Lived experience becomes a veto power over disagreement.

Bias/Concept: Social Identity Theory, Motte and Bailey

___

"This is trauma-informed."

Translation: "You can’t question this without being insensitive"

This weaponizes therapeutic language to preempt dissent. (My therapist HATES this one.)

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Therapeutic Culture

___

"That’s giving [insert negative vibe or label]"

Translation: "Your argument feels like something I’ve been told to distrust"

This uses emotional associations instead of logic to delegitimize a person or point.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning, Subjective Validation

___

Do you see it?

Facts which conflict with feelings aren’t debated - they’re deemed hostile, even violent.

What all of these have in common is the primacy of emotion over reason.

Emotion isn’t the start of a thought for the people who make a habit of these behaviors - it's a substitute for thinking.

I don’t believe this shift is driven by malice or conscious dishonesty. Most people haven’t stopped caring about truth - they’ve simply come to discern what truth is through emotional resonance instead of through evidence or reasoning.

"Truth" now arrives on screens dressed in vibes and aesthetic cues tailored for their existing biases, bypassing critical thought and offering the dopamine-releasing comfort of certainty without the messy, time-consuming burden of understanding.

When Emotion Becomes Authority

Here's a recent example which is getting some deserved mockery in the last day or so:

I know, I know. listening to Theo Von talk about war is like listening a possum try to to sell you on cryptocurrency.

Scratch that - Theo Von is what we'd expect to see if a pair of Truck Nutz were to gain sentience in a laboratory accident.

Theo couldn't speak for his generation any more than a broken Roomba could speak for Artificial General Intelligence, but he's doing something here which is alarmingly and increasingly common for his generation of media personalities. He's using his feelings as a replacement for thinking.

...it feels to me...it just feels to me like it's a genocide that's happening...

Theo doesn’t check facts, definitions, sources, or context because he doesn’t have to. He just invokes a vibe, a moral mood. "It feels like genocide." That’s enough.

Theo has 3.9 million subscribers on YouTube. Estimates suggest his total reach is about 16.2 million people.

The Era of Vibe-Governed Reality

In 2025, truth is not discerned though evidence or reasoning, but through emotional resonance.

Feelings are like the new science, but they're peer-reviewed only by your immediate social circle and validated by the count of reshares.

This is NOT a crotchety right-wing Fox News viewer shaking his fist at clouds and ranting about "kids these days."

This isn't even a critique of liberalism or leftism (because I'm a lifelong left-leaning liberal who grew up in a liberal/socialist family).

It's an examination of what has become a common strategy for mass manipulation which is alarmingly effective, especially with younger generations.

The Water We Swim In

Political operatives and influlence campaigns from every perspective are capitalizing on it, too. Influence campaigns from Russia, Iran, and Qatar; PACs; lobbyist firms...everybody - and we don't really notice these maipulations any longer. Why don't we notice them?

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water? -David Foster Wallace

We don't notice because we're swimming in them.

Every day, we see provocative social media posts which prioritize shock value and emotional impact, aiming to capture attention and convey political stances through intense feelings rather than through facts or reasoned arguments.

Appeals to emotion have been used to bypass logic and reasoning for millennia.

You're probably familiar with these:

Every time anyone ever said "think of the children," you're supposed to clutch your pearls in fear and horror.

US War propaganda in WWII used emotional appeals like "I WANT YOU" or addressed attrocities meant to hit Americans in their emotional center.

Joseph Goebbel's speaches and films used fear, disgust, and resentment to enflame existing negative German feelings against Jews and other minorities.

Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe constructed scenes of immense emotional intensity to provoke outrage and sympathy, especially among white Northern readers in hopes of galvinizing anti-slavery sentiment.

So appeals to emotion aren't new and aren't always dishonest.

What's new is the increasing, overwhelming spread of this way of reaching conclusions in our public discourse replacing other modes of communication, other means of persuasion, and other ways of "knowing" anything.

What's new is that our post-truth, postmodern academic models validate this.

What's new is how this is being weaponized against us, especially younger generations.

How We Turned "I Feel" Into the New "I Know"

This shift didn’t happen overnight. It’s the product of decades of cultural, technological, and psychological changes converging to create a perfect storm where feelings have become a replacement for thinking.

First, there’s the growing cultural emphasis on authenticity and personal experience as the highest forms of truth. This began as a perfectly reasonable corrective to rigid institutional authority and exclusionary narratives but has morphed into a worldview where subjective emotion is treated as inherently more valid than objective evidence.

At the same time, therapeutic culture expanded its reach beyond therapy offices into everyday life, encouraging people to view disagreements as trauma, debates as emotional violence, and intellectual challenge as psychological harm. The result of this is a protective reflex to avoid uncomfortable facts or nuanced arguments that might trigger emotional distress.

If this sounds familiar, note that it's something I've touched on before. The people doing this habitually don't take their positions based on moral principles, facts, context, nuance or reasoning because what motivates them is emotional comfort.

(Experiment: Keep this idea in mind while you're scrolling online and see it that rings true when people will not or cannot support their assertions.)

Social media platforms are engineered to maximize engagement, right? The fastest way to do that is by appealing directly to emotion—especially outrage, fear, and identity affirmation. Algorithms reward the most emotionally charged content because it keeps users scrolling, sharing, and commenting. Nuance, complexity, or even honest uncertainty rarely go viral; they don’t light up dopamine circuits the same way.

That's bad enough for our mental health, our intellects, and our public discourse, but the greatest danger is in how these emotional shortcuts to baseless conclusions create fertile ground for bad actors who want to manipulate public opinion en masse.

Your Feels, Their Power: A Beginner’s Guide to Being Played

Whether it’s state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, political operatives, or interest groups, these manipulators know exactly how to weaponize the primacy of emotion.

Russian Interference in the 2024 U.S. Elections

In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. elections, Russian state actors engaged in disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining Democratic candidates and bolstering Republican ones. These efforts included spreading false narratives about candidates Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, such as fabricated stories of personal misconduct. The campaigns utilized social media platforms to disseminate emotionally charged content that resonated with specific voter demographics.

Operation Overload Targeting USAID

A Russian disinformation campaign known as "Operation Overload" targeted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by producing AI-generated fake news videos. One such video falsely claimed that USAID paid Hollywood celebrities to promote Ukrainian President Zelensky. This content gained significant traction after being shared by high-profile individuals on social media, illustrating how emotional manipulation can amplify disinformation.

Far-Right Exploitation of Social Media Platforms

Far-right groups have effectively used platforms like Instagram and TikTok to disseminate emotionally charged content targeting young audiences. By leveraging visually engaging media and exploiting platform algorithms, these groups spread divisive messages that often go unchecked due to inadequate content moderation.

Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior in Anti-Vaccine Campaign

During the COVID-19 pandemic, coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) networks spread anti-vaccine misinformation across social media platforms. These networks used fake and duplicate accounts to amplify emotionally charged narratives, undermining public health efforts and exploiting fears related to the pandemic.

Bad actors craft messages designed not to inform or persuade through reason but to resonate emotionally - often through fear, anger, or identity-based grievance.

These messages bypass critical thinking by activating deeply held feelings or tribal loyalties.

Younger generations, raised in a world flooded with emotional messaging and taught to prioritize feelings as a moral compass, are especially vulnerable.

Social media doesn’t just deliver content, it delivers community validation. Likes, shares, and emojis, no shit, reinforce emotional responses as truths.

This isn’t just an accidental byproduct. It’s a deliberate strategy and it's been developed to an art form.

Polarization: By amplifying outrage and framing complex issues as zero-sum battles of good vs. evil, manipulators ensure people become entrenched in their “side” and reject any nuance.

Echo Chambers: Algorithms funnel users into filter bubbles where their emotional beliefs are constantly reinforced and opposing views are demonized or erased.

Identity Weaponization: Bad actors exploit identity politics to turn social groups into ideological fortresses where dissent is branded as betrayal or bigotry, shutting down dialogue and scrutiny.

Emotional Hijacking: They flood social feeds with rapid-fire emotional content, making thoughtful reflection impossible and replacing reasoned debate with knee-jerk reactions.

The result is a feedback loop. Emotional responses breed more emotional content, which breeds more disengagement from facts, nuance, or evidence...and the cycle repeats.

If you wonder why almost every attempt to have honest conversations about politics, culture, or identity have become so fraught and fractious, this is why.

So what can we do about it?

We’re definitely not going to get the platofrms to change their algorithms.

We’re not going to manage to out-meme every bit of authoritarian / antisemitic / bigoted propaganda.

We can't stop people from replacing thinking with feeling.

Maybe, though, we can push back in meaningful ways by starting with how we think, speak, and engage.

Feelings Are Real - But They’re Not Facts

Start with yourself. Recognize that emotions matter, but they don’t get the final word. Treat your emotional reactions as data, not conclusions.

Ask: Why am I reacting this way? Is there more to the story? Your habitual curiosity can interrupt the feedback loop.

Seek Discomfort (The Good Kind)

If everything you read confirms what you already believe, you’re not learning, you’re marinating. Deliberately engage with credible voices you disagree with. Not to convert, but to understand. Intellectual discomfort isn't harm, it’s a way to grow.

Don’t Outsource Your Thinking

If your arguments are mostly reshares and TikTok duets, you might be mistaking social validation for understanding. Read full articles. Watch entire interviews. When an assertion really appeals to you, ask yourself: "What evidence is this based on?" Then fact-check the evidence.

Value Nuance - Even When It’s Boring

Nuance doesn’t trend. It’s slow, hard, and less emotionally satisfying than hot takes.

It's’s also where truth lives. Learn to sit with complexity. Practice saying things like "It’s complicated," "I’m not sure yet," or "Both things can be true.

Stop Feeding the Rage Machine

Every time you rage-share a headline without reading it, or dunk on someone for clout, you are feeding the same system you claim to hate. Don’t give your attention to people or platforms that reward outrage over insight. (I need to work on this.)

Reward Substance Over Vibes

Like, comment on, and share posts that show integrity, humility, and reasoned thinking - even if they’re not flashy. That’s how we might tilt the algorithm. Influence is a numbers game. Elevate voices that model real thought.

Normalize Saying "I Don’t Know"

Admitting uncertainty isn't weakness, it’s maturity. It’s how real conversations happen. When someone asks for your take, it’s okay to say, "I’m still figuring it out" or "I want to learn more first." You're not required to have a take on everything.

Ask Better Questions

When someone makes an emotional claim, don’t attack - ask. Not "How could you believe that?" but "What led you to that view?"

Good faith questions can defuse bad faith conversations.

Protect Conversations Like They Matter (Because They Do)

Modeling intellectual honesty and emotional maturity in your own circles has a ripple effect. Be the one who brings it back to evidence, back to reason, back to shared humanity. Conversations are culture-shaping.

Remember That Culture Is a Team Sport

We got into this mess together, and we’ll get out the same way. Culture is just the cumulative effect of individual choices repeated at scale. Choose better. Think better. Talk better.

You don’t have to be louder than the noise.

You just have to be saner.