“All it would take is to stand firm just once, and I can change my whole destiny in a single hour,” the protagonist in The Gambler says. Or something close to that, depending on the translation. The exact wording almost does not matter. What hits you is the feeling behind it: that small, tight twist in your chest, the quiet ash of recognition before you can even put it into words. These days, especially among young men, gambling is no longer just an activity. It has become something more like background noise in life, always present just beneath the surface. You do not even have to look for it. Scroll through your feed, watch a game, or stand in line with your mind half elsewhere, and there it is again: polished ads promising big winnings, instant cashouts, and Lamborghinis lined up next to roulette wheels that no longer need a real casino to exert their pull. What strikes me most is how little resistance so many of us seem to have developed. We grew up in a culture that does not simply value money. It treats money as the only real measure of anything that matters. Success, worth, even identity gets translated into dollars, credits, and glowing balances on a screen. Capital stopped being one way to keep score. It became the only scoreboard — the grammar through which everything else is understood. The only thing that still reliably answers. This whole thing feels like a worn-out, cracked copy of the American Dream. The outline remains, but the heart has been hollowed out. Happiness, love, peace of mind — they all get reduced to numbers you can chase. It is fabricated value chasing fabricated transcendence. And saying the word transcendence out loud these days can feel almost embarrassing unless you soften it with a joke. I have been noticing a quiet but real sorting happening among younger people. Nothing loud or dramatic. Just a slow drift in different directions. On one side are those who are beginning, sometimes cautiously, to turn toward things that cannot easily be priced: deep family ties, real community, faith, and acts of care that do not come with a receipt. On the other side are those who stay inside the loop — working, scrolling, betting, and chasing the next hit while something important inside quietly grows thinner. The numbers, messy as they often are, still point in the same direction. Research from the National Council on Problem Gambling shows that young men between 18 and 30 experience gambling-related problems at roughly three times the rate of the general population. Some estimates suggest that 8 to 10 percent fall into at-risk or problematic patterns. Globally, the National Institutes of Health and other public health sources estimate that somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of adolescents report having gambled in the past year. Here in the United States, younger generations are encountering sports betting and casino-style games much earlier and with far less friction than previous generations did — a shift reflected in behavioral data compiled by the Pew Research Center. Online sports betting did not create this problem, but it has intensified it dramatically. After the Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, the apps made wagering continuous, portable, and almost completely frictionless. A large number of young and middle-aged men now keep active betting accounts, and the numbers continue climbing steadily. In several states, calls to gambling hotlines and requests for treatment have increased noticeably after legalization. Young men in particular tend to move fluidly between sports betting, online casinos, daily fantasy, and back again. Participation trends are tracked by Statista. The mental health consequences often stay hidden at rest, and that makes them even more dangerous. Gambling issues rarely travel alone. They tend to appear alongside depression, anxiety, substance use, and a significantly higher risk of suicide. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Psychiatric Association have documented these connections clearly. Many people struggling with gambling disorder report ongoing depressive symptoms and persistent anxiety. Among adolescents, the effects often spill into school problems and difficult relationships — the kind of quiet distress that is easy to dismiss as something else. So what exactly are we chasing every time we tap “spin” or place a wager? A brief feeling of control? A short escape from whatever feels stuck in the rest of life? Or that very human hope — the one Fyodor Dostoevsky understood so well — that this time things will finally break in our favor? The platforms are engineered with remarkable precision to keep that hope alive through variable rewards, near misses, personalized prompts, and seamless integration with the sports you are already watching. At this point, it has gone far beyond simple entertainment. It has become a behavioral environment designed to keep you inside it. Fyodor Dostoevsky knew this world from painful personal experience. He fought a serious roulette addiction, lost heavily, and wrote The Gambler under intense pressure just to pay off his debts. The novel captures the psychology in a way that still feels disturbingly current: the clever rationalizations, the sudden rush of confidence, and the inevitable crash that follows. The core mechanics have not changed at all. What has changed is the accessibility. Your smartphone now places that same psychological trap in your pocket any time of day or night. The house edge stays exactly the same, but the human costs spread out quietly in the form of debt, distraction, and a persistent low-grade dissatisfaction that is difficult to shake. The result is a subtle cultural divide that many people feel even if they cannot always name it. Some are stepping away, or at least trying to, and searching for meaning in relationships, faith, or ways of living that exist outside the constant need to quantify everything. Others remain caught in the cycle, chasing wins that almost never come while slowly normalizing debt, distraction, and the nagging sense that something essential is missing. Overcoming
By Erol Yilmaz
American politics has since departed into the realm of personality politics. Increasingly, political figures are required not to advocate for policies or constitutional rights, but rather perform an identity in ways that are marketable and pocket-heavy. A facade that doesn’t have to earn respect, but earns a platform to influence. The emergence of figures like Erika Kirk illustrates how the face of politics is changing and personifies this shift with particular clarity. Erika Kirk is not significant because she represents coherent, revolutionary thought. Her platform was not bestowed upon her for anything remarkable, for she is just another conservative white woman proclaiming inequality. Instead, she embodies something larger than an easy jeer on social media. She displays, in full form, the transformation within American political culture: the gradual displacement of pragmatic politics to performative politics. She stands not as a policymaker, completely unassociated with legislation or prevalent in any category of defined intellectual, and yet she has a hand in Trump’s speeches and appears on every archaic conservative podcast. She is not, by any typical standard, a central figure in American political life. However, through her reach and platform, from which she spews her dated thoughts, she becomes a viral sensation almost weekly. It’s easy to blame technology. Political communication is no longer mediated primarily through filtered institutions like parties, unions or legacy media. Instead, it is disseminated through platforms that reward immediacy, polarisation and sensationalist mandates. Erika Kirk, even if not purposefully, ticks every box. Her views are widely humoured and disrespected by most of the digital sphere, and yet she persists in being circulated more as a laughing stock than a serious political voice. However, this is no reason to dismiss her influence as a mere source of humour. In this newly founded environment, influence doesn’t require institutional backing or even dignity. It requires visibility. According to research from the Pew Research Centre, a growing proportion of Americans get their news from social media platforms over traditional news outlets, something figures like Kirk are benefiting from. Circulation, in turn, rewards a recognisable identity and emotional resonance. But just visibility is not enough to cement your place next to the president at a rally. It must be attached to something recognisable, something savoury to the public. What, then, does Kirk offer that is so enticing? Part of the answer lies in her engagement with claims of “white male inequality”. At first glance, her framing appears to invert the established analyses of widespread inequality in the United States. Historically, this imbalance has been understood to cross racial and economic dimensions, heavily supported by empirical research and centuries of legislative disadvantage towards certain demographics. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Federal Reserve consistently paint a picture of immense disparities in wealth, income and job opportunities along racial lines, with Black and Hispanic households holding substantially less wealth than that of white ones. Given this, it’s shocking that one may ask why it is so blasphemous to speak of “white inequality”? Is it just an attempt to highlight genuine economic hardship among certain white populations? Or for a stab to bury the disadvantaged further out of public discussion? There is no debate that the majority of Americans are feeling the heat of inflation or the wrath of immigration wars. Further, there are demographics across all races who are suffering from wage stagnation and job losses. But Erika Kirk taps into this reality with a twisted conceptual shift. Instead of treating these conditions as primarily the outcomes of failing economic structures, she reframes them in racial terms. This is where her rhetoric becomes politically significant. By centring this shared experience of country-wide economic distress as a mantle that disproportionately affects white people, she utilises this racialised framework to push the tiresome conservative narrative that white families are the majority facing this consequence. That tension is what gives her claim traction, but also what makes it analytically unstable. Her rhetoric stands not to merely describe inequality but participates in an attempt to centralise it to a race that has and still does hold power over other minorities in government positions within America. This is where her influence becomes clearer. She is not powerful because she controls institutions. She is influential because she antagonises fact, something social media can’t get enough of. As Jürgen Habermas suggests, democratic discourse depends on shared standards of argument and evidence. When this discourse fragments across platforms and audiences, those standards are disputed and thus weakened. Under such conditions, figures like Kirk do not need to persuade everyone. She just has to resonate with specific communities and generate the tension required to thrust her digital image into circulation. She is not exceptional; she is indicative. For her, as much as any political figure or commentator, there is no such thing as bad press.
By Adia May
A new adaptation of George Orwell’s 1945 novella “Animal Farm” has been released, sparking massive backlash and criticism from commentators on both the right and the left. The original novel was a critique of communism and Soviet Russia, with the story serving as an allegory of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalinism. Farm animals grew disgruntled with their current situation and overthrew their farmer to build a utopia, which ultimately devolved into a corrupt power structure in which “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The messaging of the book became world-famous, with the CIA even using it as propaganda during the Cold War to ward off communism in America. However, the new movie is taking the opposite stance and is specifically targeting capitalism, creating a film that is less of an adaptation of Orwell’s work and instead a promotion of having a communist revolution with tacked-on fart jokes and potty humor. The movie was directed by Andy Serkis and published by Angel Studios, a company that built its brand on faith-based and conservative ideologies, becoming well known after releasing their most famous film, “Sound of Freedom.” Angel Studios picked up the film’s North American distribution rights after it premiered at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival last year. Serkis reportedly approached the adaptation by asking himself what Orwell would write about if he were to write “Animal Farm” in the modern day. He stated that he did not want the story to be about Stalinist Russia; rather, it would center on themes of capitalism, wealth, and overconsumption. The new villain of the story, instead of farmer Jones, is billionaire antagonist Pilkington, an Elon Musk allegory who closely resembles his mother and drives what appears to be a Cybertruck. The narrative is also fundamentally altered, as in the book, it was the animals’ choice to push out farmer Jones and enter into communism, whereas in the film, the animals did not have a choice and were forced to revolt as they were about to be sold to a slaughterhouse after Manor Farm failed to make payments. The movie makes communism look like a better alternative to capitalism, as the finale shows the animals revolting to stage a communist revolution after the pigs go into credit card debt. This change is completely altering the story, as it was at the beginning of the book that the animals entered communism and then found themselves stuck in an oppressive, tyrannical system. “Animal Farm” is a story without a happy ending; however, Serkis chose to alter the novel’s haunting conclusion to one that is more hopeful and offers closure. The movie added a third act in which Lucky and the other animals take down Napoleon and the evil capitalist Pilkington, spreading the message that animals should help one another and that freedom comes from working hard, “not because we have to, but because we choose to.” The film paints the message that a society should kill its oppressors and all live in a commune together, where things will be better. This flies in the face of the entire point of the original story. Ironically, this kind of thinking was the beginning of the animals’ downfall in the original book. The pigs in the story exploited their moral betters, using their suicidal empathy to manipulate and destroy them, taking all of their labor and goods, claiming it was in the farm’s best interests. The book was not about celebrating equality or the power of the collective; it was a warning about the dangers of both. The story went to great lengths to show how the animals were not of equal intelligence and how the pigs used that to their advantage to gain allegiances. The story pointed out the lie of equality, showing that there will always be someone smarter and more power-hungry to make a society based on equal wealth distribution fail. The book was not about how power corrupts and turns someone evil; it showed that, when the pigs gained power, they were able to inflict evil on others. To put it plainly, it was a warning about the lie of communism. Whereas the movie has been dumbed down to the point that many are mocking it as childish and lowbrow. In between the clunky critiques of capitalism and contemporary American politics is a narrative riddled with fart jokes and immature humor, which dilutes the message even further by turning it into goofy children’s entertainment, rather than a very real warning. George Orwell was a firm believer that literary fiction was a better way to explain the realities of the world, as he viewed political journalism as often being compromised by propaganda, staleness, and euphemism. However, stripping a story down to make it comprehensible to children was, ironically, exactly what the book warned against. A society should not stoop down to the lowest common denominator of comprehension so everyone can equally understand the message. This is the exact tactic the pigs used to oppress the other animals. Children inherently don’t understand everything about the world, but as they grow, they will learn to appreciate the story more, especially one that doesn’t assume its own audience’s stupidity is set in stone. Anyone who preaches total communist equality is ignorant at best and evil at worst. The animals on the farm who barely contributed did not deserve the labor of the animals who toiled, and that was the point. Ironically, the new movie’s attempt to alter the history and morals of Orwell’s work to make it into something executives and figureheads want is itself extremely Orwellian. The film has also led many on the right to claim that Angel Studios is falling back on the values it preaches after Laverne Cox, a transgender actor, voices Snowball, one of the story’s central characters. The casting decision stirred up backlash from Angel Studio’s largely Christian audience, who were disappointed that the studio, promoting itself as a family-friendly alternative to Hollywood,
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us