Subscribe now

In my Substack article The Silence We Choose, I examined the topic of ghosting: the clean, if brutal, disappearance of people. Someone is there, and then they are not. The silence is devastating, but at least it has the decency to be a complete sentence. You grieve. You process. Eventually, you move on.

Breadcrumbing is a different animal entirely. Breadcrumbing does not leave, it lingers. Someone who breadcrumbs sends a message at 11 p.m. on a Tuesday just to remind you she/he exists, then goes quiet for days or weeks. It is not silence. It is noise carefully calibrated to keep you locked in.

If ghosting is a door slamming shut, breadcrumbing is a door left perpetually ajar. A door never open enough to enter, never closed enough to walk away from. In that gap, people lose months. Sometimes years.

This is what makes breadcrumbing, in some ways, more harmful than ghosting. With ghosting, there is a one-time wound. With breadcrumbing, the wound is periodically reopened just often enough that it never fully heals, and just infrequently enough that you start to wonder if you are being too sensitive for even noticing.

What The Breadcrumber Is Really Doing

I want to resist the easy answer, which is that breadcrumbers are simply selfish. Some are. But the behavior is more psychologically nuanced than that, and understanding it is the first step toward either addressing it or leaving it behind.

At its core, breadcrumbing is a strategy of option preservation. The breadcrumber is unwilling to commit, not necessarily because they do not care about you, but because committing to you means closing a door on something else. That something else might be another person, a version of themselves they have not figured out yet, or the comfort of keeping all options open.

They are not stringing you along out of malice. They are stringing you along out of cowardice. Sometimes, they do not even know the difference.

There is also a validation dimension. Every time you like their message or return their intermittent warmth, they receive confirmation that they are desirable or wanted. You are not a priority. You are a mirror. Mirrors are useful precisely because they reflect without demanding anything in return.

Fear of confrontation plays a role too. Many breadcrumbers know, on some level, that they are not offering what the other person deserves. But ending things cleanly requires a difficult conversation. Difficult conversations carry the risk of conflict, guilt, and the loss of validation they have been quietly feeding on. A well-timed “hey, been thinking about you” is much easier than “I need to be honest about where I stand.”

Breadcrumbing often lives at the intersection of avoidant attachment, low emotional accountability, and the fear of missing out. The crumbs are not generosity. They are a hedge.

What The Breadcrumbed Person Is Really Accepting

Here is the harder conversation, the one that requires us to look inward rather than outward.

Breadcrumbing only works if someone keeps picking up the crumbs. The question I want to examine is: why do people let this happen? The answer is rarely simple, and it is never something to be ashamed of. However, I think the answer is something to think hard about.

Often, it begins with hope. The first disappearance is explained away. The intermittent contact is rationalized; they are busy, they have a complicated life. People are good at building full narratives out of partial evidence. Someone who sends occasional warmth gives us just enough material to work with. The mind, desperate for consistency, fills in the rest.

People do not accept breadcrumbs because they are weak. They accept them because somewhere, they decided that a little is better than nothing. That belief is the thing worth examining.

Beneath that hope, there is often an older wound. People who have been taught by early relationships or experience that they are not worth full attention. They have been told that love is earned through patience, or that needing more is asking too much.

Breadcrumbing fits a familiar template. It feels like love because it replicates the anxious hope of waiting for something that never quite arrives.

There is also the sunk cost effect. You have invested time, emotion, and optimism into this person. Accepting that the return on investment is breadcrumbs and not a relationship means acknowledging that the investment may have been misplaced. That is a loss no one is eager to sit with. So people keep going.

None of this is weakness. All of it is human. But the moment you can name the hope, wounds, and sunk cost is the moment breadcrumbing loses a little of its grip.

How Both Sides Break The Cycle

The elephant in the room is that breadcrumbing is a two-person dynamic. It continues because one person keeps leaving crumbs and another keeps following the trail. Both sides have work to do.

For the breadcrumber: The starting point is true honesty. Honesty not with the other person first, but with yourself. Ask the question you have been avoiding: Am I willing to show up for this person the way they deserve, or am I keeping them around because it benefits me? If the answer is the latter, the kindest thing you can do is say so. Not with a “let’s keep it casual” that you know they will interpret as hope.

Say it with a direct, clear, and respectful conversation. You will lose the validation. You will feel the discomfort of that conversation. However, you will stop being the kind of person who takes from others but is not willing to give back. That is worth something.

Confronting your own avoidance is not comfortable. But integrity is built in these moments when you choose honesty over convenience, even when no one is forcing you to.

For the person being breadcrumbed: The work is in retraining what you accept as enough. This begins with observation rather than confrontation. Track the pattern, not just the moments. Does this person show up consistently, or only when the silence becomes long enough to be noticed? Is this situation progressing, or cycling? Once you see the pattern clearly, you can name it first to yourself and to the other person.

Setting a standard does not mean issuing an ultimatum. I believe it means clearly stating what you need and allowing the other person’s response to tell you everything. “I have noticed we tend to connect in bursts and then go quiet for long stretches. I am looking for something more consistent. Where do you see this going?”

Their response, whether in words or in the silence that follows, is your answer.

Sometimes the work is simply in walking away. Not dramatically, but with clarity. The trail of crumbs does not lead anywhere. It is designed not to. You can put them down and choose a different direction.

The Slow Drip And What It Costs

Ghosting leaves a scar. Breadcrumbing leaves something subtler and, in some ways, more insidious: it leaves doubt. Doubt about your own perception, your own worth, your own judgment. You were never abandoned: you were kept. Just not enough. And it is much harder to grieve something that technically never ended.

What breadcrumbing ultimately costs both parties is the same thing: honesty. The breadcrumber avoids it. The breadcrumbed person keeps hoping it will arrive on its own. Neither gets what they actually want, because genuine connection cannot survive on a diet of sporadic texts and half-intentions.

Most of us have, at one point, been on both sides of this dynamic: leaving crumbs when we should have been upfront, or following a trail we knew, deep down, was leading nowhere.

The crumbs will always be there. The question is whether you keep following them.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

There is a particular kind of hope that only exists before the result comes in. It lives in the six hours you spend standing in a parking lot at 4 a.m. holding a number card, and waiting to sing in front of a stranger who might change your life. American Idol understands that hope better than any show in television history.

When American Idol premiered on Fox in June 2002, it was not expected to become a cultural institution. The show was a version of the British show Pop Idol and slotted into a summer schedule with modest ambitions. Within weeks, it had rewritten what prime-time television could be.

By Season 2, the show was drawing over 20 million viewers a week. By Season 5, the finale was watched by 36 million viewers. For context, that is roughly the population of California watching a twenty-year-old from a small town hit a high note and cry.

Why It Works

I think the genius of American Idol is that it does not just give you a winner. It gives you a journey: auditions, Hollywood Week, the live rounds, and the eliminations. Each stage is cleverly designed to build attachment. You watch people fail in spectacular fashion during auditions. Then you watch someone genuinely talented emerge from the auditions, and you feel something closer to awe.

The original judges completed the show in a way nobody has quite replicated since. Simon Cowell’s calculated cruelty gave the show its teeth. Paula Abdul’s warmth gave it its heart. Randy Jackson gave it the vernacular — “dawg,” “pitchy,” “in it to win it” — that hung around for a decade.

"The show does not sell you a star. It sells you the idea that the star could be you"

Then there is the voting. Tens of millions of text and phone votes per episode turn passive viewers into invested stakeholders. You have skin in the game. When your pick goes home, it feels personal. That participatory hook was novel in 2002. Now it is the template for almost everything.

The Empire It Built

It is nearly impossible to overstate how thoroughly American Idol reshaped the television landscape. The success it demonstrated was studied and replicated by every major network within a few years.

The Voice, America’s Got Talent, The X Factor, So You Think You Can Dance, and Dancing with the Stars all became hit shows because of American Idol. The influence extended beyond music and performance.

Top Chef, Project Runway, and The Apprentice replicated the contestant elimination format and the audience as judge dynamic. The DNA is everywhere. The next time you watch a cooking competition where a chef weeps over a poorly executed soufflé, you are watching American Idol‘s grandchild.

The alumni tell the story. Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jennifer Hudson, and Adam Lambert. They built sustained careers post-Idol. Clarkson became a daytime television host after a very successful singing career. Underwood is among the best-selling country artists alive. Hudson won an Oscar. Lambert became the lead singer for Queen. The show’s argument that real, lasting talent could be found this way had merit.

The Dream And The Math

Here is where it gets interesting, and where Idol becomes intriguing as a cultural object rather than just a successful one.

The audition lines that snake around convention centers in cities like Louisville and New Orleans are filled with people who genuinely believe. Not all of them are delusional. Many have real talent. Some have been told their whole lives that they were special, their voice was unique, and all they needed was a stage. American Idol hands them this stage and says: come prove it.

What it does not say loudly enough is what the numbers mean. This season a few hundred make it to the filmed rounds. A total of 127 contestants made it to Hollywood Week. Only 30 to the Ohana round. One winner.

The funnel is brutal in a way the broadcast never lingers on; lingering on it would break the spell. The audition failure montages are often played for laughs, not as a sober accounting of odds. The message underneath is always: but what if you are the one?

The question “but what if you are the one?” is one of the most powerful and most dangerous things a culture can ask of ordinary people.

What We Are Really Watching

However, I do not think the show is cynical in any way. I am not sure the people in those lines are foolish in any simple way either. There is value in the act of showing up and trying. I think it is courageous to stand in a parking lot at 4 a.m. not because the odds favor you, but because you could not live with yourself if you didn’t.

What American Idol offers those people is not a realistic path to fame. It offers them a story about themselves. A moment in which they are someone who has gone for it, and sang in front of the judges. They tried. That story has worth regardless of the outcome.

Pop culture does not exist separately from the values a society holds about itself. American Idol arrived at a particular American moment: post-9/11, pre-social media, and told a story the US was hungry to hear. The show weaved the narrative that talent rises. That ordinary people can become stars. That the system, if you’re good enough and brave enough, will recognize you.

We still watch American Idol because we want to believe that is true. Some part of us always will.

Now airing on ABC, American Idol is in its 24th season. The ratings are modest compared to the peak years, because nothing competes with a 2006 Idol in a world before streaming fragmented every audience into a hundred smaller ones. But the audition lines are still there. People still show up. They still hold their number cards. They still sing.

The dream, it turns out, is remarkably durable. It outlasts the math every time.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

There are songs you listen to, and then there are songs that take you back to a moment in time. For me, “You Give Good Love” by Whitney Houston is that song. The moment the song begins, I am twenty years old again.

Jill is sitting with me in the campus cafeteria at UBC, laughing at something I said. We dated in university, she was my first real girlfriend. Jill was warm and caring, and so good at making me feel like I was the most interesting person in the room.

“You Give Good Love” was the debut single from 23-year-old Whitney Houston, announcing herself to the world with a composure that many singers spend a career trying to find. But that is the thing about Whitney Houston: she was not working up to greatness. She arrived with it fully formed.

“You Give Good Love” was the debut single from 23-year-old Whitney Houston, announcing herself to the world with a composure that many singers spend a career trying to find

What Made Her Different

No doubt Whitney was The Voice for technical reasons attributed to vocal training from her mother Cissy and cousin Dionne Warwick. But it doesn’t fully explain what Whitney did to you when she sang.

The difference for me was her emotional precision. She did not just hit the notes; she knew exactly which emotional gear each note required, and she shifted accordingly.

Listen to the bridge on “I Will Always Love You”. Other singers who have attempted that song can hit the technical marks. What they cannot replicate is the specific quality of grief and grace that Whitney poured into it. The restraint before the explosion. The held breath before the release. You can learn the notes. You cannot learn that.

In my opinion Whitney Houston was also an extraordinarily intelligent interpreter of a lyric. Whitney did not just sing songs. She understood what a song was about on a level beneath the words. That is a rare gift and is what separates singers from artists.

The Gold Standard

When we evaluate the great female singers of the modern era, we measure them against Whitney Houston. Not consciously, maybe. But the question is always there, underneath the praise. Yes, but is she Whitney?

Mariah Carey has a range that is one of the most impressive in music history. Yet Mariah herself has acknowledged the debt owed to Whitney Houston.

Celine Dion has the kind of voice that fills arenas and sells out Vegas residencies and reduces grown adults to tears on command.

Adele resurrected love ballads for a generation that had largely given up on them, and did so with a rawness and emotional honesty that felt genuinely new.

Beyoncé has turned performance into something closer to a total sensory experience, redefining what a pop artist can be in the twenty-first century.

All of them are extraordinary.

None of them are Whitney.

That is not a slight; it is simply an acknowledgment of what she established. She set a ceiling so high that even the most gifted vocalists of the past thirty years have spent their careers in its shadow, and I have a feeling most of them would tell you so themselves.

The Privilege Of Watching Her At Her Peak

Watching Whitney Houston perform at her peak was a privilege that only reveals its full weight in retrospect.

The 1994 American Music Awards. The 1991 Super Bowl US national anthem is still, by wide consensus, the greatest rendition ever performed. She delivered the anthem with a joy and effortlessness that made the impossible look casual.

The Bodyguard soundtrack sold over 45 million copies. Those of us who were present for that — who heard “I Will Always Love You” for the first time on the radio and just stopped what we were doing — we carry that in us. It was that kind of voice.

There were moments watching her perform where you could feel the audience collectively processing the fact that they were witnessing something that would not come again. She left audiences suspended, speechless.

Bobby, And The Grief Of Watching Her Unravel

Sadly, there is the other story. The one that ran parallel to all of that brilliance, quietly at first, then catastrophically.

Whitney Houston married Bobby Brown in 1992. What followed was one of the most publicly documented and privately devastating declines in pop music history. There is a part of me that wants to assign all the blame to Bobby. He was certainly not a positive influence. However the truth is more complicated and heartbreaking.

Whitney had her own vulnerabilities and demons, and a complicated relationship with the pressure of superstardom. Bobby did not create this. He just arrived at exactly the wrong moment to make them much worse.

What I remember is watching her on television in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s and feeling a kind of dread. The interviews where something seemed off. The performances where the voice that had once been indestructible was showing cracks. The decline was not because it had aged naturally, but because it had been damaged.

There is a particular grief attached to watching someone squander a gift that was never really theirs alone. That voice belonged, in some larger sense, to all of us who had ever been moved by it. And we were watching it disappear in real time.

“There is a particular grief attached to watching someone squander a gift that was never really theirs alone. That voice belonged, in some larger sense, to all of us who had ever been moved by it.”

Whitney Houston died in February 2012, in a hotel bathtub in Beverly Hills, the night before the Grammy Awards. She was 48. The world stopped for a day, the way it only does for the genuinely irreplaceable.

I watched her funeral service at home. When Kevin Costner stepped up to deliver his eulogy, I cried in a way I had not cried in a long time. He spoke about her with such tenderness and such specific love, as her friend and her co-star. You could feel that he was one of the few people in that room who had known her in a way the outside world did not.

He talked about her insecurities and her humanity, the girl beneath the voice. That made it all so much worse, and so much more real. It reminded you that Whitney Houston was not a monument. She was a person. A person who had been loved, and lost, and was now gone far too soon.

I was not expecting to fall apart. But I did. I think a lot of us did.

What “You Give Good Love” Does To Me

I have not spoken to Jill in a very long time. After we broke up, we went our separate ways and lost touch. But I will always be reminded of her when I listen to “You Give Good Love” .

Every time I hear the song, I go back to the time I was 20. The cafeteria. The laugh. The walk after English class to the parking lot. The feeling that something special was happening. The feeling that someone actually cared for me.

The Voice. Whitney Houston.

A category of one.

If Whitney's voice ever stopped you in your tracks, you already know everything I am trying to say. That is the thing about great art; it does not need explaining. It just needs to be felt.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The serious relationships in my life have been with white women. I am Chinese- Canadian, born into one world and raised straddling two. I say this not as a confession, nor a boast, but simply as a fact that I have spent time thinking about. When you occupy this intersection, the personal becomes sociological as well.

People have opinions. Sometimes those opinions live in a sideways glance, or even a full on stare at a restaurant. They can arrive as a well-meaning question from a family member that lands like a small stone thrown into still water. And sometimes they live inside you, as a low hum of self-interrogation you cannot quite turn off.

Interracial relationships have never been more visible, yet they remain one of the more loaded topics a person can navigate. We have made enough social progress to celebrate them in principle, but not quite enough to stop commenting on them in practice. I want to provide my perspective on interracial relationships in a real and direct manner.

The Fetish Question Nobody Wants To Ask

There is a version of interracial attraction that is, to put it bluntly, about fetishes and projection. A set of fantasies borrowed from stereotypes and pop culture. It happens and is worth naming. Yellow fever. Jungle fever. “Once you go black, you never go back”. The vocabulary is ugly because the dynamic it describes is ugly.

Chinese people dating a white person can become acquainted with a quieter version of this discomfort: the occasional thought that you might be someone’s “type” for the wrong reasons. That your features, your background, your perceived cultural identity are doing more romantic work than you are. It is a strange thing to sit with; the notion you are being loved as a category and not as a unique and interesting person.

The reduction of a person to their ethnicity is real, it happens, and it is worth naming. But so is the much more common truth: that people fall in love with people.

However I believe fetishization, for all the attention it deserves, is not the whole story or even most of it. The more common truth is simply that people fall in love with people. We fall in love for so many reasons that have nothing to do with anybody's ethnicity. To treat every interracial relationship as a puzzle that must be decoded for hidden motives is its own kind of reductionism.

What Society Sees (Whether You Asked or Not)

In my experience, there is no such thing as a private interracial relationship. The moment you step outside, you are a statement. You are on stage. Your children are looked at differently. People categorize you and form opinions about what your relationship means.

In Canada, we pride ourselves on multiculturalism, and rightly so. The tolerance is largely genuine. Yet tolerance is a lower bar than acceptance, and acceptance a lower bar than indifference — the kind of blessed, unremarkable indifference that is the true mark of a society that has stopped keeping score. We are not fully there yet from my perspective.

Asian males in particular occupy a curious position in Western romantic culture. Pop culture has not historically been kind to us. For decades, the stereotype was either the math nerd or the martial arts expert. Rarely the romantic lead, rarely the one who gets the girl. These images seep into our culture. They shape expectations.

The Gifts, Because There Are Genuine Gifts

There is something extraordinary about building intimacy across genuine difference. It is the actual daily work of navigating two different relationships with food, language, celebration and grief.

Being with a white partner has taught me things about how they navigate issues that I could not have learned any other way. And I like to think I have offered something in return; a window into a perspective shaped by a very different set of circumstances.

There is a particular quality of attention that interracial love demands. You cannot take for granted that your frame of reference is shared. You have to ask, explain, and remain curious when it would be easier to assume.

That curiosity becomes a kind of intimacy. You see each other more clearly because you cannot lean on the comfort that comes from shared cultural backgrounds. In this way, the very thing that makes interracial relationships harder can also make them richer.

The Table You Both Have To Sit At

Then there is family! Family, in my experience, is where the abstract becomes very concrete very quickly.

Chinese families carry their own complicated relationship with the idea of marrying “within.” There is a generational weight to it. The sense is that to love outside the community is to drift from it, to risk the dilution of something precious and hard-won.

This is not always stated directly. It lives in questions about where she is from, in a particular pause before congratulations, in the slow warmth that takes years to fully arrive.

White families can carry a different but equally complicated set of assumptions. The progressive ones may have made their peace with it intellectually long before they had to make their peace with it at Christmas. The less progressive ones may say very little out loud, while communicating everything with body language.

What I have found is that families are usually better than their first instincts. Given time, most families arrive somewhere good. Not all. But most. Love, it turns out, is fairly persuasive.

The Person, Not The Parable

The moments that have mattered most in my relationships had nothing to do with race. They have been about whether someone made me feel seen, whether we laughed at the same things, or whether we shared tender feelings for each other. Love, in my experience, is not cultural. Love is human.

But to pretend race does not exist in the background is unrealistic. The backdrop is real. The context is real. We carry it into our relationships whether or not we name it.

The work, I think, is to understand and accept both of these truths at once. You can see it. You can acknowledge the weight of it. And you can choose, with eyes open, to walk toward each other anyway.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

There is an unwritten code in rap and hip-hop music. Not a rulebook anyone hands you. Instead, it is more like a shared understanding that kept the competitive fire of hip-hop from burning everything down. You could battle rap. You could diss. You could go hard.

The code said: leave children out of it, do not weaponize allegations you cannot prove, or turn a rap beef into a public prosecution. Talk your talk about someone’s music, or their personality. However in the end it is competition, not destruction.

The code was not perfect, but it was there.

The Kendrick Lamar and Drake feud broke the code, and then stood in the wreckage asking the crowd to cheer. The crowd delivered.

How We Got Here

The tension went back to 2013. Kendrick dropped a verse on Big Sean’s “Control” declaring he was gunning to “murder” every rapper on his list, Drake included. Drake waved it off publicly. Low heat. Mostly forgotten.

What lit the fuse in 2024 was Lamar rejecting the idea that he, Drake, and J. Cole were hip-hop’s “Big Three.” His message: it wasn’t a tie. It was just him. Drake responded with “Push Ups” which mocked Kendrick’s height and pop collaborations. Drake followed up with “Taylor Made Freestyle,” using an AI-generated voice of Tupac Shakur to taunt Kendrick for not firing back fast enough. Tupac’s estate issued a cease and desist.

That should have been a signal things were going downhill fast.

What followed was six weeks of rapid escalation. Kendrick released “Euphoria” (a six-minute character assault), “6:16 in LA” (alleging Drake’s inner circle was against him), “Meet the Grahams” (a letter addressed to Drake’s family), and “Not Like Us” (the song that ended the war).

Drake countered with “Family Matters” and “The Heart Part 6.” Seventeen tracks in total. People chose sides and watched two of the biggest names in rap try to destroy each other.

What The Code Was Actually Protecting

People romanticize rap beefs. They point to Biggie and Tupac, Jay-Z and Nas, Pusha T and Drake himself. These were jousts between men testing each other’s skill. And there is something genuinely compelling about a well-constructed diss track. The wordplay, the timing, the ability to land a line the whole culture feels at once; that is real craft.

The code wasn't about protecting feelings. It was about keeping the game a game and not becoming a demolition derby .

When you drag children into a public beef, they do not get a vote. When you make serious accusations in a song that racks up hundreds of millions of plays, you have made a courthouse of the internet. In that courthouse, there is no due process, no standard of proof. Just the court of public opinion, which has never been known for its fairness.

Drake’s Part In This

I am a Drake fan. But in the interest of trying to be as objective as possible, being a fan does not mean being blind.

Drake is one of the most gifted artists of his generation. I have enjoyed his music for years. But in “Family Matters,” he alleged that one of Kendrick’s children was fathered by his manager Dave Free, accused Kendrick of abusing his partner Whitney Alford, and mocked his height and activist credibility. He also used an AI-generated voice of Tupac Shakur in “Taylor Made Freestyle” to taunt Kendrick, a move so disrespectful that Tupac’s estate issued a formal cease and desist.

These were not competitive jabs. They were allegations about a man’s fidelity, his parenting, and his partner. You cannot un-hear these once they are in a song with hundreds of millions of streams.

Watching an artist lose publicly is one thing. Watching them fight in a way that embarrasses what you respect about them is something else. That is where I lost some respect for Drake. Not because he lost, but because of what he was willing to do.

Kendrick’s Part In This

Then there is Kendrick Lamar, the man the internet crowned the winner of the feud.

Lyrically, he landed harder. But the weapon that ended it was not just a diss track. It was a cultural event disguised as one.

Before “Not Like Us,” Kendrick released “Meet the Grahams”, addressed directly to Drake’s family members: his mother, his son Adonis, and an alleged secret daughter. He described Drake as a deadbeat and a predator.

“Not Like Us” dropped May 4, 2024, and it moved differently from everything that came before it. The song had a bounce to it. A chant. It was designed to be performed, not just heard.

The accusation at its core was that Drake was a pedophile, a “certified” one. This was delivered with the energy of a festival crowd.

That is what made it dangerous. It made a serious allegation feel like a celebration. People were not just listening, they were dancing to it.

The cover art placed a map pin over Drake’s Toronto mansion as if it were listed on a sex offender registry. After its release, fans tagged that exact address on Google Maps the same way.

None of the allegations were proven. Drake’s own defamation lawsuit against his label was eventually dismissed, with the judge noting that a rap battle’s “incendiary language” would not lead a reasonable listener to treat the song as verifiable fact. But by then, the damage was done. The song had already become a cultural verdict.

Then came the Super Bowl.

February 2025. Kendrick Lamar performing the halftime show at Super Bowl LIX. He performed “Not Like Us.” in front of an estimated 130 million people. He had Serena Williams, Drake’s former love interest, on the stage dancing during the song. He performed the song that called his rival a pedophile on the largest stage in entertainment, just to make sure everyone understood who won. The crowd sang every word.

The Super Bowl wasn't a victory lap. It was an execution broadcast to 130 million people, choreographed for maximum humiliation.

The thing about "Not Like Us" and the Super Bowl performance together was that this was not just rap combat. It was a deliberate campaign to permanently attach an allegation to a person's name.

It worked. Ask anyone what they know or think about Drake, and that allegation is now part of the answer. That is not artistry. That is a reputation destroyed in public, with an audience of hundreds of millions cheering it on.

The Fans: The Part Nobody Wants To Examine

Here is the part that implicates all of us, the fans.

We love examining what the artists did wrong. It is easy to point at Drake or Kendrick Lamar and talk about where they crossed the line. But the fans were involved taking sides, cheering on their favorite and hoping and cheering the next insult, the next allegation. We were involved in the escalation; every click, stream and social media post was a signal to the music industry that this was what we wanted.

Hip-hop has always had a complicated relationship with its audience. The genre has celebrated authenticity, pain, struggle, and violence. There is a conversation to be had about what hip-hop has asked fans to consume, and what fans have been willing to consume. This feud did not start that conversation, but I think it made it impossible to ignore.

There is something worth asking yourself if you were swept up in it: what exactly were you cheering for? The artistry of the songs? Some of it, sure. However, we need to be honest with ourselves. Many of us were also cheering for the destruction. The humiliation. The moment when the other guy’s reputation got destroyed.

We wanted someone to lose, badly. We got it. And we called it culture.

What We Actually Lost

The code was never perfect. The code was built for a different era. The internet dismantled it before anyone realized what was happening.

What we lost is not just a set of unwritten rules. We lost the shared agreement that certain things matter more than winning. That accusations are not verdicts. That a song or a halftime show can be brilliant and wrong at the same time.

This is what I am sitting with. Not who won. Not who had the better lyrics. But what it means when the people at the top of their craft will burn everything down just to be the last one standing. Also, what it means that the music industry and fans handed them the matches and cheered the show.

I do not think we should expect an artist to be a saint. But we should expect them to know where the line is. Watching this, I'm not sure either of them did.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I was at Chambers Bay in 2015 for the U.S. Open. I had been to big sporting events before. Nothing prepared me for what it felt like to be standing on that links-style Washington course when Tiger Woods walked onto the tee box. The energy did not build gradually. It arrived all at once. You felt it before you heard it.

The gallery was standing at least 8 deep along the tee box, fairway, and around the green. Necks craned. Phones went up. People who had been mid-conversation stopped talking.

I remember thinking: so this is what it is actually like! Watching Tiger on television does not transmit what he does to a physical space. In person, standing maybe thirty yards from him as he went through his pre-shot routine, I understood something I had not fully grasped before. The electricity was not just coming from the crowd. It was also coming from him.

There was an intentionality in the way he moved, a focus that made everyone around him quieter and more alert. He had not even swung yet. He was just standing there. And the whole course felt like it was holding its breath.

That feeling of electricity is what I keep coming back to as I try to write this piece. Because Tiger Woods was not just a great golfer. He was the closest thing to pure athleticism most of us will ever see.

I think it is worth sitting with what we actually had. What we actually watched. I do not think we are doing that right now. I think we are letting the memes, mugshots and mockery drown out something that deserves a more serious examination.

I think it is clear I am a Tiger Woods fanatic. I have idolized Tiger. I have watched Tiger so much since his 1996 debut on the PGA, when at his introductory press conference he said the now famous words “Hello World” .

I have studied his swing over and over. I have replayed his greatest shots the way other people replay favorite songs. His genius on a golf course did something to me that I have not fully been able to explain to people who did not share it. It was not just admiration for skill. Instead, it was something closer to awe.

What drew me in was not just the wins, though the wins were staggering. It was the way he won. The flair. The dramatic precision. The almost theatrical sense of timing, like he saved his best for the moments with the highest stakes. He did not just want to win. He wanted to win like that. With everyone watching, when the margin for error was zero.

This combination of genius, grit, and an almost reckless love of the dramatic is not something you find twice in a lifetime. I know that now, watching the game without him, more clearly than I ever did when he was at his peak.

The Glory

Let’s go back all the way back to 1997, the start of the magic.

1997 Masters

Tiger Woods was 21 years old. He finished at 18 under par and won by 12 strokes, the largest margin in Masters history at that point. He was the youngest winner of the tournament and the first player of Black or Asian heritage to win it. The record books tell you this, but the record books cannot tell you what it looked like to watch him walk those fairways. He moved differently than every other golfer. He carried himself differently. When he sank the final putt and embraced his late father Earl in tears behind the 18th green, it was one of those moments that transcends sports and becomes something else. Something cultural.

The Tiger Slam

Then came 2000 and 2001. The Tiger Slam. He won four consecutive major championships: the U.S. Open, The Open Championship, the PGA Championship, and the 2001 Masters across two calendar years. Something no player in the modern era had done, and something no player has approached since. At the 2000 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, he won by fifteen strokes. The performance was so dominant it almost felt surreal, like watching someone cheat at a game where cheating is not possible.

2008 U.S. Open

This one deserves its own category. Tiger won the 2008 U.S. Open at Torrey Pines while playing on a stress-fractured left tibia and a torn ACL. He already had surgery on his knee months before the tournament. He was in visible pain on almost every swing. He made a 12-foot birdie putt on the 18th hole on Sunday to force a playoff. He made an 18-hole playoff on Monday. Then a sudden-death playoff against Rocco Mediate that went to the 19th hole before he finally won it. Two days later he announced he was having season-ending surgery. He had played the entire tournament on a broken leg. That is not simply grit or competitive drive. That is something other worldly.

2019 Masters

By the time Tiger walked onto Augusta National in April 2019, he had been through four back surgeries, a 2017 DUI arrest, and the quiet whisper that said he was finished as a competitor. He was 43 years old. He shot a final-round 70 and won his fifth Masters, his 15th major, eleven years after his last one. When he walked up the 18th fairway in that Sunday red, the roar from the gallery shook the trees. His son Charlie and his daughter Sam rushed out to embrace him at the green, and it was like going back in time. He had done it again! That moment belongs in a different category from sports achievement. It belongs in the category of iconic.

The Fall

And then there is everything else. The other story. The one that has followed the first story like a shadow that kept growing larger as the years went on.

The 2009 car crash outside his home. The end of his marriage. The four back surgeries, each one taking a little more from him, each one making the next comeback harder. The 2017 DUI, where police found him asleep at the wheel, a combination of prescription medications doing what years of tournament pressure never could. The 2021 crash in California that nearly cost him his right leg. The surgeries after that.

And now this. On March 27, 2026, Tiger Woods rolled his Land Rover in Jupiter Island, Florida, after clipping a truck. He was charged with driving under the influence, with property damage, and with refusing a lawful chemical test.

Hydrocodone pills were found in his pocket; a pain medication for a man who has been managing catastrophic physical pain for most of his adult life. He crawled out of the passenger side of the overturned vehicle. He stood on the side of the road, phone in hand, saying he had just been talking to the President.

He was put in the back of a squad car and driven to jail. In one of the most painful pieces of footage I have watched in a long time, a deputy told him during the arrest: “They don’t call you the GOAT for nothing, man.”

This was his fourth car incident. His second DUI arrest. He has since announced he is stepping away from golf to seek treatment. He was not at the 2026 Masters. For the first time since 1994, the Masters was played without Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson.

There is nothing funny about watching a man who once seemed invincible walk out of a Florida jail in the middle of the night, heading into an uncertain future.

The Punchline We Made Him

Here is where I want to push back. The memes started within hours. The jokes. People who probably cannot name four of his majors rushing to dunk on him. I understand the impulse. He is a flawed man who has caused pain to people close to him. He is not a saint. But I am tired of watching people reduce complexity to a punchline, and I am especially tired of watching it happen to Tiger Woods.

As someone who idolized him, there is pain in watching your hero being ridiculed. When you have spent years defending someone and celebrating them, watching their image get dragged through ridicule hits differently. It makes you question the idolizing itself. It makes you wonder if you were naive. I have sat with that question long enough to have an answer: NO.

What I saw on those golf courses was real. The flaws are also real. Both things can be true. A hero does not have to be a saint to have been worth admiring. That is not naivety; it is just honesty about what human beings actually are.

He is a man in pain, both physically and probably emotionally, reaching for something to manage it. I am not excusing it, or saying it isn’t serious. I am saying this: mock him if you want. Just know what you are mocking. Know that you are laughing at someone who gave you some of the greatest athletic performances most of us have ever seen, and whose body and life have paid a steep price for that gift.

What We Owe Each Other

What I keep thinking about is what it means to watch genius. Real genius. The kind that arrives once in a generation, likely less. I have watched a lot of sports in my life, and I can count on one hand the moments where I felt, that I was watching something I would tell people about for the rest of my life.

The 1997 Masters. The 2000 U.S. Open. The 2008 playoff at Torrey Pines. The roar at Augusta in 2019. I felt those moments in my chest. I replayed them in my head for days afterward.

That is what idolizing someone looks like from the inside; not blind worship, but a specific kind of devotion to what they represent at their best.

Tiger, at his best, represented something I genuinely believe is rare in any field: a person who refused to accept the ceiling that talent alone would have given them. He kept pushing through pain, failure, and doubt to find out just how great he could be.

We are not going to see that again. This is not pessimism. I say it as a plain statement of the way talent works. Rory McIlroy is an all-time great, having just won back-to-back Masters titles. Scottie Scheffler is exceptional. But what Tiger had — that specific mix of physical power, mental fortitude, competitive psychology, and sheer will — is very rare.

Most sports have one generational player. Basketball had Jordan. Tennis had Federer. Golf had Tiger. If you were alive and watching during his prime, you were handed something special.

Gratitude and grief can exist at the same time. You can mourn what Tiger has become, while also carrying a genuine thankfulness that you got to watch him at his best. The two are not contradictions. In fact, holding them both at once is what it means to really sit with what sports, at its best, can do to a person. It can mark your life. Sports can provide a reference point for excellence that you keep returning to.

Tiger Woods, at his best, was that for millions of people. He was that for me.

Tiger was the most dominant golfer ever, and the most dominant athlete, at his peak.

Tiger is the GOAT.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

So when the internet collectively lost its mind over something called Dubai Chocolate, I leaned in.

The bar seemed to appear overnight. Suddenly, everywhere I looked was golden foil, cracked chocolate shells, and a filling so lush it looked almost too beautiful to be real. People were flying into Dubai just to bring some back. Wait lists. Sold-out signs. Shipping delays.

I became a little obsessed I will admit. The bar was first produced by a Dubai-based chocolatier called Fix Dessert Chocolatier.

Dubai Chocolate is built around a filling of knafeh: a Middle Eastern pastry made from shredded kataifi dough, toasted to a crisp, folded into pistachio cream, and encased in a thick shell of milk chocolate. Crunchy. Creamy. Nutty. Sweet. Rich.

OMG.

I read about it so many times I could practically taste it. And that made me want it more.

The search itself became its own small adventure. I scoured specialty food shops online, and drove to different chocolatiers and stores around Vancouver. Eventually I got my hands on a glorious bar-Finally!!

Then came the moment of eating it.

I wish I had the words to describe the taste and texture. I have thought about how to describe it, and nothing does the taste proper justice.

The chocolate shell gives way with a clean, satisfying snap. The filling is soft and yielding. The pistachio cream is rich but not heavy, the kataifi adding this gorgeous, almost whispering crunch that dissolves before you’re ready for it to. There’s a nuttiness that blooms slowly. A sweetness that is not excessive. A depth of taste that keeps revealing itself, the way a good song does on the third or fourth listen.

I savored the taste for a minute after the last bite.

F*****g unbelievable!

That’s all I can say.

“Dubai Chocolate is what joy tastes like when joy has been taken seriously. When someone has cared enough to make something that doesn’t just satisfy, but genuinely delights.”

There is something worth examining here beyond the chocolate itself. We live in an era of excess and abundance, where newness is cheap and fleeting. Yet every so often something genuinely, joyfully good cuts through all of that noise. Something that earns the hype not through clever marketing but through the simple act of tasting extraordinary.

Dubai Chocolate is that thing, at least for me. It reminded me why I love chocolate in the first place. A beautiful pistachio-filled chocolate that reminds me life, at its best, is still very sweet.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going back to buy another bar.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Workplace romance is not an aberration. It is, in many respects, a deeply human inevitability. This topic deserves a more honest conversation than corporate policies typically allow.

Why Work Is Where Love Finds Us

There is a reason that “we met at the office” is one of the most common stories in romance. Proximity is one of the oldest preconditions for attraction. Psychologists have called it the “mere exposure effect”; the more we see someone, the more familiar they become. Familiarity breeds comfort, and from comfort love grows.

But it goes deeper than mere proximity. The workplace creates a uniquely fertile emotional environment. You see a person not as they choose to present themselves on a date, but as they actually are: under pressure, under deadlines, when the client is furious. You observe their patience and their humour. You discover whether they are decent people.

That is, frankly, more revealing than most first dates.

Shared context matters too. When you fall for a colleague, you share a common experience. For example the eight hour meeting that nearly broke everyone's will, the product launch that finally worked, the lunch that turned into a two-hour conversation you both pretended was a working lunch. These are bonding experiences as real and as meaningful as anything engineered by a dating algorithm.

When It Goes Spectacularly, Publicly Wrong

For every happy story, there are cautionary ones. And few cautionary tales in recent memory have been quite as vivid as the one that unfolded at Gillette Stadium in July 2025.

Andy Byron, then CEO of the data analytics firm Astronomer, was attending a Coldplay concert with Kristin Cabot, the company’s Chief People Officer. During the show, Coldplay’s Chris Martin deployed his “Jumbotron Song,” scanning the crowd and serenading whoever the cameras landed on.

They landed on Byron and Cabot, caught in a warm, intimate embrace. When they saw themselves projected on the giant screen, both immediately recoiled. He ducked, she spun away. Martin, reading the moment with precision, said to the crowd: “Either they’re having an affair or they’re just very shy.”

The video went viral within hours. Internet sleuths identified both executives and noted that each was married to someone else. The fallout was swift. Byron was placed on leave, then resigned. Cabot also departed the company. What had been a quiet affair between two senior leaders became a global punchline, and a serious reputational crisis for a company that had just raised $93 million.

The pattern is consistent. Rarely is it the romance itself that destroys careers. Rather, it is the secrecy, the power imbalance, and the conflicts of interest.

The Difference Between a Scandal and a Love Story

I do believe there is a meaningful distinction between what Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot did, and what two colleagues of roughly equal standing do when they fall in love and handle it with integrity.

The scandal at Astronomer was, at its core, a story about power. Byron was the CEO. Cabot reported to him. She was married. He was married. Neither disclosed the relationship to anyone in a position to manage the obvious conflicts of interest.

Astronomer was left exposed; employees who might have needed impartial HR guidance from Cabot were unwittingly compromised. When a CEO and a Chief People Officer are conducting a secret affair, the ethical architecture of the entire organization quietly collapses.

That is very different from two people at similar levels, in different teams, who develop feelings for one another, disclose the relationship to HR, and navigate it openly. Many companies have relationship disclosure policies precisely because they understand that human beings are going to fall in love. The sensible response is transparency, not prohibition.

The Case for Taking the Leap (Carefully)

I am not here to suggest that people suppress feelings, or to treat the office as a romantic no-fly zone. That perspective is both unrealistic and, in my own experience, wrong. What I would offer instead is a different perspective, built on the difference between a relationship handled with honesty and one conducted in the shadows.

First, ask yourself whether there is a meaningful power differential at play. If there is — if one of you can influence the other’s salary, promotion, or working conditions — the relationship needs to be disclosed and managed, or one of you may need to move teams. This is a show of respect to your colleagues, your organization, and each other.

Second, ask whether you are prepared for the possibility that it doesn’t work out. The people around you will notice. If the relationship ends badly, you will be navigating grief and professionalism simultaneously in the same building, with the same people, every day.

Third, ask whether you are handling the romance honestly, not in ways that compromise other commitments you have made. I believe the thing that destroyed Byron and Cabot was not falling in love at work. It was conducting their romance as though it owed nothing to transparency, to the people it affected, or to the organization that trusted them.

A Defence Worth Making

I began this piece by telling you I found love at work. I stand by what that experience taught me. The people I know who met their partners at work did not do something reckless or inappropriate.

The office is not a sterile environment where emotions can be quarantined. We are human beings who are deeply susceptible to one another. The question is not whether to love, but whether to do so with transparency and respect for your organization and fellow employees.

Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot did not fail because they fell for someone at work. They failed because they behaved as though no one else mattered. The rest of us, I think, can do considerably better than that.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Full disclosure: I am not a Trump supporter. I don’t share the values that drive his most devoted followers. If you are looking for someone to cheerlead the MAGA movement, I am not your guy.

With that said, I am tired of the conversation from progressives that stops at “he’s a con man” as if that explains everything. A man who wins the presidency of the United States twice, with more votes than any Republican candidate in history, is not just a con man.

Donald Trump is a symptom. Symptoms are worth understanding even when they’re ugly.

The real question is not who Donald Trump is. The real question is how he won twice. In decisive fashion. And what that says about a large chunk of the US electorate.

He Found the Anger He Didn’t Create

I want to use a controversial word here: predator. Not in the criminal sense but in the animal sense. A predator doesn’t manufacture the conditions it exploits. Predators read the environment better than anything else in it. A predator finds the wound or the weakness, and moves toward it.

Donald Trump did not create American anger. The anger was already there, sitting in towns that used to have factories and now have huge unemployment. Anger was present in the father who worked hard, played by the rules, and still couldn’t get ahead. It was there in towns that felt like Washington politicians spoke a completely different language, and didn’t stay long enough to hear the answer to their own questions.

For decades, working-class Americans, particularly in the Midwest and rural South, have watched jobs move overseas. They watched their cities hollow out. They watched both Democrats and Republicans make promises about change, and then go back to doing the same things. The anger was completely understandable and had no real home.

Until Donald Trump came along.

"He didn't create the wound. He walked into the room, pointed at it, and said: I see it. They did that to you. And I'm the only one who can fix it."

That is a powerful thing to offer someone who has been furious for years, and who felt nobody important was listening. The acknowledgment by Trump was loud, unapologetic, and aimed directly at the people who felt forgotten.

Does He Actually Care?

I will say the uncomfortable thing out loud. I think it is a genuine stretch and leap of faith to believe Donald Trump cares about his electorate. He isn’t sitting in the Oval Office worrying about the factory worker in Michigan, the single mother in rural Tennessee, or the small business owner who can’t make the payroll. His track record doesn’t support this.

Trump grew up in a Manhattan penthouse, inherited a real estate empire, and spent decades chasing celebrity. He has operated his entire life in the world of the extremely wealthy. Painting Trump as a man of the forgotten working class requires you to ignore an enormous amount of evidence about who he actually is.

Also, look at his administration’s policy record. His 2017 tax cuts delivered the largest benefits to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. His attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act would have stripped healthcare from millions of lower-income people, the exact people packing his rallies. The tariffs he has implemented in his second term hit ordinary consumers hardest through higher prices.

Yet none of this has mattered to his base. Not the indictments, the policy record, nor the day to day chaos of his governance. This gap is the thing worth critically examining. It tells us something important not just about Trump, but about what people were actually voting for.

When the Story Matters More Than the Facts

To understand why people kept voting for him, I feel we need to understand what they were actually buying. These voters were not buying policy; they were buying a feeling.

Think about what Trump offered to someone who felt left behind. He told them their anger was justified. He told voters they weren’t failures. Rather, they were victims of a rigged system. Trump said they were not deplorables, and it was time to Make America Great Again.

He created a set of clear villains: immigrants taking jobs, elites looking down on them, and a Washington establishment that sold them out.

Clear heroes. Clear villains.

When life feels complicated, unfair, and out of your control, simple stories with someone to blame are very appealing. The shift from victim of circumstance to victim of injustice is a fundamentally different emotional experience. It comes with anger and purpose.

Trump cleverly championed this narrative. Once you are aligned with a story that powerful, contradictory facts are disregarded. They feel like attacks and exactly what the enemy would say.

Why They Stayed, Even When It Made No Sense

The perplexing question for me is how his base keeps supporting him when the evidence is that he doesn’t represent their interests.

I think part of the answer is human beings are not always rational decision-makers. We stick with things we have already invested in long past the point where an objective calculation would tell us to walk away. Psychologists call this the sunk cost effect. We see it in bad relationships, bad investments, and apparently in politics.

I also think there is something deeper going on. For many Trump supporters, voting for him stopped being primarily a political act and became an identity statement. It became a way of saying: I am not like those people who look down on me. I am not going to pretend to agree with people who think my town and way of life are a joke.

Every attack on Trump from the media, Democrats, and late-night show hosts failed to weaken support. On the contrary, his support increased; it confirmed the narrative.

We have witnessed political loyalty morphing into tribal loyalty. And tribal loyalty is not about outcomes. Instead, it is about belonging and standing with your people against those who look down on you. Pointing out that his tax policy hurt them is irrelevant if supporting him feels like an act of defiance.

The defiance is the point. The defiance is a collective middle finger to the perceived enemy.

Also the Democratic Party had evolved to represent the exact institutions they resented. Universities. Media. Cultural progressivism that involved being lectured about values by people who had never spent a day in their town. Even if a Democratic candidate offered better economic outcomes on paper, choosing that candidate felt like surrendering and admitting those people were right about you.

I believe that is how deep this goes. The economic argument doesn’t register when the cultural wound is so raw.

What Does It All Mean?

My conclusion? Donald Trump’s success is not primarily about Donald Trump. His success is as much about what was already broken before he arrived.

If millions of Americans were willing to vote twice for a man whose personal behavior and record in office demonstrably did not serve their interests, something failed long before he came down the escalator on June 16, 2015. The failure belongs to both parties.

Trump did not beat a strong system; he exploited a broken system that lost the trust of the people it was supposed to serve. He just got there first with the loudest voice and the best read on the room.

What unsettles me is not that a man like him could run for POTUS. Opportunists will always show up. What unsettles me is how many people, for perfectly understandable reasons, decided he was the best option. That is the real story.

I said at the start I am not a Trump supporter. However I tried to do something in this article that I think is harder than choosing sides. I have attempted to seriously evaluate the question of how he won twice. Not to excuse what I find troubling about this political era, but to understand it as honestly and objectively as I can at this time.

If we can’t explain why it happened, we have no chance of changing anything.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

l will admit it freely: I love a great love song! The kind that made you think about the special person in your life, or your secret crush. Songs that made you want to grab your partner in the kitchen and do a sexy slow dance. Luther Vandross turning a quiet room into a pulsating, sultry paradise. Whitney Houston holding a note so long on “I Will Always Love You” that the hair on the back of your neck stands up. These songs made you believe, for three and a half minutes, that devotion was the most important thing in the world.

When did that stop being something we wanted from music?

The question sounds nostalgic but the numbers are hard to ignore. Romantic love songs have all but vanished from mainstream charts. The Billboard Hot 100 of 2025 reads like a list of songs from a different emotional universe. Plenty of feeling? To some degree. Tenderness? Scarce.

One easy answer is taste drift. Music changes. Maybe the love song simply had its era, and we’ve moved on the way we moved on from disco in the 1970s and grunge in the 1990s.

I don’t quite believe that, and here’s why: the subject of love hasn’t disappeared from music. It’s just changed shape. Today’s popular songs talk about love constantly, but from a different angle. The hurt of it. The confusion. The texting at 2 AM and the situationship that goes nowhere.

Taylor Swift is brilliant, and she is writing love songs, but to me they feel different: love as wound, as evidence, as case study. The feeling is real and valid. But it is not the same as Celine Dion singing “I’m everything I am because you loved me”

What used to dominate wasn’t just romance as a topic; it was romance as an aspiration, stated without embarrassment. That kind of declaration requires a confidence in the other person and in your own emotional legibility. It requires believing that love actually works.

There’s a compelling argument that we believe less in love and romance. Dating apps have turned attraction into a clinical browsing experience. Commitment is deferred later, for valid economic and practical reasons.

Yet people still fall in love! Desperately, foolishly, completely. People still propose on bended knee and cry at their weddings. The feeling hasn’t left. What seems to have left is the cultural permission to celebrate love in public, without hesitation.

So is it a change in music tastes, or a change in how we see love? Probably both. I believe if enough people lose faith in romantic possibility, then the music that celebrated it starts to feel like a relic.

What troubles me is not the decline of love songs themselves. It is that this absence may be saying many people feel romance is too unattainable to want out loud.

Maybe romantic songs will return. I hope so! Genres become popular again. Every now and then a song breaks through, and reminds people that the old feeling still lands.

We haven’t stopped wanting to be moved by love. We’ve just forgotten we were allowed to ask music to do it.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

We have a name for this version: the keyboard warrior. Someone who fights fiercely from behind a screen. The keyboard warrior will call a stranger stupid, cowardly, or worse, with a confidence that would evaporate if they were three feet away from the person. The phenomenon is so common now that we’ve almost stopped noticing it. But we should notice it. Because it reveals something uncomfortable about the relationship between distance and decency.

The screen doesn’t change what we think. It changes what we’re willing to say out loud. That gap is where the damage lives.

The psychology is well-documented. Researchers call it the online disinhibition effect — the loosening of social restraint that happens when we communicate without physical presence. In person, many signals keep us in check: eye contact, body language, the slight flinch of someone who’s been hurt by our words. These cues activate empathy almost automatically. Remove them, and empathy doesn’t always follow. What fills the space instead is a kind of bravado, the feeling that the rules which govern face-to-face life don’t apply here.

Add anonymity, or even just the semi-anonymity of a username and a profile picture, and the effect compounds. When we’re not fully identifiable, we stop being fully accountable. When we’re not accountable, it becomes easier to say cruel things, things we’d be ashamed of if our name and face were attached.

Studies on deindividuation — the loss of self-awareness in group settings — show that people behave more aggressively when they feel less individually visible. The internet, for all its connectivity, is one of the most effective deindividuation machines ever built.

But anonymity only explains part of it. Plenty of keyboard warriors use their real names. I believe the deeper force at work is the absence of consequence. In person, aggression has an immediate cost. The person you’ve insulted is right there. The tension is real. Online, you can close the tab. You can log off. This asymmetry results in a particular kind of bravery — the kind that depends entirely on the exit being nearby.

It would be easy to say that keyboard warriors are bad people, and the screen reveals who they really are. I do not feel this is true. Most people who say vicious things online are not vicious in their daily lives. They are parents, colleagues, friends. The online self and the offline self are different, and that split is the more troubling thing.

What it suggests to me is that civility is not a core value. It is a performance. We are polite because others are watching and because social consequences are real. Strip those away, and the politeness disappears.

The keyboard warrior is not an aberration of online culture. The goal is not to ban or shame our way to better online behaviour. Rather, it is to develop the kind of character that doesn’t require an audience to stay decent. To ask, before we post a comment: would I say this to their face? If the answer is no, to take that seriously. Not because someone might be watching. Because of who we want to be when no one is.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Alone in a crowd — the defining image of our connected age.

Subscribe now

I am in a restaurant, and at the table across from me, four people are together. They arrived together, laughed at something when they sat down, and then almost in unison reached for their phones. For the next twenty minutes, they barely look up.

I watched them intently because this is familiar. I do it as well. We all do.

We live in an age of extraordinary connection. Right now, I can reach a friend or family member in seconds. I can find a community of people who love the exact same things I love — powerlifting, the Vancouver Canucks, Smooth Jazz. The internet has made the world smaller.

Yet something feels off. Something has quietly gone wrong in the area of human closeness.

The promise was real

Let’s not be cynical about what the internet genuinely did. For millions of people the internet was nothing short of a lifeline.

It offered belonging when the physical world offered none. That isn’t a small thing. That is, for many people, everything.

Social media extended this. Suddenly you could stay current in people’s lives even across distance and time zones. You could watch your niece’s first steps from another continent. You could maintain a friendship that, in an earlier era, would have quietly dissolved.

The connection was real. But something happened between the promise and the present.

More surface, less depth

There’s a difference between awareness of someone’s life and presence in it.

Social media has made us extraordinarily aware. I know what my high school friends had for dinner. I know that an acquaintance from a decade ago just became a grandparent. I know the political opinions of people I have never met.

But being up to date is not the same as being close. I think we have confused one for the other.

Real intimacy has always required both time and undivided attention. The willingness to say I’ve been struggling with something, so the other person can actually respond not with an emoji but with their full presence. These inefficiencies are not quirks in human connection. That is how it works.

The architecture of distraction

None of this happened by accident. The platforms that dominate our lives were not designed with our wellbeing as the primary goal. They were designed to capture attention and are extraordinarily good at it.

Why should this matter? This matters because genuine connection requires something social media discourages: boredom. Stillness. The kind of mental quiet in which you notice you miss someone, and then actually do something about it. When every idle moment is filled scrolling and posting, the discomforts of being alone with yourself never arrive.

We’ve engineered that pull away.

The performance problem

Social media didn’t just change how we communicate; it changed what communication is. It introduced an audience. When there is an audience, something shifts in what we are willing to say and how we say it.

The most honest versions of ourselves don’t photograph well. They don’t get as much engagement or as many likes. So we edit and curate. We present a version of our lives that looks interesting or exciting.

The problem is connection does not happen between curated selves. It happens in the gaps. In the admission of the thing you are ashamed of, the fear you have not said out loud, or the part of your life that is not going well. This is where someone else leans forward and says “me too”, and something real forms between you.

I believe when we perform for each other constantly, we become simultaneously very visible and very hidden.

The loneliness data

Despite being more connected than any generation in history, loneliness rates have climbed steadily over the past few decades. Surveys across multiple countries suggest a significant portion of people — often a third or more — report feeling lonely regularly. Young people, the heaviest users of social media, often report the highest rates.

Does social media cause loneliness, or do lonely people use social media more? Almost certainly both are true, in a feedback loop that is hard to exit. We built the most connected world in human history, yet people are lonelier. Something is not adding up.

What we are still after — those ten minutes of real.

What we might do instead

I am not advocating for the easy solution, that we should delete our apps. This is too simplistic, unrealistic, and misses how genuinely valuable the internet has been for human connection.

But I do think we are at a point where we have to be intentional in a way we have not been to date.

Three things worth trying:

The call instead of the comment. When you feel the impulse to like something a friend posted, ask whether you could just call them instead. The comment takes three seconds. The call takes twenty minutes. The call is worth it.

Presence as the point. When you are with people, stay present, in the moment, every time you notice your attention has drifted.

Boredom as information. When you are restless and reach for your phone, pause to ask what the restlessness is actually about. What you might be avoiding? Who you might be missing?

The smaller world

The internet did make the world smaller. And that smallness has been a genuine gift for connection, for access, for information.

But smallness is not the same as closeness. You can stand in a crowd of eight billion people, visible to all of them, and still feel entirely alone.

The question isn’t whether technology connects us. It clearly does, in ways we shouldn’t take for granted. The question is whether we are using that connection, or whether we are mistaking the feeling of connection for the thing itself.

The four people in the restaurant eventually put their phones down. Something happened and suddenly they were looking at each other, laughing together. The table became animated in the way that only actual presence can make a table feel.

It lasted maybe ten minutes before the phones came back out.

But those ten minutes were real. And real is still what we’re after.

If this resonated, I’d love to hear your thoughts — and I mean that in the old-fashioned sense. Not just a like. What has your relationship with connection looked like lately?

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The Silence We Choose

There is a message sitting in someone's drafts right now. It has been there for days, maybe weeks. It says something like "I went with another candidate" or "I think I need some space" or simply "hey, sorry I've been MIA." It will never be sent. The person who wrote it will close the tab, set down their phone, and tell themselves they'll get to it later — and later will quietly become never.

This is ghosting. And it has become one of the defining social issues of our era.

We speak about it mostly in romantic contexts: the date who vanished, the relationship that ended in a wall of silence — but the phenomenon has colonized nearly every domain of human communication. Hiring managers ghost candidates. Candidates ghost employers. Friends ghost friends. Silence has become the default response to discomfort, and we have collectively agreed, without ever actually agreeing, to accept it.

Ghosting isn't about cruelty. It's about the unbearable weight of having to say something real to another person.

How We Got Here

Digital communication promised to make connection easier. In many ways, it did. But it also introduced something unprecedented: the ability to be present and absent simultaneously. You can read a message without responding to it. You can see that someone has read yours. Technology created a new kind of limbo, a space between acknowledged and answered . We learned to live there.

At the same time, the sheer volume of communication exploded. The average professional receives over 120 emails per day. Our phones hold open threads with dozens of people. The cognitive load of managing these connections became overwhelming. The brain, being the resourceful organ it is, developed a coping mechanism: triage by avoidance.

When something feels emotionally costly to address, we defer it. And in the digital world, deferral is functionally indistinguishable from disappearance.

The Job Hunt as Theatre of Erasure

Perhaps nowhere is ghosting more institutionally normalized and more psychologically damaging than in the job search. Candidates spend hours, sometimes days, crafting applications. They tailor cover letters to specific companies, research the team, prepare for interviews with the rigor of a student cramming for an exam. They show up. They perform. They follow up politely.

And then: nothing.

No rejection. No update. No acknowledgment the application was received at all. Just silence. In the silence, that leaves the mind free to fill in the worst possible explanations. Was I not good enough? Did I say something wrong in the interview? Have they filled the role? Are they still deciding?

75% of job seekers report being ghosted after an interview

3 weeks average time candidates are left waiting with no response

1 in 5 recruiters admit ghosting candidates they interviewed in person

Companies have rationalized this with volume. "We receive thousands of applications — we can't respond to everyone." False! Automated responses exist. A three-sentence template takes thirty seconds to create. The truth is companies have decided their time is more valuable than a candidate's peace of mind.

This calculus is unkind and shortsighted. Candidates become customers, employees, and advocates. The person you ghosted after three rounds of interviews will remember it, will tell people, and will carry that experience about who you are as an organization. Culture is not what you post on your LinkedIn page. It is how you behave when you think no one is watching.

Relationships and the Slow Vanishing

In romantic life, ghosting carries a particular impact because it denies the other person the ability to make sense of what happened. A breakup, however painful, offers a narrative. You can grieve the ending because you understand it. Ghosting offers no such closure. It offers only an open wound that the mind probes, looking for an explanation that never comes.

There is a school of thought that says ghosting is sometimes justified. In cases of danger, violations of boundaries, or harassment, disappearing without explanation is an act of self-protection. When a relationship has become unsafe, cutting contact is necessary.

However, that is not most of what we call ghosting. Most of what we call ghosting is this: someone who liked two people decided to pursue one of them and couldn't bear to tell the other. Someone who wasn't feeling a connection after two dates didn't know how to say so. In these cases ghosting is not self-protection. It is discomfort avoidance wearing the costume of self-protection.

What Silence Actually Communicates

Here is the irony of ghosting: it does not actually avoid communication. Silence communicates. Loudly.

When you ghost someone, you send a message. You send many messages, actually. You send: you are not worth the discomfort of honesty. You send: my comfort matters more than your clarity. You send: I lack the words or the courage to be direct with you.

We imagine silence is neutral. It is not.

For the person on the receiving end, silence becomes a canvas onto which every fear and insecurity they ever had gets projected. The human brain, confronted with incomplete information, generates explanations. In the absence of external input, it defaults to explanations that confirm its worst suspicions about itself.

Ghosting makes the other person do the emotional labour you were trying to avoid. You do not escape the difficult conversation; you simply outsource it, to someone who has to conduct it alone.

The Psychology of Disappearing

Most people who ghost are not malicious. They are conflict-averse, overwhelmed, or genuinely uncertain about what to say.

There is a particular anxiety that surrounds rejection: delivery. We know rejection stings. We don't want to be the person who inflicts that sting. So we tell ourselves that silence is kinder than an explicit no. We are wrong about this, but the logic feels true in the moment.

There is also the digital architecture to consider. Closing a tab is effortless. Responding to an emotional message requires activating an entirely different mental mode — one of care, honesty, and momentary vulnerability. The asymmetry of effort makes avoidance disproportionately attractive. The path of least resistance is disappearance.

We disappear. And then we are disappeared from. We register how much it hurts. We do it again anyway. In the moment of decision, the abstract harm we might cause someone else feels less vivid than the discomfort of the difficult message we would have to write.

Why It Needs to Change And How

The question is: what would a culture of honest closure actually look like, and how do we get there?

It starts, as most cultural shifts do, with individual decisions made repeatedly until they become norms. It starts with one honest message sent where silence would have been easier. It starts with companies deciding that a form rejection is not beneath them. It starts with friends saying, "I've been distant and I want you to know it's not about you. I've been struggling."

Honest closure doesn't mean every message needs to be perfect. It means something was said at all. It means the other person got a signal instead of static.

• Say the hard thing briefly. A short honest message is infinitely better than silence. "I went another direction" or "I don't think we're the right fit" is enough. You don't owe anyone a full explanation. You owe them the basic dignity of a response.

• Reject the myth that silence is kindness. It almost never is. The person waiting for a response would almost universally prefer a gentle no to weeks of uncertainty. We know this because we feel it when it happens to us.

• Build systems, not just intentions. For hiring teams: automate rejections. Make it someone's explicit responsibility. Good intentions don't survive without infrastructure.

• Normalize receiving rejection gracefully. Part of why people fear delivering hard news is fear of the response. When we thank people for their directness rather than punishing them, we make honesty feel safer.

• Remember you are also someone who has been ghosted. Hold that thought when you reach for your phone and think about not replying.

The culture of ghosting is now a habit, and habits can be broken. It emerged from a particular set of conditions: overload, conflict avoidance, and the easy escape hatch of the closed tab. However those conditions do not have to produce that outcome. We chose this. We can choose differently.

The most radical thing you can do is stay. Say the thing. Send the message. Be the person someone can point to when they think about the last time they received honesty with grace. That is not a small thing. In the culture we are living in, it is almost everything.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share