#A very Millennial and Generation Z shift!

[thornescratch]

I love how this has evolved from the "Who would you call for bail?" question consideration of "which of my teammates has the most money to fix shit" to "which of my teammates is going to actually pick up his phone?"

[unsolicited-opinions]

The Revolution Will Not Be Aestheticized

Being Gen X is weird. Mine will be the last generation to remember a world without the internet and was also the first to wholly embrace it.

Gen X knows what life was like before social media...but has still mastered the art of passive-aggressively liking posts as a form of communication.

We're a small generation, but I'd argue we have a unique perspective and I want to point out something which I think is more obvious, more visible to Gen X, than it is to Millennials and Gen Z.:

Enjoying pop culture used to be something you did. Now, it helps define who you are.

I was obsessed, as a kid, with Marvel comics, Dr. Who, and Babylon 5. Friends had weekly get-togethers to watch the X-Files or The Simpsons. Liking pop culture wasn't unusual. You could like it passionately, obsessively even.

But it wasn’t your identity.

If you outgrew an interest, it didn’t seem like a personal transformation to you or to your friends. It was just...what you're really interested in right now. The stakes were low.

Today, it seems like your fandom is often your flag. It’s in your bio next to your gender identity, orientation and neurotype. (A couple of those are in mine, too).

I'm trying to say that there is a very real difference between being really into the music of Taylor Swift and being a Swiftie.

There's still plenty of discussionabout what we love, but now it helps defines who we are.

I might be a Little Monster and in the BTS Army, right? And a Whovian Cumberbitch. These are signifiers not of interest, but of identity.

That shift from consumption to identity may seem subtle, but it has profound consequences.

It turns preferences into moral positions.

If your fandom defines who you are, any critique of it feels like a critique of you. And if your fandom’s antagonist gets a redemption arc which displeases you? That’s not character growth, that’s betrayal. (You've seen people behave this way in fandoms. It's a parasocial relationship with fictional characters.)

Now take that operating system - tribal, emotional, morally binary - and plug it into political activism. What do you get?

You get the US "Pro-Palestinian" movement circa 2024-25.

To be clear: Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe. Palestinians deserve dignity, safety, and justice.

Critiquing how Americans engage with this issue is not a dismissal of its urgency. It’s just asking whether our engagement is real...or if it is performative roleplay and treated like a fandom.

(Below: This fanart would be just as absurd if Snape was holding an Israeli flag.)

Because much of what’s happening on social media and college campuses doesn’t look like activism. It looks like fandom.

And not in a metaphorical sense. I mean literally.

Moral binarism:

Palestinians are coded as pure underdog heroes. Israelis are assigned the role of irredeemable villains. There's no space for Israeli trauma, Palestinian complexity, or the millions caught in-between. Just like fandom, nuance gets in the way of the story.

Costumes and catchphrases:

Keffiyehs are worn like people used to wear Hogwarts House scarves.

Slogans like "from the river to the sea" function not as political demands as much as they are ritual, social affirmations.

You chant them because they’re what you say to stay in good standing.

Canon enforcement:

Say the wrong thing (acknowledge Hamas's atrocities, quote an Israeli peace activist...) and you’re cast as a villain. Activist spaces now police ideological purity the same way fandoms used to (still do?) flame you for liking the wrong ship.

Emotional scripting:

TikToks from Gaza with moody filters and sad piano music mimic fan edits and commenters post, "I’m crying, I’m shaking," because that’s the expected affect. It's parasocial politics. And it's all about showing their feelings.

Lore and side quests:

Protestors debate which historical analogies are "correct" based on what's most satisfying. The create infographics that function like lore wikis, and design protest aesthetics with merch-tier detail. Some organizers even "brand" their encampments like pop-up installations.

Want a kiffiyeh with which to display your ideological alignment? Guy Christensen sells them through a link in his bio.

This is fandom logic in political form: it's identity-driven, emotionally performative, virality-optimized, branded and monetized.

The problem is that Fandom has no endgame. Fandom is forever. There’s no "solving" Game of Thrones - you just keep angrily resenting that awful final season.

Politics needs resolution. If you apply the fandom model to real-world conflict, peace becomes anticlimactic. Moral ambiguity feels like betrayal. Ceasefires don’t trend on social media.

Look at how the "pro-Palestinian" movement won't condemn Hamas regardless of the people of Gaza marching en masse to demand Hamas leave Gaza.

When the identity matters more than the cause, the cause becomes a backdrop.

Such "activists" center their feelings of righteousness rather than centering the lives at stake.

Performative grief displaces material action.

Sharing content becomes the work.

Listening becomes optional.

Look at how Irish protestors embraced the term “Paddystinian" - blending diasporic solidarity with performative identity. Or consider how Peter Tatchell was arrested at a pro-Palestinian march for opposing both Israel and Hamas - and was immediately denounced online not for being wrong, but for deviating from the script.

This isn’t activism. It’s cosplay with real-world stakes.

Real political work is boring, frustrating, and morally dissonant. It demands strategic thinking, coalition-building, and compromise. It doesn’t fit neatly into a feed, and it rarely makes you feel emotionally whole, but it’s the only thing that changes anything.

If you’ve grown up in fandom, you’re not broken or unserious. You’re just swimming in the water you were raised in.

What they need to ask themselves, though, is: Are we trying to help, or are we trying to feel right?

Because the people on the ground don’t need you to wear your Guy Christensen kiffiyeh and recite the ideologically approved positions you don't understand. They don't need your fan art. They don't need you to harass Jews online.

They need peace, they need dialogue, and they need all of us to stop treating war like content.

[helena-thessa]

I don't know, man. I don't buy it that Isha was a pointless character. I keep seeing her included in a list of characters that served no purpose and/or that she only existed to fuel Jinx's character arc, but that feels like such a disserve. And is probably straight-up ableist and sexist. If we're (rightfully) complaining about the seemingly abandoned class conflict/potential civil war plot by pointing out how the people of Zaun's perspective isn't really explored, especially in regards to understanding why they'd suddenly shift toward idolizing Jinx, then we can't ignore that Isha is our most prominent look into the mindset.

Is it just because she's young? That she didn't speak? That her role model was a teenage girl? Can't help but think that's all tied into it.

We're first introduced to orphaned undercity kids - Violet, Powder and Ekko - who are obviously considered key to the plot and important characters on their own right. They had surrogate father figures in Xander and Benzo, but Isha didn't. Why doesn't she? We meet her when Zaunite goons are chasing her down and we know there's been nothing but police brutality from the topside. Isha is being raised (or not raised) in an even more strife undercity then the one our core characters were raised into (no unity/protection from Xander, and then no control from Silco).

How and why that makes her different contributes to her importance and uniqueness as a character. She is also our look into the next generation's plight. I mean, as a younger millennial, I'm very aware of the different world Gen Z was handed, even when there's less then a ten year age gap between us.

Her commitment to the revolution, even with a juvenile's passion and some naivete, has merit in its own right. Malala was 11 when she first stood up to the Taliban. Mari Copeny was eight when she first wrote to Obama about the water crisis in Flint. Child activists are exceptional. They play a pivotal role in movements and social change.

I'm no Arcane or LOL expert but feels like a swing and a miss to be dissing Isha as a character. I totally stand with the valid criticism on the dismal handling of the Piltover vs. Zaun plot arc (I'm seriously so disappointed that nothing came out of Ekko pointing out the environmental damage that topside's striving for "progress" exacted on him and his people ?? where is the justice ??), I just think there should be more respect for Isha. The little kid was a revolutionary.

[therentyoupay]

hi kris!!!! as a longtime Jelsa shipper, have you noticed a shift in the random over the past 10+ years? esp as a writer? has the fandom lessened? is Jelsa still as popular?

HI NONNY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

long story, short: yes and no! i could honestly write a whole essay on this. 🤣 perhaps one day i will come back and reblog this and add some more definitive thoughts when i have the time 💕💕💕💕💕

for now, i can say that (1) while there are definitely ebbs and flows to any fandom/any ship, and although ship wars/fandom!in-fighting/policing definitely fluctuate and change shape but typically persevere in one form or another... (2) at the end of the day, you can always find at least one peaceful, positive corner of the internet for pretty much any community 💕✨

i don't have any concrete metrics or data re: jelsa fandom stats (e.g., "activity" in terms of the number of fics/fanart/posts/metas/commentaries/headcanons/theories/etc., "population" lol however defined) that we might try to use to operationally define how "active/big" a fandom might be at any given time, but based on nothing but pure personal, anecdotal experience: although activity fluctuates, inevitably, jelsa has been a pretty steady ship! off the top of my head, i can think of a few key "boosts" in which activity really ramped up... for example, we saw a boost in activity during the frozen ii release, unsurprisingly lol, and certainly, another boost now with @callimara's ✨unhinged✨ video, resulting in our #kriscallicollab madness, more than you know, which has been SO AMAZING and inspiring and exciting and HEART-SQUEEZING to witness and to be a part of. 🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🙏🙏🙏💕 overall, there's always new jelsa community activity each year! and remember, i also took a 3-ish-year on-again-off-again break from tumblr during the pandemic and the start of my ph.d. program and Life Activity, so i also missed out on a pretty active jelsa-tumblr time period too! like, nowadays, there are plenty of times i see a jelsa art or graphic on my dash made from 2019/2020/2021 that i've never seen before and it's like a special surprise treat 😂😂💕

it's also been very cool to see so many members of our OG community still enjoying life in the jelsa tag, or replying/commenting/liking posts and leaving comments on fics, or creating new art and fic, after so many years 🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹 so many beautiful, lifelong friendships have been forged through this ship! likewise, there are so many newcomers or lurkers-turned-active-members and new community members that we've been able to meet in just the last few months alone, which is so exciting and really inspiring 💕💕💕 there's just a lot of respect—regardless of newness-or-OGness, generations (e.g., the Elder Millennials and Gen X-ers and Gen Z-ers)—going in a lot of different directions, and that, luckily, is something that has stayed pretty consistent in the jelsa fandom for over a decade 🥹🥹🥹💕💕💕✨✨

not sure how "popular" it is compare to other ships, though, i've never thought about it! 😂 that bit doesn't matter 💕 just happy to still be here and enjoying our hobbies and creation and community, as ever 💕💕💕💕💕

THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION NONNY, HAVE AN AMAZING DAY ✨

[foodmato]

The Future of Food Delivery Services: New Trends and Predictions

Ordering food online has become incredibly popular among millennials and Gen Z, all thanks to the easy availability of high-speed internet connections and smartphones. Consumers are getting their favorite food items from their preferred restaurants directly to their doorsteps with a few clicks. So if you are in the food industry or own a restaurant, you must be aware of the future of online delivery services to stay updated and make developments to your restaurant following the modern trends.

Find out what the future of food delivery services, the current popular food delivery trends, and what we can predict in this article. Before discovering the future scope of the food ordering system or delivery process, letlook closelylook at the current food delivery service statistics.

Food delivery services statistics

According to reports, the food delivery service market is expected to increase to $34.68 billion by the end of 2024, which clearly shows a steady rise in the growth curve.

There will be an estimated growth of 19.88% in food delivery services between 2024 to 2027. The market for food delivery services could even reach $71.63 billion by 2027.

According to the meal delivery market forecast, the number of users in this sector could reach 2.5BN by 2029.

What’s Next for Food Delivery Services? Key Trends and Future Predictions

The online food ordering market generates almost $27 billion every year. If you, too, want to be a part of this growth, you need to be aware of the following food delivery services trends and predictions for the future.

1. Restaurants launching their food delivery platforms

The recent trend in food delivery services of restaurants is witnessing a shift from the idea of relying on third-party meal delivery partners like Foodpanda, Uber Eats, to directly offering food delivery services of their own.

Consumers also prefer to place food orders directly from the restaurant instead of third-party websites. Well-known food brands like KFC, Pizza Hut, etc have also launched their own food ordering and delivery services, which let their customers order food directly from their restaurant website or mobile app.

Whether you have a big restaurant or a small one, you too can create your restaurant delivery system on your website and save a huge amount of money that you might be spending on third-party platforms. How? The answer is with FoodMato. It is a WordPress-based restaurant management solution that takes care of all your online restaurant management needs, including creating a food delivery system.

Discover the solution now!

2. Virtual assistants

Virtual assistants are getting increasingly popular in multiple industries, including restaurants. However, not a lot of restaurants have adopted this new technology yet, which means you still have a chance to take full advantage of this technology. This is surely going to be dominant in the future.

A virtual assistant is an AI system that accepts the voice commands of your customers and delivers them to your POS system. It not only saves your time but also helps customers place their online orders to your restaurant easily.

3. Green transport system

Using a green transport system is all about using environmentally friendly vehicles. Some restaurants rely on delivery teams that consist of teenagers who drive vehicles older than 10 years, which is harmful to the environment. To avoid this, it is predicted that most restaurants will rely on eco-friendly delivery systems by switching to bikes or electric cars for food delivery in the future.

4. Robotic Vans for delivery

Robotic vans or self-driving robots are redefining the concept of food, groceries, and package deliveries. These robots have made the local food delivery system easy and convenient for restaurant owners as well as customers. Though the usage has not become very popular yet but it has already been witnessed in a few college campuses of the USA for food delivery. More and more applications of these robot vans or self-driving robots are expected in the future in the food delivery market.

5. Increasing cloud kitchens

Cloud kitchens or ghost kitchens are the new type of restaurants that are based on commercial cooking spaces where foods are prepared only for delivery. They do not have a physical establishment to invite guests for meals as the entire system is based on online orders and delivery. As there is a rapid increase in the demand for online deliveries, the concept of ghost kitchens is anticipated to be more popular.

This allows restaurant owners to reach out to a wider audience without spending much on physical stores and other things that are required for a full-fledged restaurant.

Create your food delivery system with FoodMato

Having your food delivery system comes with multiple benefits that include:

No reliance on third parties.

Better exposure.

Cost saving, you don’t have to pay for third-party platforms.

Increase in profit.

Improves user experience.

Boost brand credibility.

If you want to experience all these advantages for your restaurant, use FoodMato’s complete online restaurant management solution that includes online food delivery services as well. Discover our services now!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the future of food delivery services?

The future of food delivery services globally appears to be very promising, with an expected growth of 281.52 billion by 2031.

How can I create my food delivery system?

You need the right software to create your food delivery system. Use FoodMato to add a WordPress-based online food delivery system to your website.

What is the cost of creating a food delivery system on my website?

The expense of creating a food delivery system usually depends on the software you use for this purpose. If you are looking for effective and affordable food delivery software, try FoodMato. It offers its complete online restaurant management solution, including food delivery for only $99.

[strideofpride]

I was a gg fan who tuned in every day from 2007-2012 and it's crazy how much opinions have shifted in that time (for the better)!

A lot of people shipped Dan and Serena because the actors dated, which, looking back, ew. I think the popularity sort of waned past season 3 and Serenate got more popular, but DS was still on top. Serenate has had a huge boost in popularity with the rise of streaming services and binging because the time it takes for people to watch from s3 to s6 is three weeks, not three years so people remember them better. I always shipped them, though!

CB was super super popular. I unfortunately thought they were cute back then as well. Every guy wanted to be him, all the girls thought he was hot, it was bad and I don't get the millennial fascination with "bad boys". Everyone hated Dair too (nobody liked Dan in general) I think Dair has had a renaissance with Gen Z, though, and more people are recognizing the abusive behavior.

Every girl was obsessed with Nate, people would have him as their lock screens, tape pictures of him inside his locker. Someone in my school even took a bunch of Carrie Underwood albums to the bathroom and smashed them because the actor was dating her. For some reason Nate and Raina was very very very popular, everyone loved them (I did too!)

hmmm interesting! i'm not quite sure that's the truth about dair, because there are sooooo many dair fics and gifsets from 2011-2012! clearly there was a fandom, even if it was small!

[darkmaga-returns]

very generation loves to give the next one a hard time. Socrates famously called youth lazy, disrespectful, and decadent, starting a tradition that continues today. Although these criticisms sometimes hold truth, elders rarely acknowledge their own role in fostering the conditions that led to spiritual and cultural decline.

Generation Z — or Zoomers — may seem alien to older generations, but they face unique challenges their elders can barely imagine, let alone solve. Issues of identity, spirituality, family, and economics have shifted beneath the feet of this younger cohort. Rather than disparage Zoomers, the right should offer them leadership and solutions.

I am not a Zoomer. I was born only a few years into the Millennial generation, while Gen Z ranges from ages 13 to 28. Many of the problems Zoomers face originated long before they were born.

When young people complain about job prospects and financial stability, the standard response is to work harder and “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” On an individual level, this advice is sound. No matter how dire one’s circumstances, effort and attitude remain personal choices. At a societal level, however, this stance can be disastrous. As a nation, we have a responsibility to foster an environment where young people can succeed, start families, and invest in a brighter future for their own children.

[blackthornass]

One of the things that bugs me about Generations as defined by, like, pop culture is that Baby Boomers were legit born in between two cultural events in US history, the end of World War Two and the start of the Vietnam War. Gen X was pretty much anyone born after that but before the point where they’d be in their 20s in the 2000s, but Millennials… get cut off in 1998? Even though a Very Big Event In US History that completely shifted culture happened in 2001. Gen Z should be everyone born between 9/11 and, like, the start of the covid pandemic.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Ryan Burge

Published: Oct 26, 2023

The nones are rising.

If there’s anything that I’m probably known for - it’s that simple statement. There are more non-religious people in the United States today than at any point in the history of the country. The best estimates put the share of folks who are non-religious right about 30% of the American population.

You can’t get to that share of the population without touching every single demographic group in a country. This can’t just be a phenomenon that impacts younger people, or white people. You name a niche demographic in the United States, there’s a very good chance that they are less religious today than that same demographic group fifteen years ago.

Obviously one of the biggest predictors of this phenomenon is age. Younger adults are way more likely to be non-religious compared to older Americans. The graph below makes that clear.

Among the Silent Generation (those born between 1925 and 1945), just over half are Protestant and nearly a quarter are Catholic. At the same time the share who are non-religious (atheist, agnostic, nothing in particular) is just 19%. Seventy-four percent are Christians and 19% are nones. Pretty big spread between those two groups.

But here’s that same spread - Protestant/Catholic vs Non-Religious by Generation:

• Boomers: 67% versus 27%. +40 points • Gen X: 56% versus 39%. +17 points • Millennials: 45% versus 48%. -3 points • Gen Z: 38% versus 51%. -13 points

Generation Z is the first generation in American history where it appears clear that the share who are non-religious outnumbers the Protestants and the Catholics.

A very crucial part of this conversation needs to be laid out, however. This is not happening at equal rates among generations if you break it down by racial groups. The religious composition of white Americans looks much different than the patterns exhibited by Hispanics or Asians. The graph below makes that really clear.

The white graph at the top is just such a consistent stair-step down for each successive generation. Each younger generation is significantly less likely to be Protestant. A typical decline is six or seven percentage points from one generation to the next. For Catholicism, the drop is still there but it’s way more modest, just 2-3 points per generation.

At the same time, the nones are just exploding. Nineteen percent among the Silents, begets 27% among Boomers, 39% among Gen X, 49% among Millennials, and then 52% among Generation Z. 19% to 52% - that’s the rise of the nones among white Americans by generation.

That same stair-step down is also clear among Black respondents, too. The share of Protestants among Silent Generation African-Americans is the highest of any category in this graph - 70%. There are still a lot of Protestants among Black Boomers, too - 67%. But then, it just falls off a cliff. Fifty-two percent among Gen X, 40% among Millennials and just 27% among Gen Z African-Americans. A forty-three point drop from the top to the bottom.

At the same time, the nones are rising. It’s about a quarter of older Black respondents, but leaps to nearly forty percent of Black members of Generation X. That seems to be the biggest leap for African-Americans, by the way, between Boomers and Gen X. Something shifted there, big time. Now, 52% of the youngest Black adult Americans are nones. Basically the same share as white Gen Z.

For Hispanics, it’s not Protestants who take the biggest hits - it’s Catholics. I think this is fascinating. Among Hispanic Boomers, 21% are Protestant. It’s the same share among Gen X. It does drop slightly to 15% among Millennials and Gen Z. But that six point slide is minute compared to the forty point drop between Black Boomers and Gen Z. That same number for whites is 22 points. Hispanic Protestantism is just not declining that fast.

The Catholics, though, are a much bigger story. Nearly three quarters of the oldest Hispanics in the United States are Catholic (72%). However, there’s a huge decline between the Silent Generation and Boomers - down nineteen percentage points. Then, the declines slow down some. It’s a six point drop for Gen X, a five point drop for Millennials, and then a huge dip - 11 points for Gen Z. The total decline in Hispanic Catholic share is 41 points from the top to the bottom.

The nones are the big gainers among Hispanics, clearly. Just 23% of Boomer Hispanics are non-religious. It’s 30% among Gen X and 40% among Millennials. Nearly half of Gen Z Hispanics are non-religious. Not that much different than white or Black young adults.

The pattern for Asians is just completely different, no other way to describe it. The share of Asians who are Protestant or Catholic by generation doesn’t really deviate that much. I think it’s very fair to say that younger Asian Americans are just as likely to be Catholic or Protestant compared to their older counterparts. That’s the only racial group where that’s the case.

In fact, there are just not these huge generational differences between older Asians and younger ones when it comes to religion. About the same share are from the “other world religions” category, regardless of generation. When it comes to the share who are nones, I can’t definitively say that the youngest Asians are more likely to be atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular compared to older Asians. That really stands out in comparison to every other racial group in the sample.

[ Continued... ]

Unfortunately, the rest of the article is behind a paywall, and a cached/archived version doesn't seem to be available at the usual locations.

[boreal-sea]

It's weird, I kinda feel like this may be more technology related than generation related? I was born in 1999 (which makes me Gen Z I believe, which is a whole other thing, because I feel like I relate a lot more to Millenials than Gen Z), and I very much went outside and played for most of my childhood. My brother was born in 2002 (so he'd definitely be Gen Z) and his childhood was definitely spent more inside than outside. I distinctly remember the shift once things like iPhones and iPads started getting huge, but he doesn't, that's all he's known. Other people probably have different experiences but I think technology getting huge in the 2000s also heavily contributes to this

Yeah, exactly - it's technology linked, BUT because of when that shift happened, it has affected Gen Z MORE than it affected Millennials. So it's still a generational divide in the broad sense: more Millennials probably played outside compared to Gen Z. That doesn't mean zero Gen Z kids played outside, and that doesn't mean zero Millennials played inside, it's just an observable trend on the population level.

And yeah - those years are exactly when I shifted from middle school into high school, and those are the years I saw my play go from mostly outside to being more inside-based. And my brother shifted with me, even though he was three years younger. But we're both solidly Millennials.

[rachandruin]

A really interesting dichotomy I've noticed as an older-ish millennial is that pride flag discourse is something that is pretty much exclusively only a thing for people around 25 or under.

There's a really clear line in the sand between those of my generation, who (myself included) generally believe that the whole point of pride flags is to express the fact that although no two people will experience their queerness in exactly the same way, we are all united under this common identity, be it gay or lesbian or bisexual or trans or asexual, etc. The purpose of a flag - ANY flag, Pride or otherwise - is to act as a symbol for disparate people to rally behind and share as a common cause with their neighbours and comrades, to become more than the sum of their parts - to express solidarity. That we are a community - more than that, a nation, and that together, we are strong.

Pride flag discourse seems to actively eschew all that and in the process fundamentally misunderstand why the Pride (and later, Progress) flag were created in the first place. It may seem like creating more and more flags to represent ever-finer gradations of identity and experience is a positive thing but it only serves to Balkanise the wonderful and diverse thing that is the queer community; it enforces separateness, puts up a barrier between barely-distinguishable gradations of the queer experience and says, implicitly, "you're not my people". It takes focus away from the community and puts it on the individual, who, instead of finding solidarity with people with whom they have common cause, seeks to differentiate themselves - to stand out.

It's part of a wider shift from a community-focused queerness to an individual-focused queerness that can be explained by one thing: the internet. People like to say queer communities have always flourished on the internet but I need people to understand that it was a very small part of queer life back then, and it was fairly basic; it was forums and IRC chats (which were ABSOLUTELY not safe, seriously it was the wild west back in those days). The lion's share of the queer community was still a real, living thing that you had to go out and experience with your own eyes, meet other people who might live lives and have experiences that differed utterly from your own but with whom you were bonded over your common sexuality or gender identity.

Compare that to what Gen Z have had at their disposal all their lives: Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Discord. The way an entire generation lives has completely changed. An entire experience that was once 90% face-to-face can now be replicated online, from the safety of your home, and can be curated however you want. You can surround yourself with people of your age, your sexuality, your gender, and never have to run into anyone outside of that. And while this is undoubtedly safer than the gauntlet young queers had to run in decades past, it comes with a major drawback:

When you limit your horizons so much, differences that appear tiny to an outside observer become enormous. Baby Blue and Sky Blue would appear identical to 99% of people, but if all you can see is blue they're wildly different. Your ability to tell the difference between the two is not because you're exceptionally good at differentiating colours, but because you're in a position where they're the only colours that matter to you.

This is where the proliferation of Pride flags and the subsequent discourse all comes from: people looking at the Pride flag and not saying "that's my flag", but pointing to one stripe and saying "that's my colour".

do you think that a certain genre of queer person is so obsessively weird about pride flag discourse becuase their flags fill the gaping hole in their personality where a hogwarts house used to be

[chronicallyunhingedpodcast]

angry & aware: i will not let the past raise my future children

Breaking the Cycle: The Anger Behind Generational Trauma and the Fight for Change.

The weight of generational trauma can feel suffocating, like an invisible force that shapes everything in our lives—our relationships, our emotions, and even our perceptions of the world around us. It’s easy to see how we become who we are because of our parents, and how our parents became who they are because of their own parents. But somewhere along the way, that cycle of pain and misunderstanding needs to end. And yet, here we are, fighting battles that were never ours to begin with.

I’m angry. Angry at the world. Angry at the systems. Angry at the generations before me that have perpetuated harmful cycles and behaviors, and angry that these issues continue to go unaddressed.

I see this anger in the way older generations have treated us, especially when it comes to parenting. Grandparents who seem to have a lightbulb moment once they have grandkids, realizing they could have been gentler, kinder, and more emotionally available. But here’s the kicker: they only realize it after they’ve already caused the damage. After they’ve already hurt our parents who hurt us. It’s like a delayed redemption that only serves to remind me of all the years I spent trying to make sense of their abuse, only for them to suddenly want to be the nurturing figure they never were.

And for that, I can’t forgive them. I can’t allow those same people around my future children—if I even want children at all. The thought of passing on generational pain, of allowing people who have been emotionally and psychologically abusive to continue the cycle, feels wrong to my very core. The idea of repeating the same mistakes over and over in the name of “family” or “tradition” is something I can’t accept.

But here’s the thing—there’s a shift happening. It’s not easy, and it doesn’t happen overnight, but younger generations, particularly Millennials, Gen Z, and the Alpha Gen, are slowly waking up. We’re realizing that being tough, being emotionally closed off, being harsh and dismissive—those are the toxic traits that have been passed down to us. We’re learning that gentleness, kindness, and open communication are the true markers of strength, not the ability to “suck it up” or “be strong” in the face of pain.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees.

Many Millennials—those who grew up in the midst of this toxicity—laugh at the idea of gentler parenting or softer communication. They mock it, dismiss it, and instead, continue the same patterns of harshness and emotional repression. The way same their parents before them act and it is so frustrating.

It’s maddening. And yet, I still hold on to the hope that some of us are actively trying to break those cycles, that we’re planting the seeds of change that will hopefully grow into something better for the next generation.

But that’s where the fight becomes even more challenging. It’s not just about how we treat each other or our children; it’s about how the systems we rely on—education, healthcare, politics—continue to uphold inequality, oppression, and disregard for people’s well-being. The education system is a perfect example of this. I’ve worked with students who are neglected, ignored, or outright harmed because the system doesn’t care about their individual needs or their emotional development. It’s all about numbers, bottom lines, and bureaucracy. I’ve witnessed kids being trapped in toxic environments, forced to endure verbal and emotional abuse in the name of “education” because the people in charge care more about maintaining control than helping these kids thrive.

The pain I feel for these kids—their potential being stifled, their emotional needs being ignored—is something I can’t ignore. And it fuels my anger even more. How many children are being damaged in the name of a broken system that doesn’t value their humanity?

And then there’s the bigger picture—the way society has normalized inequality. It doesn’t matter who you are—whether you’re a child, an adult, a man, a woman, gay, straight, neurodivergent, or neurotypical—you’re never treated equally. And that’s a truth that’s hard to swallow, especially when you’re fighting against it every day. But it’s a truth we need to face if we want to create real change.

This is why I’m so angry. And I don’t apologize for it. This world with its broken systems, its endless cycles of harm, its refusal to confront generational trauma, is maddening. It’s not enough to quietly accept things the way they are. We need to break the cycle. We need to change how we relate to each other, how we treat each other, and how we raise our children.

But most of all, we need to stop pretending that the past doesn’t matter. We need to stop acting like the damage that was done doesn’t affect us. It does. It always has. And until we confront that, until we truly break free from those cycles, nothing will change.

And maybe that’s the hardest truth of all: we can’t change the past. We can only move forward and hope that the next generation, the ones we’re trying to protect, will be able to do things better. For them, for us, for the world we all deserve.

[mrbeast-ispublicenemy1]

Mr. Beast is Public Enemy #1

What is up gamers?! Welcome back to my YouTube channel (“Vine Boom” sound effect - nauseating zoom in zoom out)! (Change camera and new angle) First, let’s get energized! (edit splice for no apparent reason) Got sent this new bev - stoked to test it. (Sparkling drink animation. Shameless product placement) AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! (Echoing, sonorous, belching sound effect - also nauseating). Ok gamers - let’s take a look back. (New camera angle, saturation turned up to 1 million percent - no one knows how this is possible) I was checking out my boy’s channel (shameless plug for fellow like-and-subscribe-grubbing youtuber - new camera view, jumpy editing) and my brother was sporting some old-timey Sesame Street content (graphic jump cut to different camera, graphic - poorly animated Kermit the Frog). And I thought (jump cut to new camera - AI generated image of the Thinker) that shows just aren’t as kid-friendly as they used to be (sad violin music plays. Jump cut to new camera AGAIN and every five seconds hereafter - serious look into closeup cam). Today, gamers, we will be discussing the shift in children’s entertainment since the late 90s and how it has negatively affected children’s mental and emotional health because it hinders brain development, promotes isolation, and reduces empathy.

Children’s entertainment is not just silly cartoons kids watch between preschool and nap time; the shows and games children consume greatly impact their lives and development. Children’s media - and media people consume in general - affects everything about us. Shows like Bill Nye the Science Guy or The Magic School Bus do not just affect children’s education and learning by teaching kids, these shows teach kids how to learn and irrevocably alter how these children will interact with every learning experience for the rest of their lives (Ngo). The length and type of media affect attention span (National Library of Medicine). It also alters executive function and all higher cognitive thinking (National Institute of Health). A study conducted by Mary Louise Hemmeter at Vanderbilt University found that Sesame Street - one of the longest running shows geared towards a young audience, featuring my favorite little guys - literally teaches children kindness. The issue, however, is that Sesame Street is no longer the standard for children’s entertainment. Shows like Bill Nye the Science Guy do not exist anymore, at least not on the same scale.

Many people, usually my older brother and other old men (millennials) like him, say that children’s media peaked in the late 90s to the very early 2000s. Upon hearing this, any intelligent 2000s kid will say that our media was just as good and chalk up this sentiment to nostalgia, but this millenial assertion actually carries quite a bit of merit. Shaded with the rose-tinted glasses of childhood, every kid thinks that their shows are the best, but the contrast between what children’s media the large portion of American millennials (born 1983 - 1998) grew up with and what the large portion of American generation Z (1999 - 2012) consumed, is striking. The notion that children’s media was better in the 90s holds water for a few reasons: firstly, the 90s was really the first time when production companies started to actually care about kids’ TV and began catering to them accordingly (Chhatwal). The attention to detail allowed 90s kid’s shows to become iconic; shows like Aurthur, Blues Clues, and The Powerpuff Girls are still having lasting effects on the cultural zeitgeist, despite the original shows no longer running. The care put into 90’s shows also extended to caring about all kids, allowing these shows to be incredibly diverse in a way that children’s media had never been before. Shows like The Proud Family (which aired in the year 2000) unabashedly had a primarily black cast, or the show Static Shock which featured the first black superhero as a lead character. But the main contributor to the love of 90s shows and the vitriolic hatred of kid’s media now should be obvious: the internet.

In the 90s, the internet was something almost intangible, barely developed, and only accessed on your parent’s stationary desktop. Now, the internet permeates every aspect of our world, and children’s media is one of the largest signifiers. A 2024 survey found that YouTube is by far the most popular content platform for kids, where over 83% of kids aged 2 - 12 had watched YouTube content in the last week (Faughnder). Simply put, this is bad! There are numerous reasons as to why the progression of YouTube and kids internet entertainment negatively affects kids, but the primary reasons are incredibly similar to why children’s media is important in the first place. Children’s media on the internet is not regulated the same way Nickelodeon is (HealthyChildren). YouTube Kids is not PBS Kids. Children’s content online does not need to meet any educational standards, and according to The National Institute of Health, it doesn’t. Just like how Bill Nye changed how kids interact with their education, the internet can and is actively harming how modern children interact with all learning. The explosive, algorithmic internet also pushes content that destroys kids’ attention spans (NIH). It also, of course, alters executive function and all higher cognitive thinking (NIH). Without the same exposure to empathetic kids’ content, children are literally becoming less kind (Sevier).

This is our entire future. Children, the future of our world, are watching overstimulating, mind-melting content on loop. They are not learning, they are not growing, and we will inevitably live in an unkind, uneducated world.

My nephew is an “iPad kid.” A difficult thing to admit, truely. An “iPad kid” is a not-so-affectionate term to colloquialize all children who spend an excess amount of time on the internet, usually spending lots of time on Roblox (an online gaming website primarily for kids) and YouTube. The statistic that over 83% of kids aged 2 - 12 watch YouTube content (Faughnder) becomes much more concerning when you factor in the notion that YouTube content is becoming more and more overstimulating. Being a content creator is a job, and a YouTuber’s greatest export is attention. To keep retention rates as high as possible, YouTubers - especially kids YouTubers - make their videos exceedingly attention-grabbing. Overstimulation is a consistent pitfall of current children’s media. Content creators like Mr. Beast are obsessed with retention rates. When making a “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” special to promote the movie “Wonka,” Mr. Beast allegedly asked the director of the film what his “retention rate” was. For a movie. The retention rate is, obviously, for a movie, 100%. YouTube is not like traditional television; kids can click away from a video at any time; therefore, YouTubers must find a way to counteract this. So, they make their content as attention-grabbing as possible. Current videos catered to kids are high volume and high saturation, featuring dizzying graphics and nauseating people. This causes a ripple effect to all other children’s media. Long gone are the days of the soft, soothing Little Bear - now children watch as a child and his 15 dogs with extremely bright costumes and loud gadgets defeat bad guys and serve as the only first responders and city infrastructure. And even in the PAW Patrol universe, 15 dogs is way too many! Overstimulation and short-term content is linked to a decrease in brain development and a shrinking of the frontal lobe. According to The National Library of Medicine, this content is harming children’s brain development and negatively impacting their executive function. Executive function is an all-encompassing term for vital skills needed for problem-solving, decision making, and planning. “The three main skills are working memory, cognitive flexibility and inhibition control,” (Cleveland Health Clinic). Executive function is literally how human beings, well, function! It is crucial to navigating your life and develops as we grow. It is essential that children live in an environment that fosters their brain development. Constant media consumption exists in opposition to that and has proven to hinder the brian development in children and adolescents. A study conducted to determine if fast-paced children’s shows resulted in the viewers performing worse on executive function exams found that children who watched overstimulating, fast-paced shows performed significantly worse than the children who didn’t (Lillard and Peterson). This consistent media consumption is primarily just about that: consumption. These kids can sit in front of a TV or iPad for hours and actually retain none of the information relayed to them. It is too much too often.

Some argue that digital media is not inherently harmful to children, that some digital media can actually improve executive function - which is true! Passive consumption is harmful, but active participation in digital media can be incredibly positive! A 2011 study found that when children were directly engaging with the media like video games, it actually improved their brain development (NLM). This same study also observed children with dyslexia who were tasked with playing more video games. After a week, their reading scores improved! It makes plenty of sense that video games improve brain function while watching YouTube, for example, does the opposite. In a video game, you are exercising your fine motor control and hand-eye coordination; you also must remember certain moves and skills, and, in some games, facts about the NPCs (non-player characters). Executive function is harmed by the passive consumption of fast-paced and overstimulating content. It is honestly frightening that children are constantly force-fed this content. Kids are always seeing bright colors and “Vine Boom” sound effects and it is literally melting their brains.

One center of the brain that is particularly adversely affected is the amygdala - the emotional processing center. Modern children’s media is severely damaging the emotional and mental health of children, especially through their parental relationships. One thing that set apart kids media in the 90s was family co-viewing (Chhatwal). According to Geetika Chhatwal, co-viewing is when “parents and children watched shows together, creating a communal activity that strengthened family bonds and provided a shared cultural experience.” Co-viewing is deeply important when it comes to children and their development. Research shows that children need consistent parent guidance and involvement - go figure. When a family is co-viewing a show like The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, both children and their parents can enjoy it; they can laugh together, like the same characters, discuss certain episodes, argue whether or not Carlton is cool (he is) - they can find common ground. Because of how much the media we consume and engage with shapes who we are, being shaped by the same media is a crucial part of child development and familial bonds. Parents can also help children process information this way . . .

This, like most other positive and wonderful aspects of 90s media, has been so thoroughly destroyed by current popular media. It is as though Mr. Beast himself has leapt through an eight-year-old’s ipad and 360 no-scoped, a la Fortnite (an incredibly popular, online third-person shooter game that my little sister had to inform me about so I could make this joke), every parent-child bond formed through shared media. When you have one TV in your house, it is easy. You have family movie nights, you follow certain shows together - bound by a predetermined air time schedule. This becomes far more difficult when everyone has access to entertainment all of the time. Now, you are not forced to watch Will and Grace with your mom, you can just watch something else on an endless streaming service or, in the case of a growing number of adolescents, watch online video content on a smaller screen in another room, far away from any pesky parents. This is isolating. People are not meant to be all alone like this, isolated from anyone with shared interests. We are social animals! Shared media is one of the best things about being alive! It is so wonderful when 133.5 million people tune into the Superbowl to watch Kendrik Lamar call Drake a pedophile in the most viewed half-time show in history (Afrotech), but it is just as important to share media with those closest to you. According to Dou et al. with the National Library of Medicine, “Empirical evidence has illuminated the significant impact of children’s electronic media use on the quality of this relationship. Studies such as those by Zhu et al., Horita et al., and Ahmadian et al. have consistently shown that higher levels of problematic internet use among children are linked to poorer parent–child relationships.” This clearly negatively affects children’s mental and emotional health. Isolation, in any form, is dangerous, but the severe reduction in co-viewing content is a signifier of something greater: parents are not present in their children’s lives.

A lack of co-viewing does not just harm parent-child relationships, it is a signifier that these relationships are not very strong in the first place. Where I had an overworked older sister, many children are handed an ipad as some kind of pseudo third parent. Or, in some cases, only parent. An uptick in social media usage and screen time is directly associated with parental neglect (Dou et al.) This isolation and neglect can lead to consistent and lasting emotional and mental damage, anxious and avoidant attachment disorders, complex post-traumatic stress disorders, personality disorders such as bipolar personality disorder and numerous other negative effects. It is not enough to have lasting emotional damage from parental neglect, however, because the content that adolescents are consuming is, in itself, greatly harming their emotional well-being!

In “Why YouTube Is Causing Young Kids to Go into Therapy and Why Parents Need to Find Alternatives to Even Youtube Kids - AT: Parenting Survival for All Ages,” Natasha Daniels explains that, as a child psychologist, she has seen plenty of parents bring in their children for insanely concerning behavior, the kind that she had only previously seen in cases of severe abuse. She prepares for the worst, only to find out that this behavior is learned online, usually on YouTube. Online platforms like YouTube are not moderated well enough for children to simply be let loose. Even platforms like YouTubeKids that claim to be kid-friendly are most definitely not. Too many harmful videos slip through the cracks! It is the equivalent of the old-fashioned leaving the television on a little too late after Cartoon Network and now it's three A.M. and your son is watching Robot Chicken. Parents are not paying attention to what their children are watching and it is hurting them both. Dou et al. with the National Library of Medicine states “A relation between electronic media use, increased aggressive behavior, and decreased prosocial behavior,” (prosocial behavior being any behavior intended to help others, including sharing, kindness, and empathy).

This links to the reduction of emotional intelligence and empathy seen in children in recent years. According to PBS, media can build empathy in young children. Watching a show with a kind character, learning about sharing, watching a beloved character cry on screen, are all things that can build empathy in a growing mind. A study done at Vanderbilt University found that Sesame Street can actually make kids kinder, promoting integral prosocial behaviors. When it comes down to teaching empathy, kindness, and general traits necessary to build community and a functioning society PBS Kids as YouTubeKids beaten. No contest. PBS is known for foundational children’s shows like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood - one of the most beautiful and heart-felt kids programs to ever exist, - Arthur, Reading Rainbow, and so many others. With contemporary content, this kindness, this wonder, is gone. Sucked dry by product placement and hyperactive obsession.

This essay should end with a final, definitive conclusion - a call to action, telling you to grab the remote and change the channel to PBS Kids’ Wild Kratts before grabbing a hammer and smashing the nearest ipad to a million pieces. But, of course, this essay will not end that way. Children’s content will continue to spiral further and further, melting more brains with every upload. And, soon enough, there will not be a PBS channel to change to. Under the Trump administration with specific orders from the president himself, PBS has lost $23 million dollars in funding, and will lose more (Mullin). This crucial service, one of the last defenses parents have against the wretched onslaught of jump-cuts, isolation, and several dogs with heavy machinery will, if president Trump succeeds, be lost. Smashing ipads is not the sort of activism needed to help this crisis - involvement in where and how we spend our tax dollars is. I cannot admonish you to turn on Wild Kratts for your neighborhood 7 year old, if the channel has been defunded. We, as citizens, must get involved and ensure quality, developmentally appropriate programming remains accessible to all children - and even for burned out ipad parents. We cannot all create content, but we can all become activists to ensure quality content creators have a stage and finding on which to create. Because, of course, our children will not be saved by Mr. Beast, they’ll be saved by viewers like you.

Thank you.

[amaltas-jewels]

Lab-Grown Engagement Rings Go Viral: TikTok’s Favorite Designs for Modern Couples

The Ring Is Just the Beginning

Let’s be real: in 2025, engagements aren’t just about rings—they’re about stories. And where are those stories being told? TikTok. Instagram. Pinterest boards filled with dreamy aesthetics and behind-the-scenes moments. The ring? It's still the centerpiece, sure—but it's also a character in a larger love story that needs to feel authentic, fresh, and yes, very you.

So it’s no surprise that lab-grown diamond engagement rings—once whispered about as the “cheaper alternative”—are now proudly flashing their brilliance on millions of fingertips... and on millions of phone screens.

But what’s really driving this shift? Let’s break it down, without the fluff.

Not Your Grandma’s Diamond (And That’s a Good Thing)

Here’s the thing: lab-grown diamonds aren’t knockoffs or synthetic fakes. They’re real diamonds. Like, chemically and optically identical to mined ones. Grown in high-tech labs using extreme pressure and heat (or a bit of plasma magic), they’ve got all the sparkle—minus the social and environmental baggage.

Honestly, the only difference? One took a billion years and a shovel. The other? Science and smarts.

And Gen Z is here for it.

This is a generation that asks, “Where did this come from?” before adding anything to their cart. When it comes to buying lab-grown diamonds, the appeal isn’t just about the lower price point (though, let’s be real, that doesn’t hurt). It’s about transparency, traceability, and... TikTok trends. Which brings us to the fun part.

TikTok Trends That Are Changing the Ring Game

You know that moment when someone opens a ring box on screen, the camera pans in slo-mo, and a perfect, glowy gem catches the sunlight just right? That’s not a mined diamond anymore.

From proposal reveals to wedding hacks, TikTok has become the ultimate ring inspo rabbit hole. And lab diamond rings? They're showing up in every flavor—minimalist, maximalist, vintage, avant-garde, you name it.

Here are some styles that are getting all the likes and “where did you get that?” DMs:

💍 1. Oval Solitaires with Skinny Bands

Simple, sleek, and endlessly scroll-worthy. Oval cuts elongate the finger, catch light like crazy, and pair perfectly with that ‘clean girl’ aesthetic.

💍 2. East-West Settings

Instead of the diamond sitting upright, it’s flipped sideways. Subtle? Yes. But that twist makes it feel edgy and custom without screaming for attention.

💍 3. Toi et Moi (You and Me) Rings

Two stones—often mismatched cuts—nestled side by side. It’s romantic, artsy, and full of symbolism. You know, just like your relationship.

💍 4. Hidden Halos

From the top, it’s classic. But tilt your hand? Surprise! A halo of tiny diamonds circles the base of the center stone. It’s like lingerie for your ring—nobody sees it but you, and that’s kinda the point.

💍 5. Lab-Grown Fancy Colors

Champagne, soft pink, icy blue—TikTok is loving nontraditional hues. They’re rare, but lab-grown tech makes them (relatively) affordable. And totally unique.

The Real Flex? Saying You Bought It Ethically

We’ve all seen the memes about Millennials “killing” industries and Gen Z “reviving” them with ethics and creativity. Diamonds are the latest to get the reboot.

Let’s be honest: traditional mining has a... complicated past. Labor issues, environmental destruction, murky supply chains. It’s not exactly the fairy tale most couples want to start their marriage with.

Lab-grown diamonds turn that narrative on its head. They’re traceable. They use less water and energy. Some companies even run on 100% renewable energy. So when you buy lab grown diamonds online, you’re not just getting a ring—you’re making a low-impact promise.

And in a world where people care as much about how something is made as what it looks like, that matters.

Let’s Talk Numbers (Because Love Has a Budget)

Alright, back to reality: most couples are dealing with rising costs everywhere—from rent to wedding venues. Shelling out ₹5–10 lakhs for a rock just... doesn’t make sense anymore.

Lab-grown diamond rings offer serious sparkle for 30–60% less than mined ones. That’s not a small thing. It means you can go bigger on the cut, custom design your setting, or—wild idea—put that money toward a honeymoon in Iceland, not interest payments.

And with brands like Carat & Kin offering fully certified stones (IGI, SGL, the whole shebang), you don’t have to worry about quality. You’re just skipping the middlemen and markup.

A Tangent on Online Shopping (Because We’ve All Been There)

Now, buying lab grown diamonds online used to feel risky. Like, “Will I get a plastic crystal in a velvet box?” risky. But the landscape has changed.

Today, online-first jewelry brands are leading the way in transparency and trust. Real-time customer support, 3D renders, lifetime warranties, even AR filters to try rings on from your phone—this isn’t your average e-comm checkout.

Plus, let’s face it: no mall jewelry store is gonna let you scroll, zoom, compare cuts, and Google “is radiant better than emerald” for 3 hours. Online? Go wild.

Wait—But Will It Last?

Short answer: yes.

Lab-grown diamonds are just as durable as mined ones. They’re rated 10 on the Mohs hardness scale, meaning they’ll handle years of dishwashing, gym sessions, and gesturing dramatically over brunch.

The only thing that won’t last? The stigma.

Even celebrities—Emma Watson, Meghan Markle, Zendaya—have been spotted with lab-grown bling. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a culture shift.

What’s the Catch?

Honestly, not many. If you’re planning to resell your ring someday (not romantic, but practical), resale values for lab-grown diamonds can be lower than mined ones. But here’s the twist: so are mined diamond resales. The minute you leave the store, that “investment” depreciates—lab-grown or not.

So maybe the real value is in buying something that actually reflects your values. Not your grandmother’s expectations. Not a jeweler’s upsell.

How to Buy Lab Grown Diamonds Without Losing Your Mind

Let me save you a few hours of clicking around:

Stick with certified sellers: Look for IGI or SGL certifications.

Get clarity on clarity: VS1 or better is a sweet spot—eye-clean without inflating the price.

Size isn't everything: A well-cut 1.2 ct will outshine a dull 2 ct any day.

Don’t sleep on custom: Many brands (ahem, Carat & Kin) offer bespoke rings at no extra charge.

Read the vibe: You’re not just buying a ring—you’re trusting a brand. Look for honest storytelling, strong reviews, and people who actually care about your experience.

Final Thought: It’s About More Than the Ring

At the end of the day—wait, scratch that. In this moment we’re living in, modern love is about conscious choices. Lab-grown diamond engagement rings aren’t just a trend on TikTok; they’re a cultural moment. A shift in what we value, how we buy, and what we celebrate.

Because sure, the sparkle matters. But the story behind it? That’s what people remember.

And if your forever starts with a stone grown with intention, wrapped in meaning, and captured in a 15-second reel with a vibey Lana Del Rey track playing in the background—well, we’d call that pretty perfect.Looking for the perfect lab diamond ring?Shop ethically. Buy smart. Sparkle hard. → Buy Lab Grown Diamonds Online with Carat & Kin

[amansalve]

HRTech Interview with Michael Ohata, Lead-Author of the book “The Talented Fueled Enterprise”

Hello Michael. We are delighted to have you at HrTech Cube. Can you please tell us about your professional journey of 26 years and how it led you to write a book? Stepping out of, back and away from an organization is a freeing process. In part, my inspiration is the employees and partners on whom we focused our learning and development efforts. On the one hand, the corporate environment appears somewhat homogenous in what we are trying to build into people, but what the generations of people in the workforce show us is that there is a diversity of what is meaningful for them AND what they want to get out of working

The book reflects a sense of this pent-up vision and desire of what could be the outcome with people – but as HR, learning and talent leaders, we operate at any given point in time in the system that holds us in place.

The other big inspiration is palpable in Millennials and even more so in Gen Z. Our work environments are headed toward a tipping point – not in the sense of a huge phase shift, but whether an organization decides to hold a narrow straight line, hacking out at the same people and talent questions, or really restart their people system in a way that understands and utilizes all employee potential.

When it comes to workforce solutions and emphasizing continuous learning and transparency, you have a very holistic approach. How did you implement these values into actionable strategies? We are sidestepping initially here because what holistically means for one organization may mean something different for another. Organizations in regulated industries will have compliance-based learning and orientation, which are different sensibilities and sets of practices. Sometimes, the notion of holistic carries a sensibility that our efforts have to be complete and comprehensive. Our thinking and models of development should strive to achieve a holistic response. Our implementation of that strategy needs to match the organization’s operational structure. Execution will always take into account how change management works within the enterprise and how much transformation the workforce can absorb. That said, we can still challenge our organizations. This isn’t about asserting that we have aspirations; it is very much about targeting significant outcomes that have impacts on both the business and our people.

There are a few strategies I’ve implemented: role-based learning paths that include options for employees to select training, comprehensive leadership development roadmap and learning paths that have multiple entry points (to better support personalization,  having employees decide what is most relevant to their learning needs – or having been discussed collaboratively with their manager), defined enterprise skills strategies across organization and by major business segment, with drill-down for specific unit needs.

The other unique opportunity I had was re-imagining and re-shaping both onboarding and milestone programs across the organization. These were grounded in culture, community and a sense of belonging because that is the context for learning. If we execute a program without these, then what we deplore is simply training.

Advocate some practices that can assist any organization to build resilience and agility in their workforce.

Following the ideas above, practices that work must also fit your organization’s values, culture and operating structure. For example, I advocate workplace mobility, allowing employees to learn new and expansive skills, try out different roles, or work on projects outside of their typical day job. Many leaders talk about mobility, but when we push in a little deeper, we realize that we often value executing against core business outcomes versus developing people. The decision is not an either-or; we can do both.  That means that we value personal growth and professional development, which absolutely builds agility and resilience in the workforce.

Sometimes, we struggle with mobility because in the operating structure, we don’t have the permission structure to support this. We hold onto resources, and that points to our blind spot. We see employees as resources instead of people who want to grow. Instead of expanding skill sets, we hold people in place,  taxing their resilience and burning them out. We need to recharge them through a variety of meaningful experiences that are relevant to their learning objectives. And realize this is still all in the context of getting to the broader enterprise’s business outcomes.

Another practice I fully support is coaching that scales across the organization. Typically, organizations apply executive or leadership coaching to senior roles, supporting them with the transformation needed to lead the organization, and there is a significant need to start this journey at the manager or senior manager level, developing leadership so they can better lead in their current positions as well as future roles.

What are the critical components that are important for new employees to feel valued from day one? The critical components for new employees to feel valued and, more importantly, seen from their first days include an inclusive onboarding experience, a consistent culture, and a clear approach to workforce education. Most organizations start with benefits – compensation, medical insurance, savings plans, contributions from employers, and so forth. These are excellent, and they address basic subsistence needs: How do I live? Can I afford appropriate housing? Do I have healthcare? When we go beyond those, which we all do, employees feel valued. We want to believe that the box of swag and corporate-branded Yeti or Hydro Flask water bottle conveys value; it conveys material privilege and is undoubtedly symbolic of wanting folks to feel special.

The onboarding experience, especially if we can wrap that into a developmental program or orientation, conveys the context of the workplace: culture, community and sense of belonging. That’s when new employees get a sense if we fully see them, and by that, we will value them. Onboarding programs provide that critical opportunity, one of many, to show how we live in the organization and our culture.

Consistency in culture is a bit tougher but worth calling out. In contemporary corporate environments, we tend to declare culture and call out what we stand for, our values, and who we want to be known for. Culture is lived and experienced, and all of our efforts have to be around identifying and nurturing the good stuff and rooting out those bad behaviors, actions, and processes that create dissonance, for example, toxic leadership. We vow to address it;  somehow, it always takes a long time to rid ourselves of it while we agonize and rationalize. All the while, employees see what’s going on.

Lastly, the value employees will experience will come through an approach to workforce education, the balance of both professional development and personal growth, that we have a commitment to growth, not only of the business but also with the people who fuel the enterprise.

How would you guide an organization to design talent programs that are not only skill centric but also inclusive? Talent programs should focus on skills and also attributes, those core human characteristics that help the workforce to apply learned skills in new situations. Characteristics also help to make employees adaptable and resilient and support their portability. Developmental programs achieve inclusiveness when they support all employees. If we make only differentiated investments with the workforce, for example, focusing only on high-potentials, we exclude a lot of amazing talent who may not have had access or considerations of equitable support in enabling high performance across the organization. Most leaders tighten their shoulder blades when hearing this, feeling this isn’t scalable or feasible. The first step comes with a decision on how we look at the workforce and a deeper understanding of how development works.

A lot of the time, talent programs work with high-potential or high-performance individuals perceived as having high potential. The golden aura surrounds them, but leadership programs for these cohorts sometimes focus on baselining role expectations or, in the worst case, remediating a leader’s deficiency through coaching. With respect to inclusiveness, leadership programs for select cohorts provide access to networking and visibility with leadership that others do not have access to. In this sense, the golden aura perpetuates a kind of self-fulfilling development of a few over the broader talent of the organization.

I understand that some investments should be made. And we definitely need to make more investments in developing talent across the organization. If for nothing else, this will strengthen the organization’s capabilities, leading to better performance.

When it comes to aligning talent strategies with rapidly changing business goals, what challenges do organizations face, and how can they overcome these challenges? A reality for any enterprise is disruption, especially that experienced through technological changes such as automation and AI. Another predictable part of the business environment is ever-evolving business goals to address those changes; markets and customer requirements shift, such as the evolution of pure product to user experience and customer experience. Organizations can ready themselves if not fully overcome the challenge of changing business goals with two commitments. The first commitment is having a clear perspective and framework for how the organization develops adaptive leadership, defining a leadership approach and developing leaders who know how to work through transformation. When the business environment is not fully predictable, and we work through a business response for the first time, we need leaders who can guide and manage the organization through debate, unknowns, and challenging age-old assumptions and practices of how work gets done.

We also need to commit to a practice of workforce education that develops the adaptability and learnability required by all in the organization to manage disruption and change. We’ve been talking about technological disruption for decades, and there really should be no reason why agility in the workforce is not part of our talent strategy. This talent framework and approach draw upon developing attributes and stems from principles of inclusion and everyone is a leader.

What metrics are considered important to measure the effectiveness of their talent programs, especially in terms of employee engagement and retention? Organizations use employee engagement surveys to test their hypotheses on and measure how well talent initiatives address engagement. Metrics related to this, as it pertains to talent programs, have to do with questions regarding access to learning, having time to learn, and potentially if the team environment fosters development and learning. Because these surveys are expansive and many stakeholders have an interest in testing their own hypotheses, we might have a harder time drilling deeper to gain insight. The retention questions, such as “I think about looking for another job,” are done in isolation, so the correlation, let alone causality, is supposed. Potentially, we could ask questions about other specific tools or approaches to development, such as access to coaching, the strength of mentors and a mentoring mindset, or the vitality of a team environment that supports coaching for performance and development.

In your experience, what strategic shifts are essential for companies looking to thrive in a talent-driven market, and how can they stay ahead of the competition? The most profound strategic shift will be in the hearts and worldview of the enterprise and its leadership that recognizes that by “talent-driven market,” we mean all talent, not such the hyped-up nervousness that fixates on shortages of specific skills and unicorn players that we compete for. The latter sentiment comes from a place of scarcity and has been in our thinking for some 23 years or more. The mindset may have made sense in the context of fixed or limited talent investments and an implicit underpinning of a financial model that forced a distribution curve to allocate fixed awards. What needs to shift is the notion of performance being driven only by individuals when all of our talent development research and theory recognize the role of the team as the key unit in the organization that drives performance as well as learning.

The strategic shift includes looking at the entire workforce and understanding the organizations’ AND individual’s capabilities. That skills live not in just a few but in teams, and that individuals will have varied skill sets. And that all employees need professional development and personal growth opportunities.

Can you tell us more about your book ‘The Talented Fueled Enterprise’? The Talent-Fueled Enterprise is a leader’s manual showing how we can fuel the enterprise with talent and build tomorrow’s workforce. Like a guidebook, it is informed by research and experience leading and navigating organizations as well as supporting clients. Discovering what we might have overlooked or forgotten is tangibly within our reach and command. The book is a work of speaking the truth out loud about the opportunities for the organization, for the workforce and the people who are the hearts and soul of the enterprise. The day job constrains us at times, tailoring what we could do to what we must get done given the business results we need tomorrow. There is a clear conviction that the talent-driven market is forcing us to rethink, reimagine and change our approach to talent across the entire enterprise.

What advice would you give to HR leaders that are striving to build a high-performance, inclusive work culture that also prioritizes employee growth? Potential is such a powerful word and one we believe is not always present in our organizations. This is ironic because we all set out to hire the best. Our workforce has vast potential if we commit to unlocking it and developing it. All leaders argue that they look at talent strategically. I’m challenging us to strategically participate in creating and raising talent. When we look at talent strategically, we often make thoughtful bets on senior leaders or high-potential employees, investing pragmatically and prudently. When we participate directly in developing talent throughout the enterprise, we have a well-placed wager on building tomorrow’s full workforce. Growing talent takes time, but it does not mean that we have to sacrifice speed or tamp down urgency. We know the tactics to get the skills we need immediately. We can hire it; we can immerse employees in rapid skilling or certification programs, and so forth. Skills in the near term may solve resource challenges, but they won’t solve talent resilience and durability.

Related News/ Articles Link:

[youthopy]

thoughts on ultraniche

A few months ago, I stumbled upon the term “ultra niche.” If I may indulge in a bit of self-referential foolishness (as one does, especially when one is an Aquarius stellium), I find that the word niche has, over the past decade, become strangely impersonal—almost as if it still lacks the extreme personalization it originally implied.

Digital content now gravitates towards references so hyper-specific that they feel as though someone has been secretly monitoring our most obscure habits and quirks. It has evolved into something tailored to our deepest, most unspoken thoughts—an experience similar to being targeted not just by an algorithm, but by a digital therapist with a fondness for intrusive accuracy. The material we truly engage with now is that which delivers microscopic levels of detail from sources so specialized they could easily be mistaken for the babbling of an obsessed expert.

The term “ultra niche” has been embraced by Gen Z to describe things so specific, so deeply personal, that they transcend conventional understanding—so much so that one’s own ultra-niche interests become a defining personality trait. At the same time, this fosters a paradox: while these interests feel exclusive and individualized, they somehow create small, like-minded communities where others interpret the same ideas through entirely different yet equally obsessive perspectives.

Initially coined in the world of perfumes—where fragrance storytelling has become more about evoking fragmented memories than simply smelling pleasantly (see Toskovat or Filippo Sorcinelli for reference)—the term has since exploded into mainstream discourse. And, in true Gen Z fashion, it has driven Millennials to the brink of insanity. (Let’s face it—Gen Z loves renaming things that already had perfectly good names.) But beyond linguistic stunts, the rise of “ultra niche” reflects a larger cultural shift: a demand for extreme personalization within the framework of shared experience. We crave content that makes us feel uniquely seen, yet we also long to exist within a community of people who understand that uniqueness in their own way.

As an initial exploration of this phenomenon, I launched a TikTok account, casually related to the ultra-niche, where I experiment with ultra-niche storytelling based on my own absurdly specific interests. The response from the Spanish-speaking community has been overwhelmingly positive—aside from the occasional irate Millennial and the ever-present internet critic eager to remind me that I am, in fact, “very bad at making content.” Nevertheless, my growing audience proves one thing: organic communities crave representation, individuality, and a space to dissect their hyper-personalized thoughts—essentially, a video-format Reddit.

Through oxymorons, paradoxes, irony, and self-aware egoism, I am sensing our collective need for both radical individuality and small-scale relatability.

We now belong to a generation that wants to be completely unique—while making sure they belong to a group of people who feel exactly the same way.

/lucy