There are certain topics that I find difficult to talk about, but I’ll still make the effort because they’re worth discussing. That’s why I’ll write something about abortion or religion every now and then. These are serious, emotionally charged issues. There’s merit to discussing them.
I’m sorry, but I’ve yet to see a single discussion about “cancel culture” that has ever been productive. Some say it’s a threat to free speech and western values. Some say it’s not really a thing. I say both are wrong and both aren’t helping by making sub-par arguments.
Conversely, a liberal will cheer when Lou Dobbs gets fired, but will make endless excuses for liberal celebrities who say objectively dumb shit. It always seems to boil down whether you’re politics align with whoever or whatever is canceled. It’s arbitrary, it’s petty, and it’s absurd. I really don’t have any other way to describe it.
Now, I could rant for hours about bullshit “cancel culture” arguments. However, I’d rather do something more productive with my time. I’d also prefer not to add to the whining. The only reason I’m bringing this up is because that’s all anyone has been doing since the story about Gina Carano broke.
If you’re not up to speed, consider yourself lucky. I won’t recount the details. The long and short of it is she got fired by Disney for some stupid tweets that mentioned the holocaust. Now, I won’t give my opinion on the contents of these tweets. Again, that’s not a productive use of my time or anyone’s time, for that matter.
However, I don’t want to bring this topic up just to rant about it. Instead, I’d like to use the ongoing whining about “cancel culture” to offer some perspective about what it is, what it isn’t, and why it matters. I could try to put it into words. Thankfully, people far smarter and more talented than me already have.
The following image that I found on Twitter sums it up nicely.
If that doesn’t get the point across, please see this helpful little image detailing the paradox of tolerance by Karl Popper.
In short, being tolerant is a good thing. Protecting free speech is a good thing. However, there are lines, limits, and context. Failing to understand them will only cause more outrage and whining. The world already has too much of that. Let’s not add to it.
In essence, I speculated that once people got used to teleworking, they would not be eager to go back, even after the pandemic had passed. That wasn’t exactly a bold speculation. You don’t have to be a world class psychic to surmise that people will come to enjoy working in their underwear, not having to commute, and enjoying the general flexibility that telework affords.
I’ve been stuck in enough traffic jams to appreciate that kind of flexibility. I know I’m not the only one who might become too fond of telework.
Well, that all-too-obvious insight is starting to take hold in many sectors. It’s not just related to typical office work in cubicles. Everyone from the United States Military to big tech companies to law firms are embracing this new normal for the workplace. Even though it’s more out of necessity than innovation or good will, it’s still happening and there may be no going back.
The pandemic has already forced a mentality shift among the workforce. According to research done by Pew, telework was mostly seen as an optional benefit reserved for an affluent few. That’s not surprising. That kind of flexibility just felt more like a luxury, one that someone had to earn by establishing trust and credibility from an organization.
Now, it’s not just a necessity. It’s unavoidable. The world we’re living in now just cannot accommodate the same professional environment we once knew. I’ve worked in many professional environments before. I can attest that some of them are not built with pandemics in mind.
At one point, I worked at a company in which my desk was crammed into a closet-sized space with three other people. If even one of us caught a cold, we’d all be sick by the end of the week. It was that bad.
I doubt that’s an isolated case. In some of the jobs I’ve had, I have been able to work from home, but it’s only as a last resort. The only times I actually had to do it involved an emergency that occurred on a Saturday morning and one instance where the office was being renovated. In both cases, I still got plenty of work done. I just did it in my underwear.
In that sense, I get why many organizations reserve telework as a luxury rather than a norm. There’s this underlying sentiment that people will abuse it. If they can work from home, they just won’t get as much done. They’ll be too tempted to just grab a bag of chips, lie down on the couch, and watch game shows.
While I don’t doubt there are people who do that, this pandemic has revealed that most people aren’t assholes on that level. In some cases, it’s increasing productivity. Apparently, when workers are comfortable and afforded flexibility, they can get more done. That shouldn’t be too surprising, but it’s still remarkable in its own way.
This has born itself out in subsequent studies and surveys. For some industries, telework is probably more productive in the grand scheme of things and that shouldn’t be surprising. Anyone who has ever had a lousy commute knows why. If a good chunk of your day is spent waking up, putting on itchy clothes, and spending hours in traffic, you’re not going to be in a very productive mood.
That won’t be the case for certain industries. If you’re a doctor, a police officer, a fire fighter, or a trucker, you just can’t telework. The nature of the work doesn’t allow it. That’s still going to be the case, at least until we have robots capable of doing those tasks, which we are working on. However, there’s also sizable chunk of work that could probably be done remotely.
I think the impacts of this emerging truth will extend far beyond the pandemic. I’ve already seen it with people I know. They enjoy teleworking. They don’t want to stop, even after the pandemic becomes a bleak footnote in history. Some are willing to still go into the office some of the time, but they would prefer to telework. I suspect that’s going to become the new normal.
Last year has proven that people can, for the most part, be responsible with the flexibility afforded by telework. As long as they’re getting the work done, who cares if they do it in their underwear while Netflix plays in the background? Considering how costly commutes can be and how expensive office space can be, it might just make more fiscal sense in the long run.
Like it or not, businesses and various organizations tend to err on the side of reducing operating costs. It may mean more employees waste time at home, but if the difference is made up by better productivity, then it’s a net gain overall.
That shift could have impacts that go far beyond business operations. If people have to commute less, then that makes living out beyond urban and suburban settings more feasible. Given how expensive it is to live in those areas, this could spread people out even more, which is an objectively good thing if you’re looking to prevent future pandemics.
It might even help those in depressed rural areas in need of human capital. I can easily imagine some people preferring the quiet, less crowded environment afforded by a rural setting. If they can live in that environment while still getting their work done via internet, assuming they have a reliable connection, then that’s another big benefit that goes beyond the business itself.
This is likely to be a trend. That’s not a fanciful prediction. We’re already seeing it happen. The pandemic just forced it to accelerate. There will likely be other impacts. It may very well change how cities, suburbs, and rural areas are planned from here on out.
I don’t claim to know the specifics, but we’ll likely see it continue in the coming years. I, for one, welcome this change. If I can reduce the amount of time spent in traffic and increase the amount of time I spend in my underwear, then my overall well-being improves considerably.
Hell, it’s been official for the past several years and 2020 only accelerated it. The battle to dominate digital media in all forms is raging on multiple fronts and while many have their favorites, none can say they’ve won.
It’s Netflix versus Hulu versus Amazon versus Disney versus CBS/Viacom versus YouTube versus whatever other media companies are fighting for every possible eyeball. The stakes are high for consumers and content creators alike. There are billions in profits to be made and plenty of epic, culture-defining content to be made. It’s going to get intense is what I’m saying.
I don’t think I need to remind everyone just how much the streaming market has changed in the past 10 years. Even if you’re still a teenager, chances are you still vaguely remember the days before Netflix and chill. Media back then was movies, TV, and Blu-Ray/DVD collections. I’m not saying it was ideal, but that’s what we had to work with.
Then, every company and their deep-pocketed subsidiaries tried to catch up.
It hasn’t always been smooth. Some people are still not over “The Office” leaving Netflix. Chances are there will be more upheavals like that as companies fight over who streams what and who has the streaming rights to a particular show or movie. That’s sure to get messy and I’m not smart enough to make sense of it.
However, as this war rages, I think there’s a relevant question worth asking. It’s a question that I’m sure both consumers like me and big media companies like Netflix and Disney ask as well. The answer could depend on how the war plays out.
How many streaming services can the average customer have?
Most people already pay for some form of streaming media. Most people subscribe to some form of pay TV, although that trend is in flux. The days of having all the entertainment you want with a simple cable subscription alongside Netflix is long gone and it’s not coming back.
Now, you have to be very selective and self-aware of what you want.
Do you want access to the library of shows from NBC or CBS?
Do you want access to the content from Warner Brothers, Universal, Dreamworks, Discovery, Cartoon Network, or 20th Century Fox?
You can have some, but you can’t have them all without paying way more than you ever would for cable. Even if you did, could you even watch all those streaming services enough to justify the cost? There are only so many hours in a day and there’s only so much attention we have to give. Even if we dedicated half our day to binging movies and TV, we couldn’t watch it all.
That’s the big limiting factor on streaming. It’s also the biggest obstacle any company faces with respect to their effort in the streaming wars. People can only watch so much and they only have so much they can reasonably spend on a streaming service. There comes a point where, even if the content is appealing, they just can’t justify the cost.
Personally, I have subscriptions to five streaming services. They are as follows:
Now, it’s worth noting that I got HBO Max through my cable subscription. I’ve subscribed to HBO for years so it’s not something I consciously sought out. With Amazon Prime, I primarily used it for the 2-day shipping instead of streaming media, but I’ve certainly found some quality shows on that platform.
I’m not sure I can justify another subscription beyond this. Once my subscriptions cannot be counted on one hand anymore, I think that’s too much. I just cannot watch enough content to warrant paying extra. I say that knowing companies like Paramount and NBC have just launched their own streaming services.
Even though both networks include shows that I love, I’ve no intention of buying their streaming service. If my cable company offers it for free, like it did with HBO, then that’s great. I’ll certainly watch it, but I’m not paying extra.
I feel like a lot of people are in that boat. If they don’t have a cable subscription, then they’re already trying to save money and paying more for a streaming package just defeats the purpose. If they do have cable, then they’re probably not willing to pay more for something they’re already paying too much for.
It’s a tougher situation and one that I’m sure will get tougher in the coming years. It’s not cheap to run a streaming service. The profit margins can be thin if you don’t have the content. There’s a good chance that some streaming services will either fail or get absorbed into another, like CBS All Access did.
Then, there are the pirates and no, I’m not talking about the ones with eye-patches.
Before Netflix streaming, pirating copyrighted content was already pretty rampant. Since the streaming wars began, there has been an uptick in pirated streaming content. That is also likely to intensify the more fragmented the streaming market becomes. If people are really that unwilling to pay a whole subscription to watch just a single show, they will resort to piracy. It’s still distressingly easy.
That’s why this question matters, both for us and the companies who provide our entertainment. I don’t claim to know how it’ll play out. By the time it settles, there might be another major upheaval in the media to supplant it. Whatever happens, I feel like I’ve reached the limit on the number of streaming subscriptions I have.
That’s just me, though. What about you?
How many streaming services do you have and are you willing to pay for another? Our collective answer could very well change the course of the streaming wars.
Younger generations clash with older generations. The older people are appalled at how the youth are conducting themselves. They see them doing things and behaving in ways that they never would’ve imagined in their youth. It’s not new. In fact, it’s been happening since ancient times in some form or another.
It’s especially pronounced when sex enters the equation. Older people don’t like thinking about their kids having sex and young people don’t like thinking about their grandparents having sex. We know it happens. There are over 7 billion humans on this planet. It happens a lot. It just makes us both very uncomfortable.
From discomfort comes assumptions and from assumptions come irrational fears. It’s not always overt, but it’s present in popular perceptions. Personally, I’ve never heard someone over the age of 60 claim that young people today are far more responsible in managing their sexual behavior. I doubt anyone in that age group could say that with a straight face.
However, that’s not what actual, verifiable data says. According to recent research in Psychological Science, young people today are more responsible than ever when it comes to making decisions about their sex lives.
We examined risky sexual choice under the lens of rational decision-making. Participants (N = 257) completed a novel sexual-choice task in which they selected from among hypothetical sexual partners varying in physical attractiveness and in the probability that one would contract a sexually transmitted infection (STI) from a one-time sexual encounter with them. We found that nearly all participants evaluated the sexual-choice alternatives in a coherent fashion consistent with utility-based theories of rational choice. In subsequent analyses, we classified participants’ responses according to whether their sexual preferences were based on maximizing attractiveness or minimizing the risk of STIs. Finally, we established an association between sexual choice in our task and reported real-world sexual risk-taking.
It doesn’t just stop with responsible choices, either. There has been a relatively consistent trend over the past 40 years. Sexual activity, as a whole, has been going down, so much so that it’s a demographic concern. That has corresponded with a decline in teen pregnancy, abortion, and unwanted pregnancy.
That’s not to say there aren’t irresponsible young people in this world. There certainly are. I’ve known quite a few. Most people have. It’s just not this big, decadent trend. Cable news and popular media love to paint young people as these strange, tradition-hating deviants who seek to destroy our most precious institutions. They are simply wrong.
They’re also trying to sell you a bullshit narrative to get ratings, but that’s another story.
Even in matters not exclusive to sex, older generations still try to find ways to criticize these crazy young people. It’s become more popular in recent years to call anyone under 30 a cohort of over-confident narcissists. Some go so far as to say there’s a narcissism epidemic.
‘Somebody high in self-esteem values individual achievement, but they also value their relationships and caring for others,’ she says. ‘Narcissists are missing that piece about valuing, caring and their relationships, so they tend to lack empathy, they have poor relationship skills. That’s one of the biggest differences, those communal and caring traits tend to be high in most people with self-esteem but not among those who are high in narcissism.’
Again, this is a flawed and incomplete narrative. It’s also incompatible with with the notion that young people are somehow more decadent sexually. Among the key traits of narcissism is promiscuity and it’s not just related to the sexual kind.
It’s hard to be narcissistic and responsible for the same reason it’s hard to be relaxed and enraged. The human psyche just doesn’t work like that. Society, as a whole, doesn’t work like that either. It can’t. If young people really were as decadent and narcissistic as old people thought, then our civilization never would’ve made it this far.
The reason I bring it up now is because this is one of those years when we should all re-assess our perspectives. The grim events of this past year have affected everybody, young and old. It’s affected our society, our emotions, and our sex lives. A lot will change as a result of this year. Generations afterwards will feel it.
As someone who will one day become old and cranky, I hope to maintain a healthy perspective regardless of what happens. I don’t doubt that when I get to a certain age, I’ll see young people behaving in ways that I find shocking. Some of those shocking ways might involve their sex lives. If I ever have kids, that’s going to concern me.
At the same time, I imagine that part of me will envy those young people for having the time, energy, and passions to behave in such ways. On some levels, I think many older people share those feelings. Their youth is a memory. The days of breaking traditions and upsetting their elders is long gone because they’re not elder. It’s just part of life.
We can’t avoid it, at least not yet. I don’t know what kind of state the world will be in by the time I turn 60. I just know I’ll have plenty to complain about. The fact that young people are bucking those complaints gives me hope that it’ll be better than any false perception.
At the start of every year, I make a brief list of New Years Resolutions that I hope to pursue in the coming months. I know it’s corny, but I believe there’s real value to it. Whether you accomplish them or not, setting goals and trying to improve yourself has real merit. I highly recommend that everyone try it. You don’t even have to call it a New Years Resolution.
In previous years, I’ve mentioned my resolutions. I’ve also talked about why many, including myself, often fail to achieve them. At the beginning of 2020, I went through the same process. I laid out some goals and some general plans I hoped to stick to. I didn’t expect to achieve everything, but I was genuinely hopeful.
It was bad. If ever there was a year in which you could be forgiven for overlooking your resolutions, it’s 2020. I think most reasonable people agree. We all need a mulligan on our resolutions from last year. We may even need one for the first part of this year, as the impact of 2020 has already extended into January.
For me, personally, the events of 2020 had a serious impact on the resolutions I laid out. The ones I thought would be simple, such as intensifying my gym workouts, proved to be very difficult when gyms were shut down for four months. While I tried to adapt, running more and doing body weight exercises, I still wouldn’t consider that resolution achieved.
My more ambitious resolutions were a lot harder to adapt. Every year, I make it a point to improve my social skills. That’s one of my major deficiencies and has been since high school. It has been a serious uphill battle over the years, learning to talk to people, make friends, and foster meaningful social connections. I’ve gotten much better since college, but I’m still below average.
Last year set me back again. Naturally, it’s pretty damn hard to work on your social skills when people are social distancing, working from home, or self-isolating due to concerns over illness. It turns out it’s just not easy to be sociable during a global pandemic. Go figure.
Now, that’s not to say I didn’t make an effort. I really did try to adapt. Learning how to use Zoom and getting family members to embrace video chatting really helped. I was able to both maintain and even strengthen the connections I had. When it came to making new ones, though, I was very limited.
As a result, my resolution to make a concerted effort to find girlfriend was effectively shunted. There was just no dating scene during a pandemic. It’s hard to embrace romance when so many people are afraid of kissing, hugging, shaking hands, or just going new places with someone. While online dating tried to adapt, I struggled to keep up.
If nothing else, last year made me realize how lucky other couples were to have that connection through the pandemic. You may be stuck at home, but you’re not alone and you have someone who can keep you grounded when you start to go stir crazy.
I needed that in 2020.
I needed that more than I care to admit.
Hopefully, that motivates me even more to put myself out there and find love later this year. I may ultimately have to wait until next year for things to be normal enough to embrace romantic pursuits, once more. I’m still willing to put in the effort in the meantime. If 2020 taught me anything, it’s that a crisis is much easier to endure when you have someone to endure it with.
Other resolutions, like traveling to certain places and taking an exotic vacation, had to be pushed back for purely pragmatic reasons. Missing out on those resolutions wasn’t too jarring. It’s just a matter of finding the time and making arrangements. That’s relatively easy to do once things settle. It’s the harder resolutions that might take longer.
I still want to make those resolutions for 2021. I also encourage others to do so, even if it just means carrying over every resolution they couldn’t achieve in 2020. That’s perfectly fine. I think most people would understand. Last year was a mess. We all deserve a pass.
At the same time, let’s not overlook the fact that a lost year is still a lost year. None of us are getting any younger. I’m getting to an age where I can’t afford to lose too many years, especially if I want to put myself out there, explore new places, and eventually find love.
So, regardless of how you feel about New Years Resolutions and the scars of 2020, I think it’s wise we all pursue our goals in 2021 with greater urgency. We don’t have to completely make up for all the time we lost in 2021. We should just remember how quickly plans can get derailed by forces beyond our control.
We can face some very tough setbacks over the course of our lives, but we should never stop pursuing meaningful goals.
Every now and then, a story comes along that is just so absurd, so outrageous, and so appropriately hilarious that you can’t help but feel glad to be alive. The only thing that makes it better is when the story involves powerful people being exposed as hypocrites in the most embarrassing way possible.
Even in a year as bad as 2020, those stories are still uniquely enjoyable. I would argue we need them now more than ever.
That’s exactly why I have to thank Jozsef Szajer, a Hungarian politician you’ve never heard of, but will never forget after this story. Recently, he just raised the bar for hilarity, hypocrisy, and sheer absurdity.
You don’t need to know much about Mr. Szajer’s politics. You just need to know he’s vehemently anti-LGBTQ and has campaigned against it for years. Usually, when someone is that vocal about LGBTQ issues, that raises some red flags. Just ask Ted Haggard.
Well, after this, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Szajer has risen the bar. Rather than simply paraphrase the sordid details, I’ll let the headline from the Irish Post do the talking.
There was a time in my life when I was convinced that aliens were real, UFOs were alien space crafts, and the government was keeping it a secret. It was a strange time, indeed. It coincided with a phase where I watched every documentary involving UFOs, aliens, and conspiracy theories I could get my hands on.
Like Fox Maulder, I wanted to believe. In hindsight, I was too eager to believe.
I’ve since refined my perspective. I still believe there’s other intelligent life in the universe. I just don’t believe they’ve come to this planet and are hiding while the government keeps them secret, “Men In Black” style. That’s just a fanciful conspiracy theory that makes for great movies and TV shows, but not much else.
It’s not the part about intelligent aliens I find unbelievable. It’s peoples’ ability to keep a secret that big that I find so implausible. I don’t care how big a conspiracy theory you are. People can’t keep secrets, especially big ones. There are legitimate psychological reasons for that.
That’s just one of the reasons why I don’t believe the Haim Eshed, the former Israeli Space security chief, when he says aliens exist and humanity has been in contact with them. In a year like 2020, it would almost be fitting that aliens entered the picture. However, this is one story that warrants more than a little skepticism.
In case you missed it, this is what was reported by the Jerusalem Post. Now, it’s no disreputable tabloid, but it’s not exactly the BBC.
According to retired Israeli general and current professor Haim Eshed, the answer is yes, but this has been kept a secret because “humanity isn’t ready.”
Speaking in an interview to Yediot Aharonot, Eshed – who served as the head of Israel’s space security program for nearly 30 years and is a three-time recipient of the Israel Security Award – explained that Israel and the US have both been dealing with aliens for years.
And this by no means refers to immigrants, with Eshed clarifying the existence of a “Galactic Federation.”
The 87-year-old former space security chief gave further descriptions about exactly what sort of agreements have been made between the aliens and the US, which ostensibly have been made because they wish to research and understand “the fabric of the universe.” This cooperation includes a secret underground base on Mars, where there are American and alien representatives.
These are some remarkable claims, to say the least. It is impossible to overstate the implications here. We’re not talking about some scandal involving a politician and an intern. We’re talking about the biggest scientific discovery in the history of humanity.
The discovery that we’re not alone in the universe and there are other alien beings out there would be profound, to say the least. Even in a year like 2020 when we have so many problems to deal with on this planet, such a discovery would have an enormous impact on how we see ourselves and the universe.
That’s exactly why it’s laughable to think that anyone, let alone a vast government conspiracy, could keep such a discovery under wraps. People can keep small secrets to a point, but not secrets this big. That’s not just my opinion. There’s some actual math behind it.
According to Oxford physicist, David Robert Grimes, the large number of people involved in a conspiracy essentially guarantees that it won’t stay secret. It takes thousands of people not saying anything to sustain itself, but it only takes one Edward Snowden to expose it.
For something like intelligent aliens, it would be even harder to suppress. Even if they’re advanced and intelligent, they would leave traces, especially if they were nearby. That would be difficult to hide and even harder to keep quiet on a global scale.
This is a world that can’t even agree on the metric system. How could we, with all our different agendas and politics, all agree to keep a secret this big?
I won’t say it’s completely impossible. I don’t like being that absolute in my statements. I’ll just say it’s exceedingly improbable. I’d put it right up there with the sun being made of radioactive cheese.
However, if that’s still not convincing enough, there’s one other reason why I don’t by Mr. Eshed’s statement. It also has nothing to do with my position on government conspiracies and why people can’t keep secrets.
The man is trying to sell something. Specifically, he’s trying to sell a book. In the same article in which he makes his bold claim, there’s this little tidbit that the headline doesn’t mention.
Eshed provided more information in his newest book, The Universe Beyond the Horizon – conversations with Professor Haim Eshed, along with other details such as how aliens have prevented nuclear apocalypses and “when we can jump in and visit the Men in Black.” The book is available now for NIS 98.
For me, that’s the reddest of red flags. The man is selling a book and this bold claim is basically a sales pitch. He’s making this ground-breaking revelation that could potentially change the world. Then, he directs people to buy his book to learn more.
Anyone who has ever dealt with public relations or sales people should immediately realize what’s going on. The rule of thumb is that if it looks like a sales gimmick, chances are that’s exactly what it is. This certainly matches that critera.
Even Fox Maulder would be skeptical at this point. Honestly, what’s more likely?
Could it be that a retired space security chief is finally breaking his silence and revealing to the world that thousands of people have been keeping this secret about aliens for decades?
Or could it just be a man making a bold, but false claim that he hopes will help him sell more books?
I know the Fox Maulder in us all wants to believe, but sometimes Occam’s Razor just cuts too deep. I still believe aliens are out there and I hope they visit us one day. I just don’t think they’ve arrived yet. Chances are, when they do arrive, we’ll know and no conspiracy will be necessary.
Call them any vulgar insult you want. It’s perfectly warranted, but it doesn’t change what they do. The liars, cheaters, and hypocrites of this world will keep doing it. They’ll keep lying to your face, cheating you out of money, and breaking promises or precedents without a second thought.
I know it’s a depressing thought. It has become a lot more in our collective faces in recent years, given how political rhetoric has become so heated. Both sides argue with one another. They each lie or cheat to varying degrees. They jump at the chance to call the other out on it, but nothing really changes.
They keep on lying and people who align with their politics buy into it, even when they know it’s a lie. It’s frustrating. I argue it’s gotten even more infuriating in recent years. It does, however, raise an important question.
Why do people who lie, cheat, and break promises keep getting away with it?
It’s a valid question. Nobody likes being lied to. Even kids know on some level how wrong it is. So, why does it keep happening and why does nobody seem to pay a price? Well, the very nature of those questions already answer that to some extent.
In short, people keep getting away with it because they never get punished, pay a price, or face any consequences for their dishonesty.
It’s not a very comforting answer, I know. It’s probably just as infuriating as being lied to. That doesn’t make it any less true.
Think about it. What price does someone really pay for lying? Sure, there’s the accompanying guilt that comes with it, but for some people, that’s not much of a price. You don’t have to be a psychopath incapable of guilt to lie. You just have to be capable of enduring the momentary discomfort that comes with it.
That’s not much of a price for certain people, especially when there’s money to be made and power to be gained. Granted, certain liars and hypocrites will lose credibility with certain people. Lie too much to one person and they won’t trust you, let alone be inclined to do you any favors.
On a larger scale, though, that’s less of an issue. Add mass media and the internet to the mix and it’s basically an afterthought. Right now, anyone can tweet or post some completely dishonest information to any number of major sites.
They could claim a certain politician beat up a child.
They could claim that a certain celebrity sexually assaulted someone.
They could claim that the theory of evolution is a plot by the Illuminati to keep people from finding out about the shape-shifting lizard people that secretly run our government.
Some of these lies may incur lawsuits or blocks, but again, is that really much of a price? Some people can afford frivolous lawsuits. Many don’t care if certain people block them. Even when major websites try to clamp down on it, that only seems to fuel the liars.
That’s another critical element as to why it keeps happening. Not only do liars, cheats, and hypocrites pay little to no price for their dishonesty. In some cases, they’re rewarded. In some cases, the reward is huge.
We may hate hypocrites and liars, but so long as they have something to gain and little to lose, not much will stop them. If they have no sense of guilt or shame, as many politicians and CEOs often do, they have every incentive to do what they do. There’s just too much money and power to be gained.
On top of that, there are some people who want to believe in their lies. Everyone has their own reason for doing so. It often boils down to the lies being more appealing than the truth or reinforcing some position they already have. Whatever their reason, they keep give even more incentives to those willing to exploit that inclination.
I say this not to be dire, although I don’t deny the election last month is a motivating factor. I offer this as a means of adding perspective to those frustrated by the dishonesty and hypocrisy that seems so prevalent, no matter where you look.
There’s a reason it’s there and is a painfully valid reason. As long as the liars, cheaters, and hypocrites we despise keep gaining so much and losing so little, they will continue with their deplorable behavior. They have no reason not to. It’s just the nature of our flawed world.
We can only do so much to make it less flawed. One way you can help is to keep voting, even if it’s just for the least dishonest candidate. It’s not a perfect fix, but it’s a start.
Election Day has come and gone. I won’t get into the drama leading up to it or the drama that’s still unfolding, as I write this. I just want to take a step back, catch my breath, and offer some perspective to those who will hear it.
I agree this was rough. I think most others will agree with me when I say this was the most chaotic, divisive, and downright stressful election in recent memory. I’ve spoken to relatives who voted for Kennedy in 1960. They agree that this year was, by far, the worst in terms of stakes, rhetoric, and tone.
That’s saying a lot, by the way.
However you feel about the candidates or who you voted for, I genuinely hope this election has been revealing, to a certain extent. It’s tempting to be cynical about it. I certainly wouldn’t blame anyone for feeling that way. At the same time, we should also take stock as to why this election was so harrowing, for lack of a better word.
The world is such a messed-up place right now. We’ve got wars, economic collapse, and a once-in-a-century pandemic has that killed over a million people in the span of nine months. Things are bad right now, more so than they’ve been at any point in my lifetime.
Most don’t question that, unless they’re rich and well-connected.
What I do question, however, is why people trust or even expect politicians to help solve these problems.
That’s a notion that, in my opinion, fuels stressful elections like this. An election is supposed to be a job interview for a position for a public-serving official. It’s not supposed to be some expensive spectacle in which we all get behind the candidate who says the right things to just enough people in a handful of swing states.
That’s not democracy.
That’s a bad reality TV show.
Now, it’s tempting to just blame the politicians and that’s understandable. Politicians are easy targets for mockery and they’ve no one to blame but themselves for that. We should criticize them. They are, after all, in positions of power and public trust. They should be held to a higher standard.
That standard, however, should not involve trusting them to fix everything that ails us, from the economy to who pays a fine for when a female nipple is shown during a halftime show. That’s not just asking too much of one person. It’s asinine.
It’s also self-defeating. Politicians make lots of promises and break plenty of them, but let’s not lay the blame entirely on their honesty or lack thereof. They’re only human. Even the most selfless, hard-working politician can only do so much to deliver on every promise. There just aren’t enough hours in the day or enough personnel to get it done.
That’s not even accounting for the times when politicians make objectively impossible promises. Certain policy pitches may sound like great slogans or taglines, but logistically speaking, they just cannot be done in the real world. It’s not that the sincerity isn’t there. There just isn’t enough people or resources.
Therein lies the source of the great cycle of toxic politics. It goes something like this.
Politician A makes a bold promise. People rally behind them. Politician A get elected.
Politician A cannot deliver on those promises. People turn against them.
Politician B comes along, offering new or better promises. People rally behind them. Politician B get elected.
Again, Politician B can’t deliver on all those promises. People turn against them.
Politician C comes along to make another set of promises and the cycle continues.
It goes beyond party affiliation, political systems, or shifts in power. It’s an unavoidable flaw in a democratic system. An election, by default, isn’t going to elect someone with the greatest governing skill. It can only elect someone with the skills to convince enough people that they can govern.
I won’t say it’s a terrible system. Compared to the alternatives, it’s probably the best we can manage right now in our current environment. However, it is not a system in which any politician, no matter how successful, can solve the problems we want them to solve. Even when the system is working at its best, it’s still limited.
That’s not to say politicians can’t be part of a solution. They definitely can be. A politician can be a facilitator of sorts, either by leadership or by policy. The specifics, though, are best left to people with the right drive, incentives, and know-how.
Whether it involves combating climate change, reducing poverty, or promoting public health, the bulk of the responsibility will still fall on the general public. We, as a people, have to collectively work on these issues together. That’s how any social species within a functional society adapts, grows, and prospers.
The role of government and politicians is always changing. The extent or details of that role depends heavily on the issue at hand. The Presidents we elect, as well as the various legislators and judges at all levels, will always have some impact on how we further our interests. The key is balancing that impact with actual, tangible efforts on our part.
The next four years are sure to be eventful. Hopefully, they’re eventful for all the right reasons. Whatever happens, use this past election as a teachable moment.
Politicians come and go.
Ambitious people will keep making bold promises and breaking them, either on purpose or through no fault of their own. At the end of the day, it all comes back to us. We have a part to play in making our world and our lives better. Let’s focus on doing ours before we trust anyone else to do it for us.
The following is a vide for my YouTube channel, Jack’s World. It once again explores “Megamind,” a movie I’ve highlighted in the past for it’s colorful subversion of the superhero genre. It felt like the time was right to discuss it on my channel. This time, I explore how “Megamind” gave us the first true Incel villain before the concept of an “incel” was a thing.
Like anything involving incels, it’s a distressing topic and bound to generate some less-than-comfortable feelings. I still welcome comments and discussion. Enjoy!