Social media is an entirely new dimension with its own distinct properties and governing principles. 

Most importantly and decidedly, it is democratic and accessible by nature. It allows users to have the entire world at their fingertips and to speak for themselves in a radically free way. Anyone can publish almost anything anywhere for anyone to see. 

Given how cruel our world is, this has disastrous implications. 

When the potential future consequences of social media usage are discussed, psychological effects are often at the forefront of discussion. While warranted, the larger picture is missed in the attempts to document and predict any adverse side effects that come with the entirely new social ecosystem we’ve created. 

There’s been a lot of discussion about social media censorship and moderation and how it ties into our more universal human fascinations with the taboo and morbid. We’ve observed the results of open communication and discussion veiled by near-total anonymity and continually mull over the details of how best to protect free speech and freedom of expression. 

We’ve seen firsthand how these concepts have spilled into and impacted the real world, and while these are extremely important and prescient issues to scrutinize, it’s alarming that we haven’t used our logic to see the dystopia unfolding right under our noses. 

Our admittedly somewhat limited exposure to humanity’s worst online is made possible in no small part by the individuals subjected to them to ensure their livelihoods. We are just now beginning to see the detrimental effects of this cruel, unintentional psychological experiment that is social media. 

The average person will most likely not have to encounter offensive imagery, violent crimes and other forms of brutality and cruelty while casually scrolling unless they so happen to search it out. There are exceptions to this, but by and large, we are made far safer against the threat of traumatizing imagery and content than we would otherwise. 

In this, we are more privileged than we realize. Social media moderators, such as the ones employed by major companies like Meta, operate on the front lines of our collective battle and reckoning with free expression in a brutal digital world. Yet these moderators are hardly thought of or acknowledged. 

They’re freedom fighters in their own right on the front of democracy. Without them, our understanding of social media censorship, moderation and free speech implications would be radically different. 

With time, the working conditions these moderators face will be regarded as a labor-rights tragedy akin to the radium girls. 

To think about it on a surface level is horrifying at best and dystopian at worst. The large-scale employment of human beings to consume hours and hours of footage depicting some of humanity’s worst capacities and capabilities for abject violence and brutality is on many levels an Orwellian fever dream. 

It’s appalling that we don’t obsessively investigate the adverse effects that the individuals who moderate these sites and apps have to suffer with and through. These individuals are underpaid, overworked and put at severe risk of post-traumatic stress disorder while not receiving anything close to adequate mental healthcare, especially given their position. 

The most consequential implications this brings forth are not discussed nearly enough and are instead relegated to the background. We collectively treat social media moderators as though they’re ghosts in the machine because those with a vested interest in hiding them have prevailed.

To add insult to injury, it’s not even as if this system is nearly effective enough. As recently as this February, many Meta users were subjected to a barrage of violent content including footage of dead bodies. It’s a losing game and possibly one of the most significant issues our generation will need to confront as this technology evolves. 

These companies are caught in between their business strategy of getting as many eyes on their platforms as possible and protecting the interests of the public. People are generally drawn to more macabre and sensational content, so it can be difficult to draw the line between profitability and morality. 

Carson Redmond, a fourth-year student at the University of Minnesota, said he’s observed a tendency for more controversial and sensational content to blow up. 

“Stuff honestly gets more recognition when it is either upsetting or negative,” Redmond said. “It’s kind of the nature of things.”If there is any job that should be replaced, or at the very least heavily aided by AI, this should be it. It’s being integrated, but the overall consensus is that the human eye for subjectivity is still very much necessary in the protection of the masses. 

Yuqing Ren, associate professor of information and decision sciences at the University, said that while the treatment of these workers requires more protection, their situation isn’t entirely unheard of and mirrors what mental health workers face, meaning there is potential for reform. 

“It’s definitely not a new problem,” Ren said. “If you think about mental health workers having basically, not necessarily seen the images, but if you think about the stories they hear from clients and their daily work, the sort of information they encounter in their work, it could also have somewhat similar effects, maybe not as extreme.”

Herein lies the key to solving the problem, the true gravity of this situation needs to be acknowledged and taken seriously. There have been many lawsuits brought against these companies, and almost certainly more will come up. 

More attention needs to be brought to moderation in an internet Wild West for not only the moderators but also us as consumers. 

It’s that time of year again. 

The beauty of winter has been largely erased. The once snow-flurried visage of snowglobe-like beauty that defines early winter through January has been melted down to an ever-eroding plane of goop, slush and pond scum. 

And that’s on a nice day. 

Otherwise, temperatures plunge below zero and harsh, bitter, stabbing cold slaps you in the face every time you so much as open your door. An abrupt reminder that you forgot to pack a scarf between preparing for your midterm and rushing out the door. You spend your weeks in a state of anticipation, dreaming of warmer days, sun and the ability to no longer regret your choice to wear pants that touch the ground. 

Punxsutawney Phil fears us Midwesterners because his predictions bear no value to us. We expect and accept our fates long before he even awakens.

To put it bluntly, this time of year sucks. 

Even the nice days leave something to be desired, and we’re left on our toes trying to predict what to wear or do in the face of 50-degree temperature fluctuations. Spring semester should be renamed slush semester at this point. 

Sometimes this time of year is about just surviving and staying warm. Motivation to do anything dwindles. This could be due to either seasonal depression or general polar malaise. 

Jacob Wittrig, a second-year student at the University of Minnesota, said it’s tempting to stay inside all winter. 

“It’s just difficult to live somewhere cold because it takes more energy to go do stuff,” Wittrig said.

Our immediate surroundings may be somewhat miserable and harsh, but we aren’t — or at least not especially. I’m not here to tell you all that the glass is half-full because it’s not. Chances are the glass was left in your car and is more than half-frozen over, but that’s okay.

A glass that’s mostly frozen is still fuller than an empty one. We should all take stock of how much we have to be grateful for and how much this season has to offer us in the avenues of mental fortitude and resilience. 

It’s an odd time in that the prettiest days are usually the worst to be outside. I often find myself gazing fondly out the window on my commutes, only to face the brisk reality once I reach my destination. 

Simon Fitzkappes, a first-year student, said there is beauty to be found in this weather. 

“I like to turn my focus away from the pessimism of just like the biting cold and more toward just focusing on how beautiful the snow looks every day,” Fitzkappes said.

A good way to ward off cabin fever is to remember how fortunate we are to have someplace to stay. 

The cabin is less of a prison and more of a safe haven in this way. We know that eventually there will come a time when warm weather will stay, we just have to bide our time. Others are not as fortunate. 

Pranav Menon, a graduate student at the University, said while surviving winter takes grit, we should also account for our comparatively fortunate circumstances. 

“There is an aspect tied to resilience which living through winters gives you, but at the same time I don’t think it should be romanticized,” Menon said. “But we should also think about how during winter, how problems like homelessness and all of that can also be addressed because someone who’s homeless in this winter cannot survive.” 

We live in a place where without the amenities that we’ve been afforded, such as innovations in thermal clothing, insulation and shelter, we would struggle infinitely more. It’s something to think about as we traverse through our days, how truly lucky we are to have a place to go and external protection from our harsh environment. 

Sam Rose, a second-year student, said the physical tools we use to cope with the weather shouldn’t go unappreciated. 

“I do have the privilege of being able to access things like thermals and a thermostat and wool socks and all that,” Rose said. “So, I think that winter is just going to be easier for someone like me.” 

Liza Meredith, assistant professor of psychology at the University, said winter leads to more innovation interpersonally and provides more opportunity for exploration of solitary interests and activities. 

“I know for me, I will go to the theater more, I go to people’s houses more,” Meredith said. “Also, I think you can pursue some of your own hobbies at home, like getting into knitting or calling more friends, or reading more books, or watching more movies. You can find things that you enjoy inside and maybe give you an opportunity to pursue things that you don’t always pursue when you’re out of the house more.”

While this part of the season is somewhat difficult to romanticize, it reminds us of the innovations and amenities we’ve been afforded to cope with the sometimes despotic dreariness that characterizes winters in the Midwest. 

It can be tough, but it’s best to remember how much we have at our disposal in order to survive during this stretch of the year. We cope not only mentally, but physically. It’s important to remember that this time of year is difficult to trudge through, but not impossible thanks to the tools we have at our frostbitten fingertips. 

Don’t give yourself too hard of a time right now. Not every chapter guarantees or needs romance, adventure or pleasant circumstances. 

These winters have not only built our character, but our infrastructure, community and way of life. We still have a long way to go in each of those components, but we should never forget the importance of where we are now in anticipation of what’s to come.

While being nice to other women is something most of us can get behind, the “girl’s girl” thing has gone way overboard. 

What was meant to be a source of liberation and open communication between women on the importance of our shared experiences and social bonds turned into yet another avenue for surveillance.

The girl’s girl is the ultimate best friend to have in your corner. She knows all of the best makeup hacks, never gatekeeps where she gets her pristine wardrobe and has a vast network of female friends who she routinely keeps in check, periodically evaluating how well they measure up as women and fellow “girl’s girls.”

The “pick-me girl” is the yang to her yin.

She has primarily, or only, male friends whom she routinely jests with about stereotypically feminine interests, mocking the very grounds that her counterpart is founded upon. She’s “not like the other girls” and isn’t afraid to point out her supposed superiority in her adherence to the male fantasy of an ideal woman. 

The fantasy she embodies rests upon the assumption that what makes her more appealing is her lack of womanliness — in that her internalized misogyny has led her to being exceptional somehow; that selling out and emphasizing one’s masculine inclinations in this way is an easy, cheap way to male adoration. She’s natural. She doesn’t wear makeup or adorn herself excessively. At least she says she doesn’t. 

What began as a reactionary, and quite funny, satirization of internalized misogyny, has gone full force in the other direction, turning into a rigid, cautionary guide on how to “correctly” be an ally to other women. These guidelines are ridiculous in execution and origin, making anyone who regurgitates them sound like an internet-era Regina George.

It’s reached a point where the substance that differentiates these two archetypes is now oversimplified. 

I worry that tomboyish qualities are synonymous with pick-me behavior, and conventional femininity is being sold back to us as revolutionary or some ultimate form of solidarity when it flat-out isn’t. 

Nasra Abdi, a second-year student at the University of Minnesota, said the identification of women as pick-me’s can become lost in translation in favor of more aesthetic designators. 

“I feel like, to an extent, it is personality, for sure,” Abdi said. “Other times I feel like it’s just like somebody could appear to be a pick-me, even when they’re not actually showing any signs of being one.”

Our visceral disgust for the “pick-me” reflects more on our disdain for women we perceive as desperate or flirtatious, or it becomes an avenue to project jealousy. Don’t like that a woman is receiving male attention? Call her a pick-me girl, and watch the group slowly turn on her! It’s become a more woke and current way of describing a promiscuous woman, rather than some other derogatory catch-alls.

Maybe the idea that one may not need a 15-step beauty routine to be attractive throws us off when that’s all we’ve been exposed to for the majority of our lives as women and consumers. 

Men hold a majority of executive positions in the beauty sector. Women are the ones who are ultimately most harmed when abandoned by friends and acquaintances over something as trivial as the amount of pigmented microplastic landfill-fodder we lather on our faces. 

Can’t it be accepted that we should all be nice to each other and not prioritize male attention over the safety or integrity of our long-term female friendships? 

Why do we feel the need to complicate things so much, designating certain aesthetic or personal preferences as somehow doing femininity, or feminism, wrong? 

I know that most of the ire behind the makeup-or-no-makeup discourse revolves around not the cosmetics themselves, but the loud proclamations of whether or not one chooses to indulge in them on a regular or heavy basis. 

Even if someone feels the need to announce their lack of makeup artistry, who does it realistically harm? I see no world where being kind of thirsty for male attention is more exclusionary than casting out other women based on some minor social indiscretions. 

After all, the sting behind the pick-me label is especially strong because it comes from other women. Aren’t we supposed to be looking out for each other here? Like it or not, we harm each other by doing this. 

What makes a pick-me is usually not some twisted desire for male validation over all else, it’s repeated alienation from other women, leading to a feedback loop informed by unreliable female friends and acquaintances. 

Alienation will never drive more supporters to any cause. We as women are so incredibly susceptible to social engineering and propaganda regulating our gender performance. So why are we choosing to do this to ourselves and each other? 

If someone is a pick-me, in that she routinely puts her friends in awkward or even dangerous positions to gain the upper hand for the sake of male validation, then that warrants an appropriate response. 

The choice is ours.

Differentiating an actual pick-me from a socially awkward tomboy should be cut and dry. What if instead of ex-communicating so-called pick-me’s, we offered them guidance or legitimate feminine camaraderie?

It’s more detrimental to go around nitpicking every little social misstep or misgiving another woman commits to tear her apart than it is to announce one’s short stature, boast a lack of makeup or hair styling aptitude or even throw oneself at any male in proximity. 

The former does more harm than good to female friendships, reinforcing the unfortunate and untrue stereotype that girls are catty and difficult to contend with, and the latter is just sleazy behavior that anyone with any modicum of social awareness knows reeks of desperation. 

Diane Cormany, teaching associate professor at the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said according to a recent study, female friendships have correlated with better stress responses.

“Women manage stress differently, and traditionally, research into stress has only looked at men,” Cormany said. “When they started looking into women, there wasn’t as much of that stress hormone release, and they kind of hypothesized that it’s because women turn to other women for support. They don’t just internalize, right? They show up for one another, and so that helps with larger things, like life stresses.”

We have a leg up on men in this arena, despite the mean-girl stereotypes. Let’s not lend credence to the naysayers and take a chance on those we may not otherwise. 

To play devil’s advocate, what if those so-called pick-me’s actually don’t intend harm? 

Maybe she doesn’t know how to do eyeliner despite really wanting to learn or isn’t brave enough to ask for guidance. Maybe she is exceptionally short and feels the need to mask her obvious insecurity with layers of overdone self-deprecation. 

We shouldn’t be splitting hairs on such ridiculous differentiations regarding our respective gender performances. 

The only way to truly be a girl’s girl is to watch out for and include other women, regardless of how annoying, desperate or different they may be.

This week marks a controversial holiday. Whether or not you think love is in the air, it’s certainly on most of our minds. We tend to generally take stock of our relationships — or situationships — during this time of year. 

On that note, here at the Opinions Desk, we conducted a poll on the red and green flags for the season of love. A yay or nay for Valentine’s Day, per se. Hopefully, our results will help you decide if you should stay or go with any potential beau. (Although nobody listed rhyming ability as a green flag, there’s always next year). 

We only received 16 responses, so it’s clear that you all have plans this week. Anyway, here’s what our responders love to love and love to hate in a partner. 

Let’s start out with some icks. On the whole, we received varied results. Here at the Opinions Desk, we listen and we don’t judge. Not everybody has standards, and that’s OK. 

We received two car-related preferences, which seems a little odd. 

Nicholas Tanck, a student at the University of Minnesota, said a dealbreaker for him would be someone with “no driver’s license.” Love comes in many different forms, though. One person’s love language may entail acts of service, and another may require servicing their vehicle.  

We also received input on the least attractive car for a potential partner. 

On potential red flags, Locke Rowland, a fourth-year student at the University, said “drives a Prius.” 

Darcie Baxter, a third-year research student, said she looks for someone who exhibits “kindness” and is “open-minded.”

This was a popular consensus. We received two additional responses indicating that kindness is important in a potential partner and another affirming open-mindedness as a positive trait they look for. 

We’re not sure why all of you find it so important that your partner has an open mind, but it’s always good to try new things. Plus, if someone is kind, they won’t call you weird. Two birds, one stone. 

Being polite to customer service workers is not only a bare minimum social expectation, but it apparently also makes you a walking green flag. At least according to third-year student Annie Jirovec.

Katelyn Sanders, a Ph.D. student, said a green flag would be “kindness to customer service workers — waiters, retail workers, custodial staff.”

A generally positive attitude also seems to be of importance to our respondents. Apparently, nobody likes a hater. Sigh. 

Aaden Spencer, a third-year student, said a positive trait in a potential partner would be someone who “always speaks positively of others,” or tends to “focus more on positive traits than negative ones.”

There seems to be a general consensus on what is and isn’t acceptable in a potential mate. It’s clear that whether you’re looking for basic human decency, politeness, positivity or heaven forbid a Prius driver, there’s someone out there for everyone. 

Perchance there are plenty of fish in the sea.

What used to be fringe, anti-government sentiment relegated to hippies and libertarians is now the forward-facing platform of the current White House administration and the more popular platform on which the mainstream Republican party campaigns in regards to health, wellness and government regulation. 

This rhetoric has seeped into our public consciousness, and now, the White House. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is well on his way to being secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

I am a firm believer in alternative medicine as well as more holistic practices, so to speak. I enjoy kombucha in the mornings, drink chia seed water, own crystals and dabble in essential oils. I have no problem with alternative healing and have enjoyed its benefits myself many times over. 

It’s from a place of love that I condemn the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)movement for its superficiality. 

MAHA makes actual health and wellness reform movements look like a joke for its hypocrisy and lack of foresight. It seems more concerned with aesthetic preoccupations than is with the actual long-term policy consequences it supports. It proves its legitimacy through superficial and irrelevant points, like the body weights of politicians and experts compared to RFK Jr. 

This movement’s principles are based upon ripping our already extremely flawed healthcare system and regulatory bodies of what little parameters they have, putting bandaids over bullet holes and spreading harmful misinformation in a country where medical care has been made exceedingly inaccessible.

Many MAHA enthusiasts believe that health is skin deep. It makes no sense to demonize vaccines while rolling out the red carpet for weight-loss injections. 

The former has been around for centuries and eliminated diseases that used to plague the American people. The latter, while also revolutionary, has not seen anything close in the way of long-term efficacy.

MAHA is not built upon actual health, but rather an artificially constructed vision of it. 

MAHA is a play on the same nostalgia-induced conservative ideals that Trump has campaigned on. It too overly idealizes our nation’s complicated past into a heavily narrativized and filtered lens of the “good old days.” 

Where Trump’s Make America Great Again suggests a utopian nation fraught over time with progressive legislation and initiatives, Kennedy’s MAHA paints the narrative that progress has destroyed our nation on a medical and scientific level as well. 

MAHA functions on the premise that we’ve seen bubbling up to the surface in the past ten years or so. These include the notions of Uncle Sam being a malicious opponent to the health of his people by putting fluoride in the water, chemicals in our food and mandating vaccinations containing God-knows-what.

The outrage that’s manifested is less of an outrage at the actual detriment our bodies have or haven’t suffered at the hands of the state, but more of a visceral detest of the ways these detriments manifest physically, whether that be through weight gain or cortisol face. 

Aimee Tritt, clinical assistant professor in dietetics practice and counseling at the University of Minnesota, said a lot of our increased mainstream interest in health can be attributed to a cultural shift away from blatant aesthetic valuation, leading to a conflation of wellness and aesthetics. 

“It’s no longer seen as acceptable to have purely aesthetic priorities, right?” Tritt said. “So when products are advertised, like when online magazines are writing articles, it’s more likely to be about health now.”

This is a shame, because our healthcare system is deeply flawed, and our food and drug regulation is not up to standard, to say the least. 

Danielle Croom, a third-year student at the University, said she feels more alternative healing methods have become popular as a result of our country’s healthcare shortcomings. 

“We’re seeing a lot of backlash toward the healthcare system,” Croom said. “It’s also become something that’s not really accessible, specifically in America, because there’s no universal healthcare. So I think people will often turn to alternative routes for taking care of themselves.”

In what world does reverting back to drinking unpasteurized milk help anyone in any real way? Fringe ideas should stay fringe and out of the White House.

Instead of focusing on real-life solutions, such preposterous falsehoods are proliferated in the mainstream, infesting our politics to the point of no return. To make America healthy, a good place to start would be the implementation of some sort of universal healthcare, or at the very least, more regulation on predatory health insurance companies. 

Instead, we’re left with the scam that is MAHA, which is as falsely conscious as it is rooted in half-truths. The need for better healthcare in this country has never been felt more, and we’re putting Flex Tape on the problem. 

Tritt said this line of thinking comes from our fear of the unknown.

“I think that there is a lot of fear about things that people, unfortunately for the most part, don’t really understand,” Tritt said. “So we’re not doing a great job educating our population about food and nutrition, and so there’s a gap. And that’s how opportunism works.”

Health isn’t always beautiful, and real reform isn’t always visible or flashy. 

The American people deserve a better solution than this. We need to make America healthier and re-instill trust in our government. What won’t help is stripping back the few accessible means to health that have gotten us here. Kennedy is not our guy.

In my experience, a common lament nowadays is the prevalence, or rather the mere existence of, small talk. The most prevalent and repeated complaints I’ve heard are that it’s shallow and only goes through the motions of conversation, supposedly rendering it unnecessary or a waste of time. These supposed big-talkers argue that there are more intellectual, important or relevant conversations to be had.

Yet it’s not exactly as if these supposed big conversations are not happening in any capacity, or that the presence of small, casual conversation in any way crowds out or absences meaningful conversation. 

Small talk has been the subject of a lot of unnecessary and frankly misguided ire. It is just as small-minded to write it off as droning on about the weather every time they open their mouth. Chances are, if you complain about small talk, you’re either doing it wrong, going about it the wrong way or thinking about it in the wrong regard. 

Hating small talk doesn’t make you interesting. To loudly proclaim one’s disdain for small talk is to proudly boast their incapability to turn conventional conversation on its head or dig deeper into a social interaction. That is, if their frustration comes from a supposed lack of substance.

An interesting person has interesting things to say, regardless of the conversation topic or format.  

A truly innovative conversationalist can easily convert boring or typical conversation formats into something more meaningful or unconventional. Small talk is not only profound in its own right but serves as the primary foundation for more abstract conversations. 

Alexis Elder, associate professor of philosophy and program chair for philosophy and cognitive science at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, said the dislike aimed at small talk is more of a projection of social misunderstanding onto a form of verbal communication that one hasn’t quite mastered or understood to the extent that they’d like.

“I think making small talk with strangers is a skill,” Elder said. “It’s not something that comes naturally to us, and so it’s really easy to kind of resent things that feel awkward and like an obligation we kind of don’t know how to fulfill, especially if you can see other people sort of around us doing better than us.”

In addition to this, we have become increasingly unfamiliar with casual social interactions given the rise of the internet. 

Ascan Koerner, a professor of communication studies at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, said social rules are different online. Online spaces create different allowances for the depth of conversation and the socially acceptable pace at which sensitive information is revealed. 

“A lot of research actually has shown us that online relationships, a lot of the social sort of norms that inhibit disclosure are sort of suspended,” Koerner said.

Small talk is less of a deep dive into someone’s inner world and rather a way to dip one’s toes in the water and acclimate to the temperature, then decide whether or not to go any further. It’s an introductory method of communication.

Koerner said viewing small talk as shallow is somewhat accurate, it doesn’t paint the full picture of why it’s important and necessary as an invitation to bridge gaps between strangers in a way that is most comfortable and least intimidating for all parties involved. 

“They’re not particularly intimate and you don’t make yourself particularly vulnerable,” Koerner said. “You don’t try to challenge the other person. You’re not trying to create conflict with the other person. You are really sort of, in a careful way, trying to open yourself up for conversation and explore whether the other person is open for conversation”

Small talk is shallow for a reason — the main one being the ease and advantageousness its lack of depth provides. 

Even surface-level talks about the weather, sports or politics can be insightful into one’s thinking process. If you gave every person the same question, regardless of what it was, you would likely get a different response from everyone. 

This is not to say that there wouldn’t be commonalities or similarities — people generally dislike polar temperatures, inflation and losses from their home teams. Where the magic happens is when the initial questions are answered and all that’s left is the question why. 

From there, the possibilities are endless. There are relationships that will grow between commonalities and similar perspectives shared through casual conversation and interactions, and there are some that simply stay at that initial, introductory level. These relationships, where the entirety is encapsulated through elevator chit-chats, passing hellos and casual banter, shouldn’t be dismissed either. 

Imagine if you had to sit through complex sociological discussions with everyone you’ve ever known or interacted with. That would be even more of a waste of time. Not everyone is your best friend and not everyone should be. That doesn’t make anyone any less important. 

Elder said small talk is extremely prosocial in that it provides verbal acknowledgment of another person’s existence and conveys friendliness. 

“We’re not bearing our souls to random people in the grocery store or imposing big burdens on each other, but just kind of saying ‘Hey, I see you. I acknowledge you. I like that you’re around,’ can kind of build up a much more positive social environment that then gives us the foundations to do more big and important things together,” Elder said.

As adults, we should accept the simple social rule that we will need to converse with people we don’t necessarily like nor consider close friends. None of us are better than a quick conversation about the weather, despite other inputs we may or may not have to offer. 

As an introverted person with seemingly no impending letup of social mishaps and miscalculations, I wholeheartedly believe that small talk is a more than legitimate avenue of communication. Disregarding the inevitabilities of our social landscape won’t make you any more worthy of conversing with. 

In a world where complaints about division and lack of quality social interaction roar louder with each calendar year, why do we dismiss the first step toward a more united world?

We may not have the answers, but we can ask around. With tact, of course.

The true definition of a sport and by extension, an athlete, is highly contested. The true traits of what constitutes an elite athlete are elusive, yet should be glaringly obvious. 

Why do we feel the need to dedicate so much of our time, energy and money to watch a ball go through a net? It’s like watching paint dry or the sunset. 

The fact that grown men are getting paid grandiose multi-million dollar salaries to wrestle in the grass is preposterous. Nearly everyone can run and catch a ball. Dogs do it all the time, as do children. 

The most prominent example of this tomfoolery is American football. It is a childish sport that should not be entertaining or respected by anyone past the age of 12. The fact that fully grown men don’t outgrow the delusion that being able to run, catch, speak, shake and sit down makes them any sort of special is laughable. 

It can be confirmed with the utmost certainty that football does not measure up as a true sport, and football players don’t even come close to the level of athleticism that true champions exemplify, thus eliminating them from any competition. 

I’m not excluding soccer here either. While being able to kick a ball is certainly a step up from merely running and catching, it still isn’t quite remarkable enough to be legitimate in any real sense. 

According to Webster’s Dictionary, an athlete is defined as “a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports or games requiring physical strength, agility or stamina.” Aren’t athletics supposed to be a measure of human excellence? Don’t we elevate them for their capabilities to showcase true feats of extraordinary strength, as well as test and maximize humanity’s true capabilities for physical greatness? 

Why do we as a sport-spectating public feel the need to uplift these simpleton activities and schoolyard games when we could be taking part in them? It would be like watching someone run on a treadmill for hours at a time when we could be getting our collective butts off the couch and actually doing something.

Why do we care who can run the fastest in a circle, for that matter? It has no bearing on whether we live or die and certainly isn’t that big of a deal. At this point, we may as well send hamsters to the Olympics and let them spin out for as long as we please. 

Don’t even get me started on lacrosse, which is literally just organized butterfly-catching. Don’t they feel silly running around with those little nets? 

There is little to no aesthetic element to these sports either. Who wants to watch sweaty men wrestle a ball when you could be enriching yourself with groundbreaking choreographic feats and record-breaking stunts?

Couldn’t these players at least try to put on a good show? Or at the bare minimum, get cooler uniforms? I want to see beading, Swarovski crystals and cheetah print. I don’t even want to think about those ugly helmets either. There’s no way that, in the year 2025, they wouldn’t have a more fashionable headgear option. It’s like their face is in a little jail; how can anybody take that seriously? 

Who are the true athletes, you may ask? They’re the ones who defy gravity, physics and even death through their elaborate physical feats and stunts. 

They’re the ones who risk injury due to the unnatural and frankly inhuman ways they move their bodies, all while looking effortless and putting on a show. There are halftime performances for a reason. The masses yearn for truly elite performance that these ridiculous games cannot provide. 

I’m talking about the gymnasts, dancers and cheerleaders who, contrary to popular discourse, are not just athletes, they are the only true athletes. Through their strength, tenacity and inhuman capabilities they are the only athletes that have, without a reasonable doubt, truly earned the title.

The separation between normal people and the average football or soccer player isn’t very wide when scaled to the separation between a normal person and a gymnast or dancer, the likes of whom train their entire lives in specific disciplines to achieve certain inhuman movement qualities that defy the human body’s natural anatomy. 

Most of us could never even approximate a round-off, aerial or à la seconde turns without training or significant time dedicated to learning these skills. Running, catching and throwing are innate to nearly everybody beginning in elementary school. 

These elevated recess games that the public regards as “sports” are about equivalent to a professional hide-and-seek league, or an elite tag player’s association. Perhaps even an all-star duck-duck-goose squad might have more to offer us in the areas of strategy and skill than the average professional team would. 

In the 21st century, we should appreciate the true spirit of greatness by lifting up true athletic and physical excellence, and throw childish games to the wayside. We need to laud the real athletes here, i.e. dancers, gymnasts and cheerleaders. Not some silly boys playing catch. 

Hyperpop is a generation-defining style of music that reflects Generation Z’s nihilistic disposition toward the issues of our time. It is as ironic and self-satirizing as we are. It reflects our disillusionment toward the world through its high artifice and sometimes near-parodical interpretation of traditional pop music while paying homage to the greats.

We’re splicing together the 2010s pop we grew up listening to, as well as futuristic sonic imagery in response to our deep longing for something more authentic than the traditional pop music industry is giving us. We want to party on our own terms, have our cake and eat it, too. 

Hyperpop is a Baudrillard-esque fever dream of a genre representative of the simulation we occupy in the internet and mass media landscape of the twenty-first century. It’s emblematic of the hyperreal time we live in, where we use media as a reference to frame our real lives. 

The genre draws upon multiple musical influences and nostalgia while dialing it up with complex and innovative sonic landscapes. This sound is curated to our cyber nostalgia in that we are perhaps now modeling our expectations to what we see online and associate our ideas of partying, music and fashion with a jumbled mix of vintage sensibilities and modern technologies.  It’s got a little bit of everything baked into it and is the perfect sonic representation of the internet age. 

It illustrates our generation’s struggle to place ourselves in history, as iGen members navigating a post-pandemic, post-modern world. 

Hyperpop had a huge moment this year thanks to Charli XCX’s seven-time Grammy-nominated album “Brat.” The genre, however, originated in the 2010s, gaining its initial popularization around 2019. The term hyperpop was coined by Glenn McDonald to describe the musical style of duo 100 Gecs — who are known for their unique and highly influential sound. 

The genre has roots in the LGBTQ+ community as well and has been remarked upon for its emulation of the ‘80s ballroom scene and its celebration of the unconventional. Many influential hyperpop artists like Kim Petras, Arca and the late SOPHIE, identify as LGBTQ+.

Hyperpop draws from multiple sources — most notably EDM and 2010s pop. Artists SOPHIE and A.G. Cook, both longtime influences on Charli XCX, are largely credited with the origination of the curated hyperpop sound we know and love today.

What sound defines hyperpop, exactly? There is nothing quite like it, sonically or tonally.

Sumanth Gopinath, associate professor of music theory at the University of Minnesota, said hyperpop’s sound lies in its unique production techniques. 

“Hyperpop is sort of connected to particular kinds of production practices, especially high frequency trebly sounds and pushing up sort of tempo and pitches,” Gopinath said. “So that things sound kind of toy-like, high frequency and also kind of manic, because they’re sped up.”

Grace Gong, a fourth-year student at the University, said she feels drawn to hyperpop for its melodic and compositional complexity. 

“It’s very dense,” Gong said. “I feel like there’s many textures to it. When you’re listening to hyperpop you can kind of focus on one line of instrumentation or something like that, and you can listen for a melody in that line, but then maybe the next second, you’re like, ‘Okay, I want to hear what’s going on in the bass.’”

Gopinath said a lot of hyperpop’s appeal comes from its deviations from traditional pop. Its overproduction of imperfect sounds in a way that is linked with meme music and virality makes it an unusual spectacle to the average listener — especially in a world of pop music made to sound perfect to maximize listenership. 

“On the one hand, you have people taking genres and music practices that are pretty tied up with what’s popular and has been popular for the past couple of decades,” Gopinath said. “On the other hand, they’re doing strange things with it, and it sounds defamiliarized, and it sounds weird, and it sounds unusual. I think that’s in a world in which it’s so much easier to make perfect-sounding music. Things that sound imperfect become much more attractive.”

It’s accessible, democratic and irreverent. It plays on what we know and love, pop music, and turns it on its head in an eerie and mystical way. It’s uncanny but also memeified. It’s serious and revolutionary, but like our generation, doesn’t take itself too seriously and embraces absurdity. 

We’re a thrift-flipping, curating, hyperpop-listening generation. We’re creating and consuming music that is all at once old, new, borrowed and blue. 

Hyperpop has proven itself to be one of the most formative pieces of Gen Z’s cultural legacy. 

In short, to understand Gen Z, you should listen to our club classics.

It’s fun to learn what type of person you are. 

Personality tests and other pop cultural psychological categorizations like learning styles are marketed as tools meant to unlock a greater understanding of how we move through the world and what kind of person we are. 

Where these categories tend to fall flat is their assertion that there are only a few different types of people or learning. 

Can something as nuanced and indefinable as personality or information synthesis truly be boiled down to such strict, black-and-white categories? What can these categorizations miss? Is there truly a finite number of types of people and learners? 

Maybe we’re missing the point. 

We can be everything and nothing all at once. These types are important but not in the way we think. Few people fall into any category exactly, and the areas of overlap between categories can actually be more indicative than we realize. 

Do these supposedly formulaic tests even hold up to scientific standards? 

Not really — at least not the tests you’re likely thinking of. The logic behind personality tests lends well to the popular learning style tests. 

I’m sure most, if not all of us, have had to take a learning styles quiz at some point in our education. By answering a brief questionnaire, we can figure out whether we process information best visually, auditorily or kinesthetically. 

Visual learners are best off watching and replicating concepts, auditory learners learn best when verbally instructed or explained to, and kinesthetic learners are best in hands-on environments, right? 

I recently took one of these tests and was disappointed to find out that I was a visual learner. Not that there’s anything wrong with visual learning, but I realized that none of the study suggestions listed were anything I’d had luck with or felt inclined to try in the future. 

It was disappointing to feel unaccounted for by one of the most popularized methods of understanding the learning process. I felt like a big piece of the puzzle was missing. 

We’ve been fed the lie that knowing our learning style will maximize our learning potential and outcomes. This is not the case. 

Nathan Kuncel, a Marvin D. Dunnette Distinguished Professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, said knowing one’s learning style doesn’t correspond to better understanding.

 “Learning styles is a bit of a pretty epic myth in education,” Kuncel said. “There’s a lot of people who are making money off of offering learning style curricula and programs and so on. But the research database, the scientific evidence, just doesn’t support it actually mattering”

Certain personality categorization methods don’t tell the full story either. 

Take, for instance, the stereotypical dichotomy between personality types A and B. Type As are rigid, strict and detail-oriented. Type Bs are chaotic, messy and more likely to fly by the seat of their pants. 

Of course, not everyone aligns perfectly within these two categories, and they’re so broad that they don’t tell us much beyond the surface. 

Someone could generally be labeled as type B because they keep a messy room or car, but excel at detail-oriented work in their professional life. Personality isn’t always fixed — it can change based on environment, stage of life and a ton of other factors. 

Jazper Simonson, a second-year student at the University, said he believes this dichotomy isn’t quite representative of most people.

“I’d say most people are in the middle because extremes are odd,”  Simonson said. “I feel like it’s sort of limiting” 

It’s a safe assumption that there are more than two types of people in the world. 

Kuncel said while differentiating between these personality types can be a start, there are better methods to get a more accurate picture of one’s personality. Type A and Type B personalities aren’t the best way to capture or measure personality as there are more updated and accurate tests out there. 

“There’s research that shows that certain personality characteristics measured in youth are associated with a whole host of kind of life outcomes,” Kuncel said. “They predict whether or not people wind up divorced. They’re associated with people dying young that they make mistakes and make choices that unfortunately get themselves killed.”

Kuncel said there are scientifically-backed methods of assessing personality. The Big Five Aspects Scale, developed in part by Colin DeYoung, a professor at the University, is a prominent example. 

“That measures five broad categories with two subcategories under those five broad categories,” Kuncel said. “That’s been associated with life outcomes, neurological I mean, it’s a great way of thinking about and measuring how we kind of differ and go about our lives differently from each other.”

We will never truly see ourselves from the perspective of another person, and a part of separating ourselves from the people we’re surrounded by is identifying what makes us who we are or what differentiates us from other people.

Maybe our curiosities about ourselves and how we measure up to the general population cause some to seek out exact, formulated tests to examine exactly what makes them who they are. 

It’s a lot easier to digest a short questionnaire situated on a binary between two personality extremes than it is to delve deeper into what truly makes us tick. 

Personality tests can be amazing tools for self-discovery when used in the correct ways. The popularization of inaccurate or misleading personality-driven testing is giving personality tests a bad rap. 

These tests shouldn’t limit our potential for learning or hinder self-discovery when they are intended to do the opposite.

As we’re acclimating to a post-pandemic world, we’re reverting to old body standards in an effort to regain normalcy. This comes as part of an effort to cope with the harsh readjustment as we attempt to make sense of a confusing world. 

We’re all becoming more aware of our physical presences and bodies now that we spend more time in the real world than we did during the pandemic — which has led to an increased interest in dieting and thinness. 

During the pandemic, we didn’t have to exist in a world that was so aware of our physical presence and appearance. For many, it was a break from societal expectations of beauty or normalcy. There were more pressing matters at hand. 

It’s no coincidence that we’re returning to what we knew.

Celebrities such as the Kardashians, Oprah, Lana del Rey and Ice Spice have had drastic and often public weight loss transformations over the past few years. 

People have resorted to exercise, diet, and in many cases, pharmaceutical interventions such as Ozempic to cope and seek control in a chaotic world still reeling from the pandemic. This search for control is echoed in the resurgence of health and beauty trends in full force. 

Another element of this is the emergence and popularity of glucagon-like peptide-1, or GLP-1 agonist drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy — which many public figures have admitted to using. These drugs act as natural appetite suppressants by slowing the digestive process.

While the body positivity and neutrality movements were a reaction to the highly standardized thin ideals of the 2000s, the resurgence of thinness is a reaction to those movements.

The pandemic came on the heels of an extremely body-conscious decade. The dominant narrative around weight was characterized by discourse and ad campaigns geared toward a more diverse beauty standard. 

During the 2010s, Ashley Graham made history as the first plus-size model to be featured on the cover of  Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue. Clothing brands like Aerie and Savage X Fenty launched body-diverse mainstream ad campaigns. 

Influencers posed in attempts to proliferate our feeds with rarely shared images of exposed stretch marks, cellulite and other physical attributes that would otherwise be edited out or dismissed as “imperfections.”

This came as a backlash to the thin ideals of the early aughts, where being underweight was considered the most normative and “ideal” body. The mainstream iteration of this body-positive school of thought came alongside the recognition that attaining and maintaining this standard was extremely time-consuming, difficult, unhealthy or even impossible for a lot of people. 

There was a real movement to glamorize a variety of body types. 

This logic continued through the pandemic, where body neutrality was popularized online. This simultaneously built upon and criticized body positivity. 

The idea behind body neutrality was not about pivoting the societal standards to be more inclusive but to reject the idea of a standard at all. The goal is to decouple one’s inherent value and accordance with societal beauty standards. 

When someone spends most of their time inside, away from social interaction, their attachment to societal standards can change. Social media can warp peoples’ perception of the world, especially when people have little to no contact with the world to begin with. 

Sarah Weaver, a third-year student at the University of Minnesota, said her experience of beauty standards was heavily shaped by social media due to lockdown isolation. 

“While we were in the pandemic, it was all social media-centric,” Weaver said. “Since you weren’t seeing anyone, that was your source of interaction with other people.”

It comes as no shock that this sort of thinking was popular during a time when many people were stuck in the house with fewer avenues for exercise or physical activity than before. Weight gain was a common experience during the pandemic. 

Katie Loth, an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University, said concern regarding pandemic-related weight gain came as a result of the sedentary lifestyle many lived during the lockdowns combined with the popularity of home cooking. 

“People spent more time at home and they weren’t going to the gym,” Loth said. “I think when people spend more time at home, they often spend more time eating and snacking and kind of preparing food.”

Were people less concerned about societal beauty standards because of body neutrality, causing them to gain weight? Or did body neutrality gain popularity as beauty standards fell to the wayside during a difficult time? It’s a chicken or egg sort of question. 

Loth attributes a lot of the diet-and-exercise resurgence to people seeking to lose the weight they gained during lockdowns. 

“I feel like there’s been a lot of emphasis on ‘Hey, if there was unwanted weight gain during the pandemic, here’s ways that you can combat that with dieting or exercise or things like that,’” Loth said. 

There’s a large sentiment of wanting to undo the effects of the pandemic, understandably. We’ve been thrown into an entirely new world after a pandemic, widespread social unrest, economic issues and a world more dependent on technology than ever. 

On top of all the new developments, there’s been a learning curve of not only navigating these changes but a reintroduction to society after it shut down for almost two years. 

We’re not only nostalgic and reverent of the time before our entire world changed for good, but we’re scrambling to find a way to adapt to the new world we’ve inherited. 

As a result, we seek to control one of the only things we can — our bodies. 

We want to exert control and certainty onto our physical existence by changing our appearance through regimen and by enforcing the strict expectations of thinness to undo a modicum of the impact the pandemic had. 

Body trends don’t happen in a vacuum. Knowing where they come from on a larger scale can aid us in our collective journeys toward creating a home for ourselves in our bodies, whatever that may entail.