Why leftism attracts the sad and depressed — and keeps them that way



By now, the trope of the “sad leftist” has become so popular that it’s essentially a meme. Multiple studies show leftists are, on average, far less happy than conservatives. That aligns with the experience of many who observe self-professed leftists exhibiting more anxiety, gloom, and hostility than others.

It’s not difficult to understand why. If your main news sources tell you the president is a fascist, half of your countrymen are bigots, and the world is about to end due to climate change, you’re bound to feel — and vote — blue. Yet, even in Democratic administrations, leftists never seemed content.

People latch onto progressive narratives because they offer someone to blame. That brings short-term relief, but it quickly fades.

This suggests the root of their discontent isn’t merely political messaging but something deeper. Rather, the ideas implicit in leftism seem antithetical to a happy life and human flourishing — even if well-intended. Leftists push for diversity, equity, and inclusion in place of meritocracy, support a more powerful state to implement those ideals, advocate open borders to globalize them, and demand wealth redistribution to fund them. In the sanitized and euphemistic language they often prefer, leftists are about fairness, progress, and kindness.

Sad people lean left

Nate Silver recently weighed in on the happiness gap between conservatives and progressives. His take? People might have it backward. It’s not that leftism makes people sad but that sad people gravitate toward leftism: “People become liberals because they’re struggling or oppressed themselves and therefore favor change and a larger role for government.”

If this is true, it still doesn’t explain why leftism is correlated with sadness and why it offers no remedy. Conservatives, for their part, offer a diagnosis and a cure: Leftism is foolish and destructive — so stop being a leftist. That’s the gist of Ben Shapiro’s infamous line, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

While clever and catchy, this oversimplifies the problem. People who ascribe to liberal or leftist causes don’t merely do so because they prioritize feelings over facts. Yes, some are true believers, but most are reacting to powerful cultural pressures and personal struggles. These feed destructive habits that, in turn, make them more susceptible to leftist propaganda.

After all, the narratives that comprise leftist propaganda are easy to understand and adopt since they lay the blame of all society’s ills on someone else. People are poor because rich people exploit them; people of color are marginalized because white people are racists; queer people are depressed because straight people don’t accept them; third world countries are dysfunctional because Americans and Europeans meddled in their affairs too much or too little; and leftists are unpopular because Trump and other conservative populists are effective con men.

The media’s vicious cycle

These narratives not only offer paltry short-term solace — they breed resentment. Instead of directing their efforts to personal improvement, leftists are encouraged to push their anger outward — sometimes through direct violence (vandalism, looting, even political violence) and sometimes indirectly by cheering on those who perpetrate it. In this way, left-wing media weaponizes its audience.

Nevertheless, the principle motivation behind leftist propaganda is not necessarily weaponization. It’s monetization. Beyond adopting leftist narratives and positions, audiences need to continue consuming leftist media and become addicted to it.

RELATED: Breaking the ‘spell of woke possession’: Why America is choosing tradition

Karolina Grabowska/Pexels

As Georgetown professor and computer scientist Cal Newport explains in his book “Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World,” society has now entered the era of the “attention economy,” where media companies do everything in their power to hold people’s attention — for forever. In conjunction with tech companies, these outlets turn otherwise healthy people into helpless junkies enslaved to the apps on their smartphones.

Like any addiction, this one feeds a destructive cycle. People latch onto progressive narratives because they offer someone to blame. That brings short-term relief, but it quickly fades. The need for comfort drives them to consume even more leftist content, which distorts their view of the world and fuels resentment. Anxiety deepens. Misery spreads.

As their emotional state deteriorates, they seek comfort in even more content. Eventually, this behavior sabotages their ability to function. They become dependent on the very content that made them feel worse in the first place. Many even join the performance, filming themselves crying, ranting, and broadcasting their despair for clicks.

Meanwhile, the titans of the attention economy grow wealthier and more powerful. They refine their algorithms, suppress dissent, and tighten their grip. The last thing they want is for their users to wake up — to take Newport’s advice, unplug, and rediscover meaning in the real world. They might just find happiness. And stop drifting left.

Model a different life

This presents an opportunity for conservatives hoping to transform the culture. The answer isn’t just a matter of advocating time-tested ideas but of modeling the habits that reinforce these ideas. Rather than view leftists as incorrigible scoundrels and idiots who refuse to open their eyes, conservatives should see them as unfortunate people who have been seduced, reduced, and enslaved by powerful corporate and government interests.

This means that conservatives should do more than offer political arguments — we must pull them away from the vicious cycle through modeling a better life. Leftists (and many on the online right, for that matter) must be reminded that being perpetually online and endlessly scrolling is a recipe for sadness. In contrast, church, family, friends, and meaningful work are what empower people. They are what make us human — and happy.

Once the cycle is broken — and the leftist has regained some control over himself — the case for conservatism becomes much easier. If Nate Silver is right that sad people gravitate to the left, then it’s only logical to assume happy people should be attracted to the right. Conservatives should cherish those values and habits that make them, on average, happier and more fulfilled. It’s time to stop drinking leftist tears and help them out of their malaise.

Slop and spam, bots and scams: Can personalized algorithms fix the internet?



From the super-spam Google search results loaded with videos instead of web pages to the “paid for by” advertisements heavy in social media feeds these days, it’s hard not to notice the internet morphing into … well, some call it slop (others use another four-letter word). Whatever your taste, or lack thereof, AI is sure to play a major, transformative role. Offsetting the massive and justified concerns are several palliative possibilities for the preservation of our humanity online — one of them in consideration is the so-called individual or customized algorithm.

This is, in essence, a filter on the internet or in parts of it, such as particular websites, whereby you, an AI bot, or another entity (perhaps the operator of certain sites and apps) uses the overlay to curate your feed.

As an example, you’re scrolling the X.com timeline and decide you actually do value, say, the political takes of your ideological enemy but have no interest at all in connecting with or understanding various factions within your own presumed ideology. In terms relative to the “discourse,” it’s sort of a nuanced position. An algorithm tailored to enhance your predilections may be an option. Doesn’t exactly sound like the “town hall of the internet,” much less the “global public square,” but it might keep users engaged, and it might be useful for certain types of searches, engagements, and analysis.

Even as the Trump administration works day and night to unravel decades of graft, fraud, and frankly traitorous activity at society’s many levels, what exactly do we want and need out of the internet so we can thrive?

Continuing with the X.com hypothetical, perhaps the programmers under Elon could, and this is the thrust of the issue, decide to allow for the application of various user-determined control parameters onto your feed, such that it weeds out what you want to ignore and gathers more of what you have determined you value. Seems straightforward, right? Why not roll it out and offer it as a subscriber add-on? Even if it’s not entirely customized, it’s getting close.

There are cost barriers and security considerations. Aren’t there always such barriers, though? Programming, maintaining, and monitoring such tailored algorithms and similar individualization is heavy on the compute. Compute requires energy, which requires money. The relative homogeneity of websites allows for economic, efficient computation — but doesn’t it also work to homogenize us, our desires, and perspectives?

RELATED: Liberal comedian lashes out at Netflix over Dave Chappelle special: 'F*** you and your amoral algorithm cult!'

This seems to be the battleground we find on ourselves on now.

The other major obstacle from the point of view of the internet proprietor relates to the opportunity for scams that might arise if users are granted these tools of curation. The argument is that if individuals are granted or otherwise obtain (perhaps via AI) the technological tools to curate their own feeds more deeply than they do now, those same tools will open opportunities for scams of various sorts.

One such argument points to the use of AI-assisted algorithms deployed into a context like X.com with the objective of gathering intelligence, data, and so forth — to be leveraged later in some separate context? This happens already, as we all know, but evidently supercharging these efforts opens yet more vulnerability online. Or so the argument goes. So it’s hard to say with any certainty how effective or useful or desirable the option for individualized algorithms will be in the absolute aggregate. Does it matter? Well, at a spiritual level, maybe not. However, at immediate survival, social, and viably employable levels of concern, yes, the internet absolutely still matters a great deal. For most people, just walking away isn’t an option.

And so the question many people are asking, even as the Trump administration works day and night to unravel decades of graft, fraud, and frankly traitorous activity at society’s many levels, is what exactly do we want and need out of the internet so we can thrive? It’s going to be more than pure market logic. How can we wrangle this thing to serve everyday Americans, or even mankind, while we’re at it?

Let me offer two basic predictions. One, the internet will continue with the logic of homogenization, of monoculture, which appears to describe and define most of corporate culture, and as a result, the internet may likely stratify more than splinter. Individual algorithms will pass away as just another stab in the dark of cyberspace exploration. Two, the homogenization will nevertheless finally become unprofitable — at least to the point where, beyond pure market operations, some of the more enjoyable and human operations will open up. Perhaps individualized algorithms wind up functioning as an effective stopgap, a Band-Aid, until we can get bigger medicine — wisdom — involved.

Chicken-chucking, screaming teens just might save Hollywood



Upon its release earlier this month, “A Minecraft Movie” exploded onto the scene in more ways than one. On a positive note, the film has drawn large audiences to once-empty cinemas and is on track to earn more than $1 billion globally — a welcome vital sign for the American film industry after its decline during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unfortunately, “Minecraft” has also sparked literal explosions of chaos in theaters. Fans, overcome with excitement at scenes like a baby zombie riding a chicken or the introduction of Jack Black’s character, Steve, have reportedly screamed, hurled popcorn and toilet paper, and even tossed live chickens at the screen — leaving staff with colossal messes to clean up afterward.

For most Zoomers, passionate moments of shared interest and fun are virtually nonexistent.

According to my high school students who watched the movie and could explain this bizarre behavior, these outbursts came from people who actually liked the movie. Reading through the mediocre movie reviews, I assumed that fans were disappointed and consequently engaged in shameless hooliganism. Quite the opposite. They were expressing their excitement at the movie’s many references and Easter eggs to the beloved video game.

Reckless or simply fun?

Of course, causing a public ruckus raises concerns about today’s youths who react so strongly to an otherwise silly movie. Such outbursts suggest that the younger Zoomers have pent-up rage, lacking healthy outlets for their aggression. The recent TV series “Adolescence,” which controversially portrayed radicalized youth engaging in violent acts, may have struck closer to the truth than we’d like to admit.

Then again, there might be a good reason to see these rampant outbursts as a salutary development. Not only are young people going to movie theaters and thereby reviving a moribund entertainment industry, but they are also charging a previously stagnant environment with some much-needed energy. This isn’t the glassy-eyed, TikTok-scrolling crowd we’ve come to expect. These lively crowds of young people are sharing an intense moment with a piece of entertainment they all love — not Beatlemania, but “Minecraft mania.”

Dwindling social outlets

Older generations, which have their own experience with various social crazes that brought them and their peers together in effusive exuberance, may not understand just how special this is for young people today.

Previous generations enjoyed countless concerts, movies, video games, and even books that routinely brought together fan communities that frequently became rowdy and occasionally chaotic — and hardly any of it, even for Millennials, was coordinated through online social media.

As a Millennial myself who’s about to turn 40, I remember the insanity at the cinema when the original “Star Wars” trilogy was re-released in anticipation of the prequels. People gasped and cried when they saw a remastered Han Solo or Luke Skywalker. I can also recall driving by bookstores — before Amazon put most of them out of business — observing the long lines of “Harry Potter” devotees decked in their Hogwarts uniforms, eagerly anticipating the next book in the series. More recently, similar fan frenzies were seen with the latest Taylor Swift concert or “Avengers” movies.

At the time, I pitied these nerds who, for all appearances, lost their minds over something seemingly insubstantial. Now, I envy them and yearn for a return to this kind of enthusiasm.

These days, pop culture has become hyper-individualized and mediated through online streaming and social media platforms. Algorithms, not authenticity, inform everyone’s taste. Nothing about it is natural or real. For most Zoomers, passionate moments of shared interest and fun are virtually nonexistent.

Zoomers don’t realize that physically gathering with fellow fans is normal and that such events add up to more than the sum of their parts. They represent rare moments of authentic public celebration. Yes, they usually center around some shallow piece of pop-culture fluff, but they generate a collective spirit that only happens when fans are allowed to “nerd out” and let go with one another for a little while.

Welcome ‘Minecraft mania’

The “Minecraft” chicken jockey mania continues this tradition. One of my students told me that watching “Minecraft” in the theater was the most fun he’s ever had at the cinema. He conceded that the movie is mostly Hollywood slop, but the audience’s reactions made it worth the annoyingly high price of admission.

He and his peers should understand the value of sharing experiences with friends and fellow fans. Active participation beats passive consumption on the couch every time.

Let the next cultural craze bring the same energy and excitement — minus the chicken feathers.

If Zuckerberg Truly Regrets His 2020 Censorship, Facebook Should Stop Smothering Free Speech

It’s hard to believe a man who cannot fully admit that his actions did benefit Democrats over the democratic process, and who continues blocking truth-tellers on the very day he released his confession.

U.S. Government Funded ‘Human-AI Teaming’ Research Monitoring ‘Social Media Messages’ During Covid Lockdowns

Rapidly interpreting and responding to what people say online could provide a critical resource in disaster relief, but the feds could also use it to haunt you.

6 Takeaways From The Biden Admin’s Court Quest To Keep Censoring Americans Online

In this major case likely to hit the U.S. Supreme Court, the Biden administration is fighting to stop American citizens from sharing messages government officials don't like.

DOD Pays Media-Rating Scammers To Create Propaganda And Censorship Tech For U.S. Government

Our tax dollars are funding the development of media-monitoring products that can be deployed to censor ordinary Americans via Big Tech.

Should SCOTUS Dismiss The Consequential Section 230 Case, Gonzales v. Google?

In light of the stakes involved and strange litigation moves, the court should dismiss the consequential Section 230 case.