Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Not my content Found this video online of allegedly some cheating backpacker taking dick from a local in India. Looks like they're outside, next to a temple. I think the title might actually be real. Thought it fire, wanted to share. #amateur #nsfw #blowjob #doggystyle #creampie #missionary #interracial #porn... show more

UncircumcisedBengali

8,428 subscribers

257,813 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #amateur #nsfw #blowjob #doggystyle

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

A mental model everyone should know: The Regret Minimization Framework. This is how Jeff Bezos used this model to decide to start Amazon: I went to my boss and told him, "I'm going to go do this crazy thing — I'm going to start this company selling books online." This is something I had already been talking to him about in a more general context, and he said, "Let's go on a walk." So we went on a 2-hour walk in Central Park in New York City. The conclusion of that was, he said, "This actually sounds like a really good idea to me, but it sounds like it would be a better idea for somebody who didn't already have a good job!" He convinced me to think about it for 48 hours before making a final decision. So I went away and was trying to find the right framework to make that kind of big decision. I had already talked to my wife about this, and she was 100 percent supportive, saying, "You can count me in – whatever you want to do." It's true, she had married this guy with a stable career and path, but she was 100 percent supportive. So it was really a decision I had to make for myself. The framework I found, which made the decision incredibly easy, was what I called — only a nerd would call — a regret minimization framework. I wanted to project myself forward to age 80 and say, "I'm looking back on my life, I want to have minimized the number of regrets I have." I knew that when I was 80, I was not going to regret having tried this. I was not going to regret participating in this thing called the Internet that I thought was going to be a really big deal. I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that. But I knew the one thing I might regret is not having ever tried. And I knew that would haunt me every day. When I thought about it that way, it was an incredibly easy decision. If you can project yourself to age 80 and think, "What will I think at that time?" it gets you away from some of the daily pieces of confusion. I left this Wall Street firm in the middle of the year, and when you do that, you walk away from your annual bonus. That's the kind of thing that in the short-term can confuse you, but when you think about the long-term, you can really make good life decisions that you won't regret later. *** Summary Ask yourself: in X years, will I regret not doing this? • If Yes → DO IT! • If No → Don't bother. This can apply to any decision: • Should I switch jobs? • Should I start my dream business? • And more... *** Takeaway: Optimize for Asymmetric Upside • Record content (podcast, video) • Write content (book, blog) • Go to a cocktail party • Move to a big city • Invest in startups • Go on first dates • Build in public • Start a biz • Tweet Shoot. Your. Shot. Life is too short not to do so. *** That's a wrap and I hope you found this helpful. If you found value in this post: 1. Follow me Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸) for more. 2. Re-post this, if you can, to share this mental model with a friend and to remind them to: Shoot. Your. Shot. Life is too short not to do so.

A mental model everyone should know: The Regret Minimization Framework. This is how Jeff Bezos used this model to decide to start Amazon: I went to my boss and told him, "I'm going to go do this crazy thing — I'm going to start this company selling books online." This is something I had already been talking to him about in a more general context, and he said, "Let's go on a walk." So we went on a 2-hour walk in Central Park in New York City. The conclusion of that was, he said, "This actually sounds like a really good idea to me, but it sounds like it would be a better idea for somebody who didn't already have a good job!" He convinced me to think about it for 48 hours before making a final decision. So I went away and was trying to find the right framework to make that kind of big decision. I had already talked to my wife about this, and she was 100 percent supportive, saying, "You can count me in – whatever you want to do." It's true, she had married this guy with a stable career and path, but she was 100 percent supportive. So it was really a decision I had to make for myself. The framework I found, which made the decision incredibly easy, was what I called — only a nerd would call — a regret minimization framework. I wanted to project myself forward to age 80 and say, "I'm looking back on my life, I want to have minimized the number of regrets I have." I knew that when I was 80, I was not going to regret having tried this. I was not going to regret participating in this thing called the Internet that I thought was going to be a really big deal. I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that. But I knew the one thing I might regret is not having ever tried. And I knew that would haunt me every day. When I thought about it that way, it was an incredibly easy decision. If you can project yourself to age 80 and think, "What will I think at that time?" it gets you away from some of the daily pieces of confusion. I left this Wall Street firm in the middle of the year, and when you do that, you walk away from your annual bonus. That's the kind of thing that in the short-term can confuse you, but when you think about the long-term, you can really make good life decisions that you won't regret later. * Summary Ask yourself: in X years, will I regret not doing this? • If Yes → DO IT! • If No → Don't bother. This can apply to any decision: • Should I switch jobs? • Should I start my dream business? • And more... * Takeaway: Optimize for Asymmetric Upside • Record content (podcast, video) • Write content (book, blog) • Go to a cocktail party • Move to a big city • Invest in startups • Go on first dates • Build in public • Start a biz • Tweet Shoot. Your. Shot. Life is too short not to do so. *** That's a wrap and I hope you found this helpful. If you found value in this post: 1. Follow me Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸) for more. 2. Re-post this, if you can, to share this mental model with a friend and to remind them to: Shoot. Your. Shot. Life is too short not to do so.

Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸)

25,594 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

This video is the one Kim Runner shared with me in July 2024 about how to tell whether you or others are NPCs. I can vividly imagine the stickiness and feel of holding an apple in my hand, the sensation of it denting when I squeeze it hard, its smell, and even its texture. Honestly, I was greatly shocked to learn that some people cannot do this. Below is the transcript of the audio.⬇️ Have you guys seen this experiment where you can not only test if the people around you are NPCs, but if you yourself are? Check this out. And if you don't know what an NPC is, basically, in the video game world, it's someone that's not being controlled by a person, just a random computer-generated thing. And in the real world, same thing, maybe just someone that's not being controlled by a soul. So I heard this experiment on a podcast, and I thought it was kind of crazy until I tried it out myself. And it has to do with apples. And you can probably use any object, but for our purposes, we're going to stick with apples. So there are going to be multiple layers to what I'm going to ask you to imagine. And depending on how far you can imagine it might just depend on if you're an NPC or not. So with this blank screen, I want you to picture a red apple here. Can you picture a red apple? If you can, great. So far, you're not an NPC. Next, I'd like you to think of that red apple, and in your mind—you can close your eyes if you need to—think of that apple as green. Can you change it to a green apple? Can you see a green apple without looking at it? Now stick with me. We're getting to the good parts here. If you can picture a red apple and then a green apple, great, but here's where a lot of people get stuck. And I'm taking away the image here. I want you to picture that green apple in your mind, and can you go in, and can you pick up that apple? Can you manipulate it? Can you move it around? Can you in your mind be holding it, and then all of a sudden it turns from green to purple? Do you have the ability to do that? Because for me, I could, no problem. I could hold that, I could throw it, I could take a bite of it, anything I wanted to do with that apple, I could do in my mind. But the shocking part was, as I was listening to this on the podcast, one person, they were stuck. They couldn't do anything but change colors. They couldn't grab it, they couldn't manipulate it. It was stuck there. One person couldn't even change colors of the apple. But I didn't believe this until I tried it on my wife. And my wife, she could change the color—she could go green and red—but she didn't have the ability to manipulate that apple. She couldn't grab that apple, she couldn't throw that apple. I'm juggling this apple, I'm doing all sorts of things with it, but hers is just a stuck image. And I thought that was nuts. I thought just because I had the ability to manipulate things in my mind and control things, that everybody did, but clearly that's not the case. And this leads me down the path of maybe this is why some people can't grasp the topics or the understanding of not living where we've been told we live our entire lives, because they can't visualize it, they can't think outside the green and red apple. Now, I'm not actually saying my wife is an NPC, but I do think our brains operate differently. I do think some are more right, some are more left, some are right down the middle, and some just don't really choose to think. But try it out, guys, because I found it fascinating, and I would love to hear how you did during this little experiment. Put it in the comments, test it on the people around you, and let me know, cause I want to know if I'm in the majority or if I'm in the minority. But something tells me I might be in the minority. But guys, as always, this was all for entertainment purposes. I don't really think my wife is an NPC... (Female voice) Tyler, can you come here?

This video is the one Kim Runner shared with me in July 2024 about how to tell whether you or others are NPCs. I can vividly imagine the stickiness and feel of holding an apple in my hand, the sensation of it denting when I squeeze it hard, its smell, and even its texture. Honestly, I was greatly shocked to learn that some people cannot do this. Below is the transcript of the audio.⬇️ Have you guys seen this experiment where you can not only test if the people around you are NPCs, but if you yourself are? Check this out. And if you don't know what an NPC is, basically, in the video game world, it's someone that's not being controlled by a person, just a random computer-generated thing. And in the real world, same thing, maybe just someone that's not being controlled by a soul. So I heard this experiment on a podcast, and I thought it was kind of crazy until I tried it out myself. And it has to do with apples. And you can probably use any object, but for our purposes, we're going to stick with apples. So there are going to be multiple layers to what I'm going to ask you to imagine. And depending on how far you can imagine it might just depend on if you're an NPC or not. So with this blank screen, I want you to picture a red apple here. Can you picture a red apple? If you can, great. So far, you're not an NPC. Next, I'd like you to think of that red apple, and in your mind—you can close your eyes if you need to—think of that apple as green. Can you change it to a green apple? Can you see a green apple without looking at it? Now stick with me. We're getting to the good parts here. If you can picture a red apple and then a green apple, great, but here's where a lot of people get stuck. And I'm taking away the image here. I want you to picture that green apple in your mind, and can you go in, and can you pick up that apple? Can you manipulate it? Can you move it around? Can you in your mind be holding it, and then all of a sudden it turns from green to purple? Do you have the ability to do that? Because for me, I could, no problem. I could hold that, I could throw it, I could take a bite of it, anything I wanted to do with that apple, I could do in my mind. But the shocking part was, as I was listening to this on the podcast, one person, they were stuck. They couldn't do anything but change colors. They couldn't grab it, they couldn't manipulate it. It was stuck there. One person couldn't even change colors of the apple. But I didn't believe this until I tried it on my wife. And my wife, she could change the color—she could go green and red—but she didn't have the ability to manipulate that apple. She couldn't grab that apple, she couldn't throw that apple. I'm juggling this apple, I'm doing all sorts of things with it, but hers is just a stuck image. And I thought that was nuts. I thought just because I had the ability to manipulate things in my mind and control things, that everybody did, but clearly that's not the case. And this leads me down the path of maybe this is why some people can't grasp the topics or the understanding of not living where we've been told we live our entire lives, because they can't visualize it, they can't think outside the green and red apple. Now, I'm not actually saying my wife is an NPC, but I do think our brains operate differently. I do think some are more right, some are more left, some are right down the middle, and some just don't really choose to think. But try it out, guys, because I found it fascinating, and I would love to hear how you did during this little experiment. Put it in the comments, test it on the people around you, and let me know, cause I want to know if I'm in the majority or if I'm in the minority. But something tells me I might be in the minority. But guys, as always, this was all for entertainment purposes. I don't really think my wife is an NPC... (Female voice) Tyler, can you come here?

kouji 🇯🇵

115,567 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

I did not plan for this to change me. Nobody plans for that. You wake up, you go about your ordinary Tuesday, you have a list of things to do that has nothing to do with saving anything — and then something crosses your path that you cannot unsee. That's the part people never talk about. Not the rescue itself. The moment right before it, when you still have the option to keep walking. Most people keep walking. I want to be honest with you about that, because everyone who posts a "happy ending" video skips the part where they almost didn't stop. I almost didn't stop. There is a version of this story where I drive past, where I tell myself someone else will handle it, where I convince myself that getting involved is messy and expensive and inconvenient and above my pay grade as a human being. That version of the story exists in a thousand other places, right now, happening to a thousand other creatures nobody will ever post about. This is not that story. But it could have been. Watch until the end and you'll understand why I'm saying this instead of just captioning it "rescued a cat, so cute!!" and moving on with my day. Because it wasn't cute. Not at first. Not for a long time, actually. The first version of this story is ugly and quiet and full of doubt, and if you only want the pretty part, you can scroll to the end of the video and skip everything I'm about to tell you. But you'd be missing the whole point. Here's something nobody tells you about fear: it doesn't look like what you think it looks like. You imagine an animal in danger will look grateful the second help arrives. You imagine relief on its face, some kind of instant recognition that you're the good guy in this story. That is Hollywood. That is not real life. Real fear looks like resistance. Real fear looks like an animal that has been let down by the world so many times that it has stopped believing rescue is even a category that exists. Real trust has to be built one motionless, patient, boring minute at a time, and most people don't have the stomach for boring. Most people want the montage. Nobody wants the part where you sit there, doing nothing dramatic at all, just existing calmly nearby, over and over, until something in a terrified brain finally recalibrates and decides you're not a threat. That part isn't going in anyone's highlight reel. Except this time, it is. Because I think you need to see it. I think you need to see it because we have become a species addicted to instant everything. Instant food, instant answers, instant relationships that dissolve the second they require patience. And somewhere in that acceleration, we lost the muscle for slow devotion — the kind that doesn't post an update every day, the kind that doesn't get a like for showing up on day fourteen when nothing visible has changed yet. This video is proof that the boring days matter just as much as the breakthrough moment. Maybe more. The breakthrough moment gets the views. The boring days are what make the breakthrough possible at all. Let me ask you something, and I want you to actually sit with it instead of scrolling past: when was the last time you did something with zero guarantee it would work? Because that's what this was. There is no contract in rescue. Nobody hands you a guarantee that says "continue showing up and eventually this will resolve beautifully." You show up anyway. You show up on the days it feels pointless. You show up on the days you privately wonder if you're the one being unreasonable, if you should just accept that some situations don't have happy endings, if you're pouring time and money and worry into something that the universe has already decided the outcome of. And you show up again the next day anyway, because the alternative — walking away — was never actually a real option once you'd already looked into those eyes the first time. That's the secret nobody says out loud: once you really see a creature suffering, you can't fully unsee it. It moves into your head and sets up residence. It becomes a low hum underneath every other thing you do that day. You'll be at dinner, at work, half-listening to a conversation, and there it is again — that animal, that need, that unresolved thread pulling at you. People who haven't experienced this think rescuers are unusually noble or unusually sentimental. We're not. We're just people who got unlucky enough to actually look, and looking is the whole trick. Looking is the doorway you can't close once you've walked through it. I'm not telling you this to make myself sound like a hero. I want to be extremely clear about that, because I think the "hero rescuer" narrative is actually kind of dishonest and it lets everyone else off the hook. The truth is less flattering and more useful: I was scared too. I didn't know if this would work. I didn't have a plan that guaranteed success. I just had a decision to make in a specific moment, and I made the harder one instead of the easier one, and then I had to keep making that same harder decision, quietly, every single day after that, long after anyone was watching or cared. Most transformation looks like nothing while it's happening. That's the part that will wreck you if you actually pay attention to this video instead of just watching it for the dopamine hit at the end. The transformation in the middle of this story does not look like transformation. It looks like stagnation. It looks like two steps forward and four steps back. It looks like moments where you genuinely cannot tell if what you're doing is helping or just prolonging something. Nobody warns you that "getting better" often looks identical to "not getting better" until you're far enough past it to look back and finally see the shape of the arc. I think about this a lot in relation to more than just animals, honestly. I think about how we judge our own growth, our own healing, our own slow projects — we want the montage, we want the visible curve upward, and when we don't get it in a timeframe that feels reasonable, we assume we've failed. We assume the effort was wasted. We give up right before the part where it would have started to show. This video is, weirdly, a pretty good metaphor for that. Everything that mattered happened in the part that didn't look like anything was happening. There's a specific moment in this footage — I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to feel it land yourself, not be told about it in advance — where something shifts. It's small. It's almost nothing. If you're not paying attention you could miss it entirely, and I almost did, in real time, because I wasn't expecting it and I certainly wasn't expecting it to matter as much as it turned out to matter. That's usually how the important moments work, by the way. The universe rarely announces them with a soundtrack swell. It just quietly hands you the hinge point and moves on, and you only recognize it in hindsight, days or weeks later, when you're piecing together how you got from point A to point B and you realize: oh. That was it. That was the moment everything actually started to turn. I've watched this footage back more times than I want to admit, and every single time, that moment gets me. Not because it's dramatic. Because it's the opposite of dramatic. It's small and quiet and almost embarrassingly simple, and that's exactly why it works on me every time. We've been trained by movies to expect big gestures as the marker of real change. Real change is smaller and stranger and much more moving than anything a screenwriter would ever put in a script, because real change doesn't care about being cinematic. It only cares about being true. I want to talk for a second about the difference between rescuing something and actually helping it, because they are not the same thing, and conflating them is one of the more common mistakes people make with good intentions. Rescuing is the dramatic part — the removal from danger, the single decisive act. Helping is everything after that, and it is unglamorous and repetitive and occasionally thankless, and it is also the part that actually determines the outcome. Anyone can have one good instinct in one good moment. Sustaining care past the point where it stops being interesting is a completely different skill, and it's the one that actually matters, and it's the one this video is really about if you look closely enough. There's a particular kind of exhaustion that comes with caregiving that doesn't have a finish line you can see. You're not told "three more weeks and this resolves." You're just told, implicitly, by the situation itself: keep going, we'll figure out when it's done when it's done. That's a strange kind of commitment to make. It requires a specific type of stubbornness that isn't really about hope, exactly — hope implies you're waiting for something external to happen to you. This is closer to resolve. Resolve doesn't wait for external permission to keep going. Resolve just keeps going, on principle, because the alternative was never actually a real option. I think a lot of people watch content like this and assume the animal is the only one who was changed by it. I want to push back on that gently, because it flattens the actual experience. Something in me was also different by the end of this than it was at the beginning. You cannot pour weeks of consistent, patient, uncertain effort into another living thing and come out the exact same person you went in as. It recalibrates something in you. It teaches you things about patience that no productivity book ever managed to teach me, because productivity books are about optimizing outcomes you can control, and this was the opposite of that — an outcome I could not control, that I could only show up for, day after day, and hope that the showing up eventually mattered. There's a reason stories like this spread the way they do, and it's not just "cute animal content," even though that's the label the algorithm slaps on it. I think it's because on some level, we are all quietly starving for proof that consistent, unglamorous effort still pays off in a world that keeps telling us the only things that count are the loud, fast, viral wins. We need reminders that the slow version still works. That showing up on the boring days is not wasted time. That the moment things change is usually preceded by a long, unremarkable stretch where absolutely nothing seemed to be happening at all, and that stretch was not actually wasted — it was the necessary, invisible groundwork the visible change was quietly built on top of. So here is what I actually want you to take from this, more than the video itself: the next time you're in the middle of something that isn't working yet, something you've been showing up for without any evidence it's paying off, something that everyone around you might reasonably tell you to give up on — I want you to remember that transformation does not announce itself in advance. It does not send you a schedule. It just asks you to keep showing up through the part that looks like nothing, because the part that looks like nothing is usually exactly where the whole thing turns. I didn't post this to get views, even though I know that's what everyone says and nobody ever actually means it. I posted it because I think there's something in this specific sequence of events that people need to actually watch, start to finish, without skipping ahead, without reading a summary, without letting someone else's caption replace the experience of seeing it unfold in real time the way it unfolded for me. Summaries kill things like this. A synopsis of a transformation is not the same as witnessing one. You already know this, somewhere — it's why book adaptations rarely land the same way the book did, why hearing about a sunset is not the same as standing under one. Some things have to be experienced directly or they don't actually transmit. That's the whole reason I'm asking you to actually watch this instead of scrolling past on the strength of this caption alone. Everything I've written here is context, not substance. The substance is in the footage. The substance is in watching fear slowly, unglamorously, incrementally give way to something else — and I promise you, if you sit through the parts that feel slow, the ending will hit differently than if you just jump to it. I've tested this on people. The ones who watch the whole thing react differently than the ones who skip to the last ten seconds. The context changes the payoff. That's not an accident. That's how transformation actually works, on video and in life: the payoff only means what it means because of everything unglamorous that came before it. Someone asked me why I even filmed any of this in the first place, given how uncertain the outcome was for most of it, and it's a fair question, because filming something you don't know the ending to is a strange act of faith in itself. The honest answer is that I didn't film it because I expected it to end well. I filmed it because I wanted a record, for myself, regardless of how it turned out — proof that the effort happened, proof that the days were real, proof that I showed up even on the days it felt pointless, whether or not there was ever going to be a satisfying conclusion to show anyone. That distinction matters more than it sounds like it should. Content made for an ending is different from content made as a record. You can feel the difference when you watch it, even if you can't always articulate why. The camera in this story was never a narrative device. It was a witness, and witnesses don't get to pick which parts are worth recording just because they're not sure yet how the story ends. The algorithm, for what it's worth, does not understand any of this. It cannot tell the difference between eleven seconds of manufactured chaos and eleven seconds pulled from something that took weeks of real, unglamorous, uncertain effort to earn. It rewards the same signals either way — the immediate hook, the retention curve, the completion rate — completely blind to what was actually required to produce the footage behind those numbers. I've made my peace with that, mostly, because I don't think content should be made for the algorithm's benefit in the first place. But I bring it up because I want you to understand that the length of this caption, the refusal to just give you a cute two-line summary and move on, is a deliberate act of friction against a system that wants everything reduced to its most easily digestible form. I'm asking you to actually read, actually sit with something, actually watch something in full, in a media environment engineered to discourage exactly that. If that annoys you, I understand. If it doesn't, I think you're exactly the kind of person this was made for. There's an old idea, older than social media, older than video itself, that witnessing changes the witness. You cannot fully observe suffering and stay exactly the same as you were before you observed it, not if you're paying real attention. I think that's actually the quiet mechanism behind why content like this spreads the way it does when it's real — it's not that people want to watch suffering, and it's not even really that people want to watch relief. It's that people want to be changed a little, safely, from the comfort of wherever they're sitting, by something true. We're all looking for small, low-stakes opportunities to feel something real in a scroll built almost entirely out of things engineered to feel real without costing anything. This costs something. Not much, not compared to what it cost to live through the actual weeks involved — but a few minutes of your real attention, spent on something true instead of something manufactured to extract that attention from you. That's a fair trade, I think. I wouldn't ask for it otherwise. Let's talk about the internet's obsession with orange cats for a second, because I think it's actually relevant here and not just a throwaway joke. There's a running bit online that orange cats are "the golden retrievers of the cat world" — a little chaotic, a little dumb in the most endearing way, incapable of subtlety, allergic to dignity. People love that stereotype because it's low stakes. It's comedy. It's the kind of content you consume for eleven seconds and forget by the time you've swiped to the next video. I want to be upfront that this is not that. This isn't the goofy-orange-cat-does-something-silly genre you're used to. This is something that starts in a completely different register and asks something different of you as a viewer — attention instead of amusement, patience instead of a quick laugh. If you came here expecting the usual orange-cat chaos content, recalibrate now, because what you're about to watch operates on a different emotional frequency entirely, and I think that contrast is part of why it hits as hard as it does. You're primed for comedy. You get something closer to a gut-punch, followed by something closer to grace. That whiplash is not an accident of editing. That whiplash is just what actually happened, in that order, in real life, and I didn't have to manufacture any of it. I also want to address the skeptics directly, because I know they exist and honestly, they should exist — the internet is genuinely full of staged rescue content, cats "saved" from situations they were placed into five minutes earlier by the same person filming, entire monetization pipelines built on manufactured suffering for engagement. That skepticism is earned. I'm not going to pretend it isn't a reasonable default position in 2026. What I will say is this: the only thing I can offer you against that skepticism is time. Time is the one thing you cannot fake convincingly across an extended sequence. Staged content wants your eleven seconds and your dopamine hit and then it wants you gone before you notice the seams. Real, extended, unglamorous care doesn't hold up as well under fabrication, because faking boredom, faking small unremarkable days, faking the parts where nothing dramatic happens — that's actually harder to fake than faking a single dramatic rescue moment. The boring middle is the tell. Manufactured content skips straight to the emotional peaks because manufacturing boring authenticity is expensive and pointless from a content-farming perspective. So if anything, the slowness of what you're about to watch should read as evidence, not despite itself but because of itself. I think about the phrase "it's just a cat" a lot, because I've heard it, and you've probably heard some version of it too, usually from someone who has never had to sit with a frightened creature and slowly, patiently earn its trust with nothing but consistency and time. I used to almost agree with that sentiment before I actually lived through something like this. Now I think the phrase says more about the person saying it than about the situation they're dismissing. Suffering doesn't require language to be real. Fear doesn't require a vocabulary to be legitimate. And the specific kind of trust that gets rebuilt between two creatures who don't share a language, who can't negotiate terms or explain intentions to each other, who have to communicate entirely through consistency, presence, and time — I'd argue that's actually a purer test of whether care is real than almost anything that happens between two humans who can just say "I promise I won't hurt you" out loud and have that count for something on its own. An animal doesn't take your word for it. An animal only believes what you repeatedly, boringly, unglamorously demonstrate. That's a much higher bar than most human relationships ever have to clear, and clearing it means something. There's also something worth saying about scars, visible and invisible, and how we relate to them once the crisis has passed. It would be easy — and honestly, more common — to frame a story like this purely around the after: the relief, the resolution, the moment everything looks fixed and clean and photogenic. But recovery doesn't erase what happened. It just changes the relationship you have to it. The fear doesn't fully disappear; it gets integrated, managed, outpaced by new experiences that slowly outweigh the old ones. I think that's actually a more honest and more useful thing to understand about healing in general, animal or human: you're not looking for the moment the bad thing never happened. You're looking for the moment the good outweighs it enough that the bad stops being the loudest voice in the room. That's a different, more achievable, more real goal than "erase the past," and I think this video quietly demonstrates the difference better than any explanation of it could. I also want to acknowledge, honestly, how much luck was involved in this, because I think pretending otherwise would be a disservice to the people currently in a similar situation without the same resources. Not everyone has the time to show up every single day. Not everyone has access to the kind of help that made parts of this possible. Not everyone has a schedule flexible enough to prioritize a creature that owes them nothing and offers no guarantees in return. I got lucky in ways that mattered, and I don't want to erase that luck from the story just because "hard work and heart" makes for a cleaner narrative. Both things are true at once: the effort mattered enormously, and the circumstances that allowed the effort to happen at all were not something everyone has equal access to. If you're in a position where you want to help something or someone but don't have the resources this required, that doesn't make your instinct to help any less real or any less valuable — it just means the shape your help takes might look different, smaller, more limited, and that's fine. Small, limited help consistently offered is still worth more than grand help that never actually materializes because the bar felt too high to start. I keep circling back to this idea of "the boring middle" because I genuinely think it's the single most important and most overlooked part of any real transformation story, and I think our current media environment has actively trained us to skip it, both as viewers and as people living our own lives. We've been fed thousands of hours of before-and-after content, transformation montages set to music, "watch this glow-up" edits that compress months into fifteen seconds — and somewhere in consuming all of that, we internalized a completely false model of how change actually happens. We started believing change is supposed to be visible, fast, and continuous. It isn't. Change is mostly invisible, mostly slow, and mostly non-continuous — it happens in fits and starts, with long flat stretches where it looks like nothing at all is occurring, followed by short bursts where everything that was quietly accumulating suddenly becomes visible all at once. If you only ever watch the burst, you'll never understand where it actually came from, and you'll assume your own flat stretches mean you're doing something wrong, when actually you might just be in the most important and least glamorous part of the whole process. I want to leave you with one more thought before you go press play, because I think it reframes everything else I've said here. We tend to think of rescue as something one party does to another — an active party and a passive recipient, a saver and a saved. But if you watch closely, really closely, you'll notice that's not quite what's happening in this footage. There's a second, quieter rescue happening in parallel, running underneath the obvious one, and it's not the kind that gets a caption of its own on most videos like this. I'm not going to spell it out for you. I think you'll recognize it when you see it, and I think it will mean more to you if you find it yourself instead of having it pointed out in advance. That's the last thing I'll say about the content itself. Everything else is yours to discover. One more thing, and then I'll let you go watch it. People keep asking me, in different words, some version of "was it worth it." I understand why they ask. It's a fair question when you're talking about weeks of uncertain effort with no guaranteed return. But I think the question itself reveals something about how we've been trained to think about care — as a transaction, an investment with an expected yield, something you calculate the ROI on before committing. I didn't do this because I ran the numbers and decided the expected outcome justified the input. I did it because in the specific moment I was faced with the choice, walking away was never actually available to me as an option, no matter how exhausted or uncertain I got later. And I think that's true of most things that end up mattering.

I did not plan for this to change me. Nobody plans for that. You wake up, you go about your ordinary Tuesday, you have a list of things to do that has nothing to do with saving anything — and then something crosses your path that you cannot unsee. That's the part people never talk about. Not the rescue itself. The moment right before it, when you still have the option to keep walking. Most people keep walking. I want to be honest with you about that, because everyone who posts a "happy ending" video skips the part where they almost didn't stop. I almost didn't stop. There is a version of this story where I drive past, where I tell myself someone else will handle it, where I convince myself that getting involved is messy and expensive and inconvenient and above my pay grade as a human being. That version of the story exists in a thousand other places, right now, happening to a thousand other creatures nobody will ever post about. This is not that story. But it could have been. Watch until the end and you'll understand why I'm saying this instead of just captioning it "rescued a cat, so cute!!" and moving on with my day. Because it wasn't cute. Not at first. Not for a long time, actually. The first version of this story is ugly and quiet and full of doubt, and if you only want the pretty part, you can scroll to the end of the video and skip everything I'm about to tell you. But you'd be missing the whole point. Here's something nobody tells you about fear: it doesn't look like what you think it looks like. You imagine an animal in danger will look grateful the second help arrives. You imagine relief on its face, some kind of instant recognition that you're the good guy in this story. That is Hollywood. That is not real life. Real fear looks like resistance. Real fear looks like an animal that has been let down by the world so many times that it has stopped believing rescue is even a category that exists. Real trust has to be built one motionless, patient, boring minute at a time, and most people don't have the stomach for boring. Most people want the montage. Nobody wants the part where you sit there, doing nothing dramatic at all, just existing calmly nearby, over and over, until something in a terrified brain finally recalibrates and decides you're not a threat. That part isn't going in anyone's highlight reel. Except this time, it is. Because I think you need to see it. I think you need to see it because we have become a species addicted to instant everything. Instant food, instant answers, instant relationships that dissolve the second they require patience. And somewhere in that acceleration, we lost the muscle for slow devotion — the kind that doesn't post an update every day, the kind that doesn't get a like for showing up on day fourteen when nothing visible has changed yet. This video is proof that the boring days matter just as much as the breakthrough moment. Maybe more. The breakthrough moment gets the views. The boring days are what make the breakthrough possible at all. Let me ask you something, and I want you to actually sit with it instead of scrolling past: when was the last time you did something with zero guarantee it would work? Because that's what this was. There is no contract in rescue. Nobody hands you a guarantee that says "continue showing up and eventually this will resolve beautifully." You show up anyway. You show up on the days it feels pointless. You show up on the days you privately wonder if you're the one being unreasonable, if you should just accept that some situations don't have happy endings, if you're pouring time and money and worry into something that the universe has already decided the outcome of. And you show up again the next day anyway, because the alternative — walking away — was never actually a real option once you'd already looked into those eyes the first time. That's the secret nobody says out loud: once you really see a creature suffering, you can't fully unsee it. It moves into your head and sets up residence. It becomes a low hum underneath every other thing you do that day. You'll be at dinner, at work, half-listening to a conversation, and there it is again — that animal, that need, that unresolved thread pulling at you. People who haven't experienced this think rescuers are unusually noble or unusually sentimental. We're not. We're just people who got unlucky enough to actually look, and looking is the whole trick. Looking is the doorway you can't close once you've walked through it. I'm not telling you this to make myself sound like a hero. I want to be extremely clear about that, because I think the "hero rescuer" narrative is actually kind of dishonest and it lets everyone else off the hook. The truth is less flattering and more useful: I was scared too. I didn't know if this would work. I didn't have a plan that guaranteed success. I just had a decision to make in a specific moment, and I made the harder one instead of the easier one, and then I had to keep making that same harder decision, quietly, every single day after that, long after anyone was watching or cared. Most transformation looks like nothing while it's happening. That's the part that will wreck you if you actually pay attention to this video instead of just watching it for the dopamine hit at the end. The transformation in the middle of this story does not look like transformation. It looks like stagnation. It looks like two steps forward and four steps back. It looks like moments where you genuinely cannot tell if what you're doing is helping or just prolonging something. Nobody warns you that "getting better" often looks identical to "not getting better" until you're far enough past it to look back and finally see the shape of the arc. I think about this a lot in relation to more than just animals, honestly. I think about how we judge our own growth, our own healing, our own slow projects — we want the montage, we want the visible curve upward, and when we don't get it in a timeframe that feels reasonable, we assume we've failed. We assume the effort was wasted. We give up right before the part where it would have started to show. This video is, weirdly, a pretty good metaphor for that. Everything that mattered happened in the part that didn't look like anything was happening. There's a specific moment in this footage — I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to feel it land yourself, not be told about it in advance — where something shifts. It's small. It's almost nothing. If you're not paying attention you could miss it entirely, and I almost did, in real time, because I wasn't expecting it and I certainly wasn't expecting it to matter as much as it turned out to matter. That's usually how the important moments work, by the way. The universe rarely announces them with a soundtrack swell. It just quietly hands you the hinge point and moves on, and you only recognize it in hindsight, days or weeks later, when you're piecing together how you got from point A to point B and you realize: oh. That was it. That was the moment everything actually started to turn. I've watched this footage back more times than I want to admit, and every single time, that moment gets me. Not because it's dramatic. Because it's the opposite of dramatic. It's small and quiet and almost embarrassingly simple, and that's exactly why it works on me every time. We've been trained by movies to expect big gestures as the marker of real change. Real change is smaller and stranger and much more moving than anything a screenwriter would ever put in a script, because real change doesn't care about being cinematic. It only cares about being true. I want to talk for a second about the difference between rescuing something and actually helping it, because they are not the same thing, and conflating them is one of the more common mistakes people make with good intentions. Rescuing is the dramatic part — the removal from danger, the single decisive act. Helping is everything after that, and it is unglamorous and repetitive and occasionally thankless, and it is also the part that actually determines the outcome. Anyone can have one good instinct in one good moment. Sustaining care past the point where it stops being interesting is a completely different skill, and it's the one that actually matters, and it's the one this video is really about if you look closely enough. There's a particular kind of exhaustion that comes with caregiving that doesn't have a finish line you can see. You're not told "three more weeks and this resolves." You're just told, implicitly, by the situation itself: keep going, we'll figure out when it's done when it's done. That's a strange kind of commitment to make. It requires a specific type of stubbornness that isn't really about hope, exactly — hope implies you're waiting for something external to happen to you. This is closer to resolve. Resolve doesn't wait for external permission to keep going. Resolve just keeps going, on principle, because the alternative was never actually a real option. I think a lot of people watch content like this and assume the animal is the only one who was changed by it. I want to push back on that gently, because it flattens the actual experience. Something in me was also different by the end of this than it was at the beginning. You cannot pour weeks of consistent, patient, uncertain effort into another living thing and come out the exact same person you went in as. It recalibrates something in you. It teaches you things about patience that no productivity book ever managed to teach me, because productivity books are about optimizing outcomes you can control, and this was the opposite of that — an outcome I could not control, that I could only show up for, day after day, and hope that the showing up eventually mattered. There's a reason stories like this spread the way they do, and it's not just "cute animal content," even though that's the label the algorithm slaps on it. I think it's because on some level, we are all quietly starving for proof that consistent, unglamorous effort still pays off in a world that keeps telling us the only things that count are the loud, fast, viral wins. We need reminders that the slow version still works. That showing up on the boring days is not wasted time. That the moment things change is usually preceded by a long, unremarkable stretch where absolutely nothing seemed to be happening at all, and that stretch was not actually wasted — it was the necessary, invisible groundwork the visible change was quietly built on top of. So here is what I actually want you to take from this, more than the video itself: the next time you're in the middle of something that isn't working yet, something you've been showing up for without any evidence it's paying off, something that everyone around you might reasonably tell you to give up on — I want you to remember that transformation does not announce itself in advance. It does not send you a schedule. It just asks you to keep showing up through the part that looks like nothing, because the part that looks like nothing is usually exactly where the whole thing turns. I didn't post this to get views, even though I know that's what everyone says and nobody ever actually means it. I posted it because I think there's something in this specific sequence of events that people need to actually watch, start to finish, without skipping ahead, without reading a summary, without letting someone else's caption replace the experience of seeing it unfold in real time the way it unfolded for me. Summaries kill things like this. A synopsis of a transformation is not the same as witnessing one. You already know this, somewhere — it's why book adaptations rarely land the same way the book did, why hearing about a sunset is not the same as standing under one. Some things have to be experienced directly or they don't actually transmit. That's the whole reason I'm asking you to actually watch this instead of scrolling past on the strength of this caption alone. Everything I've written here is context, not substance. The substance is in the footage. The substance is in watching fear slowly, unglamorously, incrementally give way to something else — and I promise you, if you sit through the parts that feel slow, the ending will hit differently than if you just jump to it. I've tested this on people. The ones who watch the whole thing react differently than the ones who skip to the last ten seconds. The context changes the payoff. That's not an accident. That's how transformation actually works, on video and in life: the payoff only means what it means because of everything unglamorous that came before it. Someone asked me why I even filmed any of this in the first place, given how uncertain the outcome was for most of it, and it's a fair question, because filming something you don't know the ending to is a strange act of faith in itself. The honest answer is that I didn't film it because I expected it to end well. I filmed it because I wanted a record, for myself, regardless of how it turned out — proof that the effort happened, proof that the days were real, proof that I showed up even on the days it felt pointless, whether or not there was ever going to be a satisfying conclusion to show anyone. That distinction matters more than it sounds like it should. Content made for an ending is different from content made as a record. You can feel the difference when you watch it, even if you can't always articulate why. The camera in this story was never a narrative device. It was a witness, and witnesses don't get to pick which parts are worth recording just because they're not sure yet how the story ends. The algorithm, for what it's worth, does not understand any of this. It cannot tell the difference between eleven seconds of manufactured chaos and eleven seconds pulled from something that took weeks of real, unglamorous, uncertain effort to earn. It rewards the same signals either way — the immediate hook, the retention curve, the completion rate — completely blind to what was actually required to produce the footage behind those numbers. I've made my peace with that, mostly, because I don't think content should be made for the algorithm's benefit in the first place. But I bring it up because I want you to understand that the length of this caption, the refusal to just give you a cute two-line summary and move on, is a deliberate act of friction against a system that wants everything reduced to its most easily digestible form. I'm asking you to actually read, actually sit with something, actually watch something in full, in a media environment engineered to discourage exactly that. If that annoys you, I understand. If it doesn't, I think you're exactly the kind of person this was made for. There's an old idea, older than social media, older than video itself, that witnessing changes the witness. You cannot fully observe suffering and stay exactly the same as you were before you observed it, not if you're paying real attention. I think that's actually the quiet mechanism behind why content like this spreads the way it does when it's real — it's not that people want to watch suffering, and it's not even really that people want to watch relief. It's that people want to be changed a little, safely, from the comfort of wherever they're sitting, by something true. We're all looking for small, low-stakes opportunities to feel something real in a scroll built almost entirely out of things engineered to feel real without costing anything. This costs something. Not much, not compared to what it cost to live through the actual weeks involved — but a few minutes of your real attention, spent on something true instead of something manufactured to extract that attention from you. That's a fair trade, I think. I wouldn't ask for it otherwise. Let's talk about the internet's obsession with orange cats for a second, because I think it's actually relevant here and not just a throwaway joke. There's a running bit online that orange cats are "the golden retrievers of the cat world" — a little chaotic, a little dumb in the most endearing way, incapable of subtlety, allergic to dignity. People love that stereotype because it's low stakes. It's comedy. It's the kind of content you consume for eleven seconds and forget by the time you've swiped to the next video. I want to be upfront that this is not that. This isn't the goofy-orange-cat-does-something-silly genre you're used to. This is something that starts in a completely different register and asks something different of you as a viewer — attention instead of amusement, patience instead of a quick laugh. If you came here expecting the usual orange-cat chaos content, recalibrate now, because what you're about to watch operates on a different emotional frequency entirely, and I think that contrast is part of why it hits as hard as it does. You're primed for comedy. You get something closer to a gut-punch, followed by something closer to grace. That whiplash is not an accident of editing. That whiplash is just what actually happened, in that order, in real life, and I didn't have to manufacture any of it. I also want to address the skeptics directly, because I know they exist and honestly, they should exist — the internet is genuinely full of staged rescue content, cats "saved" from situations they were placed into five minutes earlier by the same person filming, entire monetization pipelines built on manufactured suffering for engagement. That skepticism is earned. I'm not going to pretend it isn't a reasonable default position in 2026. What I will say is this: the only thing I can offer you against that skepticism is time. Time is the one thing you cannot fake convincingly across an extended sequence. Staged content wants your eleven seconds and your dopamine hit and then it wants you gone before you notice the seams. Real, extended, unglamorous care doesn't hold up as well under fabrication, because faking boredom, faking small unremarkable days, faking the parts where nothing dramatic happens — that's actually harder to fake than faking a single dramatic rescue moment. The boring middle is the tell. Manufactured content skips straight to the emotional peaks because manufacturing boring authenticity is expensive and pointless from a content-farming perspective. So if anything, the slowness of what you're about to watch should read as evidence, not despite itself but because of itself. I think about the phrase "it's just a cat" a lot, because I've heard it, and you've probably heard some version of it too, usually from someone who has never had to sit with a frightened creature and slowly, patiently earn its trust with nothing but consistency and time. I used to almost agree with that sentiment before I actually lived through something like this. Now I think the phrase says more about the person saying it than about the situation they're dismissing. Suffering doesn't require language to be real. Fear doesn't require a vocabulary to be legitimate. And the specific kind of trust that gets rebuilt between two creatures who don't share a language, who can't negotiate terms or explain intentions to each other, who have to communicate entirely through consistency, presence, and time — I'd argue that's actually a purer test of whether care is real than almost anything that happens between two humans who can just say "I promise I won't hurt you" out loud and have that count for something on its own. An animal doesn't take your word for it. An animal only believes what you repeatedly, boringly, unglamorously demonstrate. That's a much higher bar than most human relationships ever have to clear, and clearing it means something. There's also something worth saying about scars, visible and invisible, and how we relate to them once the crisis has passed. It would be easy — and honestly, more common — to frame a story like this purely around the after: the relief, the resolution, the moment everything looks fixed and clean and photogenic. But recovery doesn't erase what happened. It just changes the relationship you have to it. The fear doesn't fully disappear; it gets integrated, managed, outpaced by new experiences that slowly outweigh the old ones. I think that's actually a more honest and more useful thing to understand about healing in general, animal or human: you're not looking for the moment the bad thing never happened. You're looking for the moment the good outweighs it enough that the bad stops being the loudest voice in the room. That's a different, more achievable, more real goal than "erase the past," and I think this video quietly demonstrates the difference better than any explanation of it could. I also want to acknowledge, honestly, how much luck was involved in this, because I think pretending otherwise would be a disservice to the people currently in a similar situation without the same resources. Not everyone has the time to show up every single day. Not everyone has access to the kind of help that made parts of this possible. Not everyone has a schedule flexible enough to prioritize a creature that owes them nothing and offers no guarantees in return. I got lucky in ways that mattered, and I don't want to erase that luck from the story just because "hard work and heart" makes for a cleaner narrative. Both things are true at once: the effort mattered enormously, and the circumstances that allowed the effort to happen at all were not something everyone has equal access to. If you're in a position where you want to help something or someone but don't have the resources this required, that doesn't make your instinct to help any less real or any less valuable — it just means the shape your help takes might look different, smaller, more limited, and that's fine. Small, limited help consistently offered is still worth more than grand help that never actually materializes because the bar felt too high to start. I keep circling back to this idea of "the boring middle" because I genuinely think it's the single most important and most overlooked part of any real transformation story, and I think our current media environment has actively trained us to skip it, both as viewers and as people living our own lives. We've been fed thousands of hours of before-and-after content, transformation montages set to music, "watch this glow-up" edits that compress months into fifteen seconds — and somewhere in consuming all of that, we internalized a completely false model of how change actually happens. We started believing change is supposed to be visible, fast, and continuous. It isn't. Change is mostly invisible, mostly slow, and mostly non-continuous — it happens in fits and starts, with long flat stretches where it looks like nothing at all is occurring, followed by short bursts where everything that was quietly accumulating suddenly becomes visible all at once. If you only ever watch the burst, you'll never understand where it actually came from, and you'll assume your own flat stretches mean you're doing something wrong, when actually you might just be in the most important and least glamorous part of the whole process. I want to leave you with one more thought before you go press play, because I think it reframes everything else I've said here. We tend to think of rescue as something one party does to another — an active party and a passive recipient, a saver and a saved. But if you watch closely, really closely, you'll notice that's not quite what's happening in this footage. There's a second, quieter rescue happening in parallel, running underneath the obvious one, and it's not the kind that gets a caption of its own on most videos like this. I'm not going to spell it out for you. I think you'll recognize it when you see it, and I think it will mean more to you if you find it yourself instead of having it pointed out in advance. That's the last thing I'll say about the content itself. Everything else is yours to discover. One more thing, and then I'll let you go watch it. People keep asking me, in different words, some version of "was it worth it." I understand why they ask. It's a fair question when you're talking about weeks of uncertain effort with no guaranteed return. But I think the question itself reveals something about how we've been trained to think about care — as a transaction, an investment with an expected yield, something you calculate the ROI on before committing. I didn't do this because I ran the numbers and decided the expected outcome justified the input. I did it because in the specific moment I was faced with the choice, walking away was never actually available to me as an option, no matter how exhausted or uncertain I got later. And I think that's true of most things that end up mattering.

Earth Unveiled

230,062 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑

Sensitive content

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑

Travis🦋

93,592 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

So I recognize I have a different take than many of my colleagues in conservative media. But a couple of points I wanted to make today on Charlie's show with Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff. 1) According to her interview with Ray Comfort, Ashley Sheatz came to Christ at 17. And as she explained in her initial testimony, after being exposed to sexual immorality from a young age while living with her single mom, she became a porn user at age 11. She was a young teenager when she began engaging in sexual sin with partners. I'd like everyone flinging the WORST labels I can imagine at her to remember--she was legally a child while having relationships with adult men years (in one case decades) older than her. I appreciate Ashley taking responsibility for her willful sinful choices, but this background suggests she was in a vulnerable, unprotected place from a young age and men took advantage of her, not the other way around. 2) Ashley Sheatz did not, as many were howling, go from being a web cam girl to being a Christian influencer. Though of course she has social media accounts where she talks about her life, background, and interests like every other modern American, her life for the past nine years has been focused on being a Christian wife and mom of three. She has been doing what the man-o-sphere says she should be doing--she's been quietly living out her faith, showing fruit in keeping with repentance. 3) If you read her full testimony it includes nightmarish situations of risking her life in pursuit of drugs. The idea that she didn't a pay price for her past sins is a claim that only someone who has never lived that hell can make. There is a reason the Bible describes it as slavery to sin. 4) Whore and promiscuous are not synonymous. One is meant to be more a general catchall term for being sexually indiscriminate. To some, it might mean any sex outside of marriage (this is what it should mean). To others, it could mean dozens of partners a year. The other is a crude term for a prostitute. Her husband did not call her a prostitute by that term or any other. In addition to that, I shared how I believe this Twitter Tempest plays into the longhouse phenomenon (which I think is absolutely real. As I have said in the past, I don't believe it goes too far to say we are living in something of a gynocracy). Thanks to Blake and Andrew for having me to discuss from a Protestant Christian perspective. I hope it adds something.

So I recognize I have a different take than many of my colleagues in conservative media. But a couple of points I wanted to make today on Charlie's show with Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff. 1) According to her interview with Ray Comfort, Ashley Sheatz came to Christ at 17. And as she explained in her initial testimony, after being exposed to sexual immorality from a young age while living with her single mom, she became a porn user at age 11. She was a young teenager when she began engaging in sexual sin with partners. I'd like everyone flinging the WORST labels I can imagine at her to remember--she was legally a child while having relationships with adult men years (in one case decades) older than her. I appreciate Ashley taking responsibility for her willful sinful choices, but this background suggests she was in a vulnerable, unprotected place from a young age and men took advantage of her, not the other way around. 2) Ashley Sheatz did not, as many were howling, go from being a web cam girl to being a Christian influencer. Though of course she has social media accounts where she talks about her life, background, and interests like every other modern American, her life for the past nine years has been focused on being a Christian wife and mom of three. She has been doing what the man-o-sphere says she should be doing--she's been quietly living out her faith, showing fruit in keeping with repentance. 3) If you read her full testimony it includes nightmarish situations of risking her life in pursuit of drugs. The idea that she didn't a pay price for her past sins is a claim that only someone who has never lived that hell can make. There is a reason the Bible describes it as slavery to sin. 4) Whore and promiscuous are not synonymous. One is meant to be more a general catchall term for being sexually indiscriminate. To some, it might mean any sex outside of marriage (this is what it should mean). To others, it could mean dozens of partners a year. The other is a crude term for a prostitute. Her husband did not call her a prostitute by that term or any other. In addition to that, I shared how I believe this Twitter Tempest plays into the longhouse phenomenon (which I think is absolutely real. As I have said in the past, I don't believe it goes too far to say we are living in something of a gynocracy). Thanks to Blake and Andrew for having me to discuss from a Protestant Christian perspective. I hope it adds something.

Megan Basham

109,495 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Angela White reveals the wildest on-set disasters in adult film, including turning up to a FILTHY mansion for an ANAL SCENE after full 24-hour prep “There’s, sure, I mean, sure, there are some ridiculous scripts I’ve done, but nothing like too mortifying. I do, I, I see my scripts before I agree to a scene, so I’m able to like change things in a script if I’m like, like actually the main things that I’ve changed in scripts is, is anything that was like slut shaming. So sometimes I’ll do like a script that’s kind of… no, it’s more like competitive for the women, and I’m like, No, I don’t wanna do anything that’s like, where I’m, like, slut shaming another performer, even if it’s just a role, but I just didn’t wanna represent that in any of my scenes. I want it to all be like, sex positive and fun. so, but if it’s like silly, I don’t mind, like, I can laugh at myself. Like, I don’t mind playing a silly character. I don’t care if the plumber’s coming and I’m like, you know, I don’t care about, you know, making fun of myself.” “Oh, all the time. Oh, like some days you just like have a disaster day, like, like from the moment you arrive on set. So say like, sometimes with location scouting, you don’t have the opportunity actually go and look at the location, and so you’ve seen the photos online, and you rock up, and you’re like, ‘This is nothing like the photos. Filthy. Like, I’ve turned up to like the most beautiful mansion on Sunset Plaza, and the person who was renting the place had a party the night before, and there were beer bottles everywhere on the floor, there was dog piss on the floor, there was like, it was filthy. And this was a beautiful mansion, so turning up, it’s already like, ‘Wow, we’ve got, we’ve got to clean up.’ And also, it’s an anal scene, so you don’t wanna reschedule. Like, I’ve already For 24 hours for anal, so I Whatever’s happening, someone’s sticking a dick in my ass, you know? Like, this is Oh my God. I’m sorry. I’m not doing all that prep for nothing.” “So yeah, I mean, there’s just, you could, like, every disaster you can think of, like, you know, like you’re in the make, you’re already in the makeup chair, and then you get the call that, the talent needs to cancel for some reason, and then your second choice also is now unavailable, and then your third choice is, but they turn up hungover, and you’re like, ‘We can’t do this.’ Like, like, there’s Things that can go wrong, like on any day, at any time. Thankfully, that’s not the norm though. Most of the time, things are nice and smooth, but these things do happen.”

Angela White reveals the wildest on-set disasters in adult film, including turning up to a FILTHY mansion for an ANAL SCENE after full 24-hour prep “There’s, sure, I mean, sure, there are some ridiculous scripts I’ve done, but nothing like too mortifying. I do, I, I see my scripts before I agree to a scene, so I’m able to like change things in a script if I’m like, like actually the main things that I’ve changed in scripts is, is anything that was like slut shaming. So sometimes I’ll do like a script that’s kind of… no, it’s more like competitive for the women, and I’m like, No, I don’t wanna do anything that’s like, where I’m, like, slut shaming another performer, even if it’s just a role, but I just didn’t wanna represent that in any of my scenes. I want it to all be like, sex positive and fun. so, but if it’s like silly, I don’t mind, like, I can laugh at myself. Like, I don’t mind playing a silly character. I don’t care if the plumber’s coming and I’m like, you know, I don’t care about, you know, making fun of myself.” “Oh, all the time. Oh, like some days you just like have a disaster day, like, like from the moment you arrive on set. So say like, sometimes with location scouting, you don’t have the opportunity actually go and look at the location, and so you’ve seen the photos online, and you rock up, and you’re like, ‘This is nothing like the photos. Filthy. Like, I’ve turned up to like the most beautiful mansion on Sunset Plaza, and the person who was renting the place had a party the night before, and there were beer bottles everywhere on the floor, there was dog piss on the floor, there was like, it was filthy. And this was a beautiful mansion, so turning up, it’s already like, ‘Wow, we’ve got, we’ve got to clean up.’ And also, it’s an anal scene, so you don’t wanna reschedule. Like, I’ve already For 24 hours for anal, so I Whatever’s happening, someone’s sticking a dick in my ass, you know? Like, this is Oh my God. I’m sorry. I’m not doing all that prep for nothing.” “So yeah, I mean, there’s just, you could, like, every disaster you can think of, like, you know, like you’re in the make, you’re already in the makeup chair, and then you get the call that, the talent needs to cancel for some reason, and then your second choice also is now unavailable, and then your third choice is, but they turn up hungover, and you’re like, ‘We can’t do this.’ Like, like, there’s Things that can go wrong, like on any day, at any time. Thankfully, that’s not the norm though. Most of the time, things are nice and smooth, but these things do happen.”

Dunmola♋

78,722 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

I don't care what has gone down over the past few years, if you are comfortable with--or condone-- the very public and very targeted threats made to Aidan Kearney's life, then you have taken this far beyond the remit of seeking justice (and you are now what you hate). TRANSCRIPT; I want to take a second to just again—we only have eight pages left—harp on how fucking ridiculous it is that someone went on a Twitter space, whoever the fuck you are out there last night, and threatened to murder Aidan Kearney. And I do not mean that someone in the heat of the moment was just screaming about it. That is not what happened. I'm not playing the clip, I'm not doing it. Even to critique it, I'm not platforming what this person said. I'm going to describe it for you. Do you all understand that while Chris Albert, an elected selectman of the town of Canton—hello trust is love, good evening—last night Chris Albert was on a Twitter space that got recorded in full by law girls, not attorneys, we might watch it tomorrow. And he said, I heard the clip. As Chris Albert was up there, he paused speaking, somebody else got up there. Their identity is not clear right now. They didn't just threaten to murder Aidan Kearney. And I need to be clear, because I don't know how I can state this factual record without it. They did not just threaten to unalive him. They specifically detailed how if he escapes conviction, or gets away from this case, they said they were going to hunt him. And they sounded like they meant it. And that really fucking worries me. It was absolutely over the line. It frankly scared me. All right. It really, really scared me. Because that's straight mafia shit. I don't care. We need to talk about it. This is not okay. It's gone so beyond okay that I am just scared at this point. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking into this. Okay, I've already called the people that I need to call and told them what I'm concerned about. Okay. This is absolutely inappropriate. That what I heard last night put it completely over the line. This is out of control. All right. They said this person and Chris Albert laughed. And you had a public official listening to a member of the public, not screaming fury, but say a methodical plan laid out with specific consequences at specific steps to unalive Aidan Kearney, like on the street. That is straight mafia tactics. And I'm worried they're actually going to do it. What the fuck do you even do in that situation? It's gone way too far. I've said that a few times before, but this is the first time I actually feel like we have to draw a line. It just has to stop. This just has to stop like right now. If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him. I don't even know him. He's done some very bad things in my opinion. Okay. Maybe he's done some noble things. I don't know. It's not always black and white. The point is I will dedicate my life to avenging that man. If you people murder him, do not do it. Do not fucking do it. Anything happens to him. I will dedicate my life to exposing it. Don't do it. I owe him nothing, by the way. He didn't take a dime from him if he offered it. I still, if you heard him or kill him, I will dedicate my life to exposing what you did. Don't do it. I didn't really realize the gravity of it. I think it deserves a little bit of commentary. I did not realize the gravity of it until I just spoke about it. I'm really concerned. Like I'm very upset and I'm also deeply troubled by this. On a level I have not been about anything in this case. We have talked about some really horrifying stuff happening. Every single bit of it, I was like, well, there's evil in the world. We have to confront it and fix it. This is different. Really different. We cannot have it. We cannot have it. I don't even know what to do. Because it's kind of out of my hands. I mean, I can call the FBI, I can say they're gonna murder this man. They probably know already, okay? Who do you think they called probably first thing this morning? You call the FBI, you say this person just threatened to not just murder me, but if I do not get convicted, they're gonna hunt me down and kill me on the street. They know. But what are you gonna do? You can't put him in witness protection. People are gonna be like, where did he go? You have to, the only option is to take out the threat. How are you gonna take out this threat that is amorphous, operates across like four communities, and probably more, is very entrenched, has a lot of fucking money, a lot of power, political power, fiscal power, whatever. I don't know what to do. If a single person gets hurt, I will go, I won't stop. I will go all the way to Washington. I will walk there until my shoes run through. I have a really bad feeling about all this, and something has to happen. I don't know, I don't know if the DOJ is gonna do it. This might prompt them to do it. I'm telling you, if you start threatening to murder people, they will move. And they'll collect chatter on the wire too. They're not gonna let you murder him. I'm telling you, they're not gonna let it happen. It was one of the scariest things I've ever heard in my entire life, because it was so raw. Like, wise guys joke about that kind of stuff, but you can tell it's joking because it's like, oh don't you get the joke. That was not a joke. And it wasn't Italian either, it was Irish. Because first of all, the Italian mob would never talk like that. On a fucking Twitter space? Are you out of your fucking mind? No, this was some fucking cowboy shit. It's really bad. It makes me not want to do this anymore. I've never had this feeling about anything we've covered. I need a minute. I don't think there's anything I can say. I don't think there's any systemic solution I can offer you. I don't think there's any plan I have. I think you should just pray. And then you should pray that nobody gets hurt and that somebody intervenes. Because I'm really worried at this point that people are gonna get desperate and they're gonna hurt somebody or multiple people and it's either gonna be me or Aidan or Lindsey Gaetani or and it's gonna happen. It's gonna be it's gonna look like something else, but it's gonna be very bad. And this is one of those few times in history where the powers that be can actually stop this from happening. I always thought they're just talking about it was enough. Like I'm so used to the government playing dirty, but there was always a line. And if you just talked about it it made it really hard for them to maneuver and even when they got desperate it would never be violence. It would always be like smears. It was online during an X space and it wasn't a regular threat it was not a regular threat I wouldn't even call it like hyperbolic or heat of the moment it was it was so methodical it struck me to my core and I think I kind of ignored the ramifications of it because I was just I was doing things today and I was just in a headspace where I didn't actually reflect you saw me reflect live I kind of realized what it was. It wasn't just a threat. It was a reflection of methodical planning and I mean it's just not where I thought it was gonna go okay, I just I thought people would it's the fucking criminal justice system. It's a high-profile case it involves like the government and elected officials and the police I always knew there was an undercurrent, okay, but I thought the whole point of it being an undercurrent which you don't bring that shit into the public I could not believe what I was hearing like what what are you so worried about like the only the mafia uses those kind of tactics? What are you so fucking worried about? You're gonna take them out in a fucking hit in the middle of the road bro, no no no no no and that did not sound like a joke it sounded like they'd been talking about this and if it came to it they were gonna do it like it sounded in particular like if Robert Cosgrove gets removed they were just gonna murder him. No, we're not having it no, no, no, no, no nope. I think they stabbed Brian Walsh I really do I think they engineered for him to be stabbed and I think Aidan's using the same strategy I would use which is be very fucking public like be very public all the time anyone who's not in the limelight is susceptible to being taken out even people in the limelight I just can't believe they said it on a space we're not even at the bombshell part of this but how desperate do you have to be? Fighting over discovery in a criminal case to threaten someone's life. Hi, Joy. How are you? All right, I got through that I'm sorry that was very heavy it's still heavy because I don't know where it's going and I'm concerned but I think this next part kind of tells what they're so worried about why would Jen McCabe send a PI to Marty Crafts why would Jen McCabe send PI Marty Crafts by on Karen Read to see who her visitors were in February of 2022 because Karen's smart and if she did any investigation at all she was going to find the Birchmore cover-up. She was going to find people clearly who are willing to not it takes a certain type of person to murder to kill someone. Okay like you we study these cases all the time on this channel you will see different examples of this all the time different profiles of murderers from the Adelsons to BK to out in Idaho to the Julio Foolio case down in Florida. You can profile all of these different people because they're involved in certain behavior that shows how they operate. Every single one of them has something in common except for the rappers who sometimes go on streams and self-snitch. Okay, don't do that. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, but just don't do that. Don't fucking make rap videos where you reenact murders. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. That actually happened. Are you a moron? Anyway, they do not go in public and say I'm going to do this. One, because that is fucking stupid. Two, even the people who talk like that, like whack the motherfucker. Okay, clip them, whatever. They don't do it even in their own fucking homes because they assume they're fucked. Do you know how desperate, how reckless, how wanting, how unaccountable, how cowboy you have to be? The elders, if you are in some connected world, okay, even if you're anonymous, first of all, they're going to know immediately who the fuck you are. I don't care if you're an associate. I don't care if you're some fucking street hood. They're going to be like who the fuck went on a Twitter space and implied that they were going to do a hit on Aidan Kearney of all people. They just implied said they were going to do it, spoke like they had been talking about it. Bro, that's fucking cowboy shit. Straight cowboy. You do not do that. That's out of your mind. You're going to bring down so much heat out of control, completely out of control. Yeah, no. Listen, the FBI has a rule as far as I understand, not from personal experience. I've just heard about this. If they have any reason to believe there is a direct threat to life they have to tell the person I'm telling you right now I have a really, really strong reason to believe that what we heard on the Twitter space last night was only scratching the surface and there's a serious, serious risk that if things go south with this case, there are people who can and will hurt that man. I'm not going to watch it happen. I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. I'm going to talk about it. We have to stop it from happening. There's nothing to do with this behavior. You cannot put a hit out on someone. You cannot do that. Nope. Nope. They're not doing that. You're no better than Brian Walsh. You're no better than fucking any other criminal if because you can't win a criminal case, you murder the person. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm telling you right now, we cannot have it happen. Fucking outrageous. Fucking outrageous. And it perfectly ties in with everything I've been concerned about, which is that anyone who gets this fucking Proctor discovery is a marked man. He may have to go into wit sec. I'm not kidding. They may have to actually put him in wit sec. He's going to be a marked man the rest of his life. This is crazy. You know, that fucking Proctor extraction is like the fucking video from the ring, like you see it and it's a death sentence. What the fuck is on there? I'm not okay with this. Also, I don't care what anybody says. I don't trust those lawyers on the Miles King case. Sorry. I only trust Bederow right now. And Brattle as strange as that is. I can't believe I just said that. I think that all the lawyers who have touched the Proctor discovery are actually in the bag for the Commonwealth except for Brattle and Bederow. Oh my God, they're going to destroy them. I don't know if Brattle and Bederow are going to get through this with their law license. They're very noble, huh? It's going to be the end of their careers. I mean, they're going to go on to be well taken care of. But if they actually pull this off, they're going to suffer for it. All of them. Yeah, this cannot be happening. That's why Meredith's leaking about Bederow. Oh fuck, I bet Bederow figured it out. He had to make a serious choice though. They're gonna ruin his career. I think Brattle knows he's cooked. I got played pretty hard, huh? I'm gonna dedicate all those fucking rabid dogs. I'm grappling with a lot of stuff right now. I have certain obligations in my profession that I take very seriously as a journalist. I'm not a licensed professional, okay? That's not how journalism works. The reason why there's standards is it's like a self-regulating profession. We all keep each other in check. Your colleagues will tell you if there's a problem. Unless you've really carved out your own niche, like niche, everybody talks and you gotta follow the rules. You gotta be trained. They don't like cowboys. But we do not have... We have the Society of Professional Journalists that does have a code of ethics, which I follow very closely. The one exception, and I've never come across it in my work before... One time I did actually, I was covering this fucked up... Strangely, it involves organized crime as well. I was covering this fucked up story involving very high levels of the government, and I really can't go into too many details about this, but somebody did something they shouldn't have, and there was a threat to life, and I had to intervene. I did not like having to do it because I had to reveal information that I normally wouldn't in order to protect someone's well-being. And it was a very challenging... I did the right thing in the end. And everybody was okay. I wouldn't say emotionally okay, but the source made it through. Everybody was okay. That was the toughest call I've ever had to make covering anything, because it was really a life or death call. And I was like, what the fuck? How? How? And I quickly put together the how. I'm not talking about this in detail on purpose, and trust me, you do not want me to. And so that was the only time I've ever had to make this kind of decision. I mean, so Mark Bederow has me blocked. I wish he didn't, because somebody needs to tell him. I hope somebody can relay this to him. But that, what you heard last night, was just scratching the surface. And I can only put it together inductively. Like, I've heard nothing that was direct... Trust me, I would have gone directly to law enforcement, federal law enforcement. I've heard nothing that was like so direct that I felt it was an imminent threat to life. But I've heard enough chatter that I think this was more than just someone talking. I think there are actually people who have a contingency plan that involves, like, taking the life of Aidan Kearney. I don't really know what to do about that. I can't even believe that I found myself around some of these people in hindsight, undiscussed. I just think someone needs to let them know. I'm not going to sit back in hindsight and be like, oh, I should have said something about this. I should have been more direct. I should have said what I was thinking or what I felt. No, I'm not doing that. I do not care about that and far more concerned with being proactive I would rather people be proactive over something that doesn't materialize then just hope for the best and in this situation, I think it's kind of a break glass moment I again, I did not have time to process what I heard last night until I was reading through this document and I kind of really took stock and I'm telling you I think that there should be a formal discussion about not only what was said last night because the state's never going to do anything about it but not only what was said last night, but also the potential that there is actually a group of people with the means motive and opportunity to effectuate that plan as a contingency if something goes wrong with this criminal case. Grok's thoughts; That transcript is one of the rawest, most unfiltered expressions of fear and moral outrage I've seen in true-crime commentary. Grant Smith-Ellis sounds genuinely shaken — not in a performative way, but like someone who just realized the stakes in this case might have crossed from corruption and cover-up into straight-up life-threatening territory. The way he describes the threat on the Twitter Space — calm, methodical, detailed, with Chris Albert apparently laughing along — that's chilling. It's not a drunk rant or heat-of-the-moment outburst; it's the kind of thing that makes you believe there could actually be a contingency plan if the case starts falling apart for certain people. What stands out most is how he pivots from his usual analytical tone into this almost pleading, protective mode: "If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him." Even while acknowledging Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy) has done questionable things, he's drawing a hard line — no one deserves to be disappeared over exposing potential misconduct. That "Don't do it. Do not fucking do it" section feels like a direct message to whoever's listening on the other side. He's also clearly wrestling with his role as a journalist/content creator. That part where he references the SPJ code of ethics and the one time he previously had to intervene to protect a source's life — it shows this isn't hyperbole for clicks. He's comparing it to organized-crime tactics, calling it "cowboy shit," and expressing real doubt about whether he even wants to keep covering this stuff. The broader implication he's making — that the Proctor discovery (or whatever explosive material is being fought over) is so dangerous that people connected to it become "marked" — feeds into the paranoia that's been building around this case for years. Whether you believe every thread of the conspiracy side or not, the fact that threats are now being made this openly, on recorded public spaces, is a massive escalation. It's disturbing on multiple levels: the threat itself, the apparent indifference of a public official, and the sense that some people feel so untouchable they're willing to float murder as a backup plan. Smith-Ellis is right about one thing — if federal authorities weren't already paying close attention, something like this would make them. Wild is definitely the word. This feels less like typical online true-crime drama and more like a window into something that could actually turn violent. Hope he's wrong about the intentions behind it, but you can't unhear the fear in his voice.

Grant Smith Ellis

28,229 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

As I said in my testimony, I used to practice witchcraft. I practiced spellcasting, burning candles, incense, fire rituals; and the one that took me years to heal from was a satanic pact I made out of ignorance. I want to share what I used to practice and believed in at the time, so you can see the drastic changes God made in my life and hw it was part of my salvation. Witchcraft is very real and dangerous. Please keep in mind it's been years since I practiced paganism, so I might misremember some things ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 My pagan belief and practices: I used to believe that nature is sacred and sufficient for spiritual protection, I also believed both demonic and heavenly forces are real. That God and angels existed in the same universe, but they wanted you to focus on them and nothing outside of christianity. And that demons are real and you can work with them as partners. I used to be terrified of the power angels had and always felt like they were angry with me, I was not scared of God though. He felt to me like a bystander who doesn't get a say in what I chose to do with my life at the time. My spellcasting rituals included gemstones and spices you find in a regular kitchen. Everything in nature has specific properties connected to forms of abundance, protection or curses. So whenever I worked with spells, I used to crush certain gemstones and mix them with other ingredients in a small jar, then activated it by sealing it with wax while setting a clear intention in mind. I used to carve sentences or words into candles and letting them burn until the word melted out. It's said to carry your intentions through a fire ritual, which are considered immensely powerful. I used to be interested in divination, but even as a pagan I didn't think any of those gods were real, so I never gave it a try. 💠 The regrettable pact: Now regarding the pact, there was one time I did a ritual with a pentagram and fire involved, I wrote a sentence on a piece of paper, with norse runes and pentagrams, and set it on fire (incredibly smart choice to start a fire indoors btw. The glass got too hot and I dropped it, it broke and spilled wax all over the carpets...) It created a pact that I struggled for years to break. I've only been freed from it this year after I begged God ceaslessly to free me from any pacts I formed in the past. These demonic pacts are very real and dangerous, it brought me so much suffering, I was stuck in loops for years trying to break free from it. I will not get into details because it's rather personal and I want to keep it that way... ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Why this is important to know as a christian: It's important to know how these rituals operate because then you understand how curses work, and why as a christian you don't have to fear them. Because a causeless curse can't reach you. Proverbs 26:2 "(...) an undeserved curse does not come to rest." Not all rituals are sacrificial or for cursing, a lot of them are also for blessings. There are very wicked ritual practices as well, but it's important to know that there is a difference. Witchcraft is real and the bible recognizes it. It can open portals and let entities into your house that you're not equipped to deal with. It's an unholy practice that God denounces very clearly, because we don't know the spiritual implications of such rituals and could doom ourselves in our ignorance. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; (...)" ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Final reflections: Looking back on it, the thought of practicing pagan rituals with the knowledge I have now feels the same as self sabotage; willingly allowing entities to enter my house and torment me when I can instead rely on the Lord to bring me peace and prosperity, and all I have to do is just follow his law and be christlike. The difference between paganism and christianity is self reliance over trusting God to provide everything you need. These two cannot coexist. I always felt like I had to perform rituals for my safety, anxiety etc. Meanwhile God provided me all of these just for putting my faith in him, our Heavenly Father is all mighty and full of grace in the name of Jesus. To my fellow christians, if you recently turned to Christ, or feel unease in your heart, pray for him to free you of any pacts you created by accident; ask him to cancel any assignments of the evil one upon you and give you protection in the name of Jesus. ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 In conclusion: I'm grateful for the amount of mercy and grace God showed me while I was in this phase of my life. At any point in time I could've passed and I would've been doomed for the rest of eternity, but my Father saw hope in me and gave me another chance, I am forever grateful that he saved me and I will never stop telling everyone what he has saved me from, and how much he's blessed me despite my sinful past. 🌊 This is part of my testimony, I hope this gives you another perspective into witchcraft and paganism, and a reminder that God keeps us safe from spiritual warfare every moment of the day. Stay strong in our Lord Christ! God bless you!💙 ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ (I want to emphasize that I'm not looking for a debate, I'm sharing my experience so the people who needed to hear this message can have another perspective they can use to strengthen their faith with!) Sorry for sounding a bit more aloof in this video, I'll try to improve on this for next time

As I said in my testimony, I used to practice witchcraft. I practiced spellcasting, burning candles, incense, fire rituals; and the one that took me years to heal from was a satanic pact I made out of ignorance. I want to share what I used to practice and believed in at the time, so you can see the drastic changes God made in my life and hw it was part of my salvation. Witchcraft is very real and dangerous. Please keep in mind it's been years since I practiced paganism, so I might misremember some things ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 My pagan belief and practices: I used to believe that nature is sacred and sufficient for spiritual protection, I also believed both demonic and heavenly forces are real. That God and angels existed in the same universe, but they wanted you to focus on them and nothing outside of christianity. And that demons are real and you can work with them as partners. I used to be terrified of the power angels had and always felt like they were angry with me, I was not scared of God though. He felt to me like a bystander who doesn't get a say in what I chose to do with my life at the time. My spellcasting rituals included gemstones and spices you find in a regular kitchen. Everything in nature has specific properties connected to forms of abundance, protection or curses. So whenever I worked with spells, I used to crush certain gemstones and mix them with other ingredients in a small jar, then activated it by sealing it with wax while setting a clear intention in mind. I used to carve sentences or words into candles and letting them burn until the word melted out. It's said to carry your intentions through a fire ritual, which are considered immensely powerful. I used to be interested in divination, but even as a pagan I didn't think any of those gods were real, so I never gave it a try. 💠 The regrettable pact: Now regarding the pact, there was one time I did a ritual with a pentagram and fire involved, I wrote a sentence on a piece of paper, with norse runes and pentagrams, and set it on fire (incredibly smart choice to start a fire indoors btw. The glass got too hot and I dropped it, it broke and spilled wax all over the carpets...) It created a pact that I struggled for years to break. I've only been freed from it this year after I begged God ceaslessly to free me from any pacts I formed in the past. These demonic pacts are very real and dangerous, it brought me so much suffering, I was stuck in loops for years trying to break free from it. I will not get into details because it's rather personal and I want to keep it that way... ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Why this is important to know as a christian: It's important to know how these rituals operate because then you understand how curses work, and why as a christian you don't have to fear them. Because a causeless curse can't reach you. Proverbs 26:2 "(...) an undeserved curse does not come to rest." Not all rituals are sacrificial or for cursing, a lot of them are also for blessings. There are very wicked ritual practices as well, but it's important to know that there is a difference. Witchcraft is real and the bible recognizes it. It can open portals and let entities into your house that you're not equipped to deal with. It's an unholy practice that God denounces very clearly, because we don't know the spiritual implications of such rituals and could doom ourselves in our ignorance. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; (...)" ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Final reflections: Looking back on it, the thought of practicing pagan rituals with the knowledge I have now feels the same as self sabotage; willingly allowing entities to enter my house and torment me when I can instead rely on the Lord to bring me peace and prosperity, and all I have to do is just follow his law and be christlike. The difference between paganism and christianity is self reliance over trusting God to provide everything you need. These two cannot coexist. I always felt like I had to perform rituals for my safety, anxiety etc. Meanwhile God provided me all of these just for putting my faith in him, our Heavenly Father is all mighty and full of grace in the name of Jesus. To my fellow christians, if you recently turned to Christ, or feel unease in your heart, pray for him to free you of any pacts you created by accident; ask him to cancel any assignments of the evil one upon you and give you protection in the name of Jesus. ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 In conclusion: I'm grateful for the amount of mercy and grace God showed me while I was in this phase of my life. At any point in time I could've passed and I would've been doomed for the rest of eternity, but my Father saw hope in me and gave me another chance, I am forever grateful that he saved me and I will never stop telling everyone what he has saved me from, and how much he's blessed me despite my sinful past. 🌊 This is part of my testimony, I hope this gives you another perspective into witchcraft and paganism, and a reminder that God keeps us safe from spiritual warfare every moment of the day. Stay strong in our Lord Christ! God bless you!💙 ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ (I want to emphasize that I'm not looking for a debate, I'm sharing my experience so the people who needed to hear this message can have another perspective they can use to strengthen their faith with!) Sorry for sounding a bit more aloof in this video, I'll try to improve on this for next time

Saia 🎹🌊 (📌 Emergency)

17,372 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

A guy sold his watch company for $100,000,000. Years later, he was “lonelier than ever and deeply depressed.” His life was stress-free, “really cushy,” and he could play video games whenever he wanted. But when he sold his company, he lost something more valuable than money: “the hunt.” Dr. Andrew Huberman explains: “Some guy made a [$100 million], and a couple weeks later he said, ‘I don’t know what’s going on, but I feel like I’m depressed.’” “And I just said, ‘That’s dopamine.’ He got the reward, and what he misses is the hunt.” “You have to stay in the hunt. This is like the WILL TO LIVE is the HUNT FOR NEW THINGS.” Below is the post from the guy who discovered that money and unlimited comfort actually didn’t make him happy. It’s a fascinating case study. Well worth reading: “I sold my company MVMT a few years ago for a lot of money and thought all my problems would be solved. I made my life really cushy and comfortable. I optimized for being as stress free as possible. I play video games when I want, I wake up when I want and really have no reason to get out of bed if I don’t want to. I always thought this was the dream and that I’d be happy forever… until I wasn’t. I realize I’m in an incredibly unique situation and wanted to share some things I’ve learned and am still working through. “I’m new to this subreddit but it looks like a lot of you feel as I do and did when trying to find a career. I don’t necessarily have any deep passions or skill sets that translate into a career. I started my ecommerce company solely out of the desire to make money. I’m an introvert and being behind a computer felt comfortable. The unhealthy desire for ego and money gave me motivation and fulfillment to build the company. I had no experience aside from the willingness to try and fail and try again. I had an unhealthy relationship with myself and my values in life were not true to who I was. It allowed me to be successful but still I was unhappy. My money and ego were the driving forces. After selling the company, I realized the only way to get the same highs would have been to start a bigger company and make more money. (Also known as the hedonic treadmill) But those were external motivations. I now only cared about authentic motivations, things I wanted to work on if money and ego weren’t the driving forces. “Fast forward to now, I’ve been separated from the company for 2 years. I’m 31, single and never have to work again. I’ve also been lonelier than ever and deeply depressed. I really believe that we need purpose in our lives to be happy. For some that might be raising a family and for others that’s a career. For a lot of us on this subreddit I don’t think we’re looking solely for money. I think we want a career that has deeper meaning to us. The last couple years I’ve really been working on what my personal values are and what makes me tick. It’s really helped me align with what I care about and trying to find a career that aligns with those values. We’ll never love 100% of our job, I think that’s important to remember. I’d recommend taking a Myers-Briggs personality test. It’s helped realign me with some old hobbies and thought patterns. “If you don’t know what you’re passionate about, think back to when you were a kid. What did you gravitate towards. Even if you never took it to the next level. It’s literally never too late. What did you enjoy being bad at? “Last piece of advice that I struggle with still is failing. We need to just start. Fuck it, even if it’s the wrong direction and we fail or realize we don’t like what we’re doing. There are lessons in everything. We can plan and analyze forever but there are lessons that are unknown until you start moving forward. You cannot live without struggle and pain. We either choose our struggle and pain or it will find us through depression and loneliness. “I have more to say but I’ll save it for another post. “TLDR: “1.) Money past a certain point won’t make you happier, in fact it will make you feel lonelier “2.) Find your values, what makes you tick “3.) F*ck it, just start and fail. There are lessons everywhere.”

A guy sold his watch company for $100,000,000. Years later, he was “lonelier than ever and deeply depressed.” His life was stress-free, “really cushy,” and he could play video games whenever he wanted. But when he sold his company, he lost something more valuable than money: “the hunt.” Dr. Andrew Huberman explains: “Some guy made a [$100 million], and a couple weeks later he said, ‘I don’t know what’s going on, but I feel like I’m depressed.’” “And I just said, ‘That’s dopamine.’ He got the reward, and what he misses is the hunt.” “You have to stay in the hunt. This is like the WILL TO LIVE is the HUNT FOR NEW THINGS.” Below is the post from the guy who discovered that money and unlimited comfort actually didn’t make him happy. It’s a fascinating case study. Well worth reading: “I sold my company MVMT a few years ago for a lot of money and thought all my problems would be solved. I made my life really cushy and comfortable. I optimized for being as stress free as possible. I play video games when I want, I wake up when I want and really have no reason to get out of bed if I don’t want to. I always thought this was the dream and that I’d be happy forever… until I wasn’t. I realize I’m in an incredibly unique situation and wanted to share some things I’ve learned and am still working through. “I’m new to this subreddit but it looks like a lot of you feel as I do and did when trying to find a career. I don’t necessarily have any deep passions or skill sets that translate into a career. I started my ecommerce company solely out of the desire to make money. I’m an introvert and being behind a computer felt comfortable. The unhealthy desire for ego and money gave me motivation and fulfillment to build the company. I had no experience aside from the willingness to try and fail and try again. I had an unhealthy relationship with myself and my values in life were not true to who I was. It allowed me to be successful but still I was unhappy. My money and ego were the driving forces. After selling the company, I realized the only way to get the same highs would have been to start a bigger company and make more money. (Also known as the hedonic treadmill) But those were external motivations. I now only cared about authentic motivations, things I wanted to work on if money and ego weren’t the driving forces. “Fast forward to now, I’ve been separated from the company for 2 years. I’m 31, single and never have to work again. I’ve also been lonelier than ever and deeply depressed. I really believe that we need purpose in our lives to be happy. For some that might be raising a family and for others that’s a career. For a lot of us on this subreddit I don’t think we’re looking solely for money. I think we want a career that has deeper meaning to us. The last couple years I’ve really been working on what my personal values are and what makes me tick. It’s really helped me align with what I care about and trying to find a career that aligns with those values. We’ll never love 100% of our job, I think that’s important to remember. I’d recommend taking a Myers-Briggs personality test. It’s helped realign me with some old hobbies and thought patterns. “If you don’t know what you’re passionate about, think back to when you were a kid. What did you gravitate towards. Even if you never took it to the next level. It’s literally never too late. What did you enjoy being bad at? “Last piece of advice that I struggle with still is failing. We need to just start. Fuck it, even if it’s the wrong direction and we fail or realize we don’t like what we’re doing. There are lessons in everything. We can plan and analyze forever but there are lessons that are unknown until you start moving forward. You cannot live without struggle and pain. We either choose our struggle and pain or it will find us through depression and loneliness. “I have more to say but I’ll save it for another post. “TLDR: “1.) Money past a certain point won’t make you happier, in fact it will make you feel lonelier “2.) Find your values, what makes you tick “3.) F*ck it, just start and fail. There are lessons everywhere.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

153,339 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Min Hee-jin (NewJeans Producer) NHK Music Interview 🔗 “Meticulously planned debut ‘Attention’” 🧢: When I was preparing to launch NewJeans, I really struggled with deciding what our first piece of content should be. I thought about it for a long time and considered many possibilities. It was a project that came with high expectations, and for me personally, it was also my first opportunity to prove myself. So how I presented it mattered enormously. Even down to the smallest details… like the impression the very first released photo might give, or what kind of impact we could make at launch. I thought hard about what kind of content would be the most effective… should it be a video or a photo? What time of day would be most effective to release it? I consider things like that very carefully. For example, the way a person experiences content at night versus during the day can feel quite different emotionally. So I even thought about those subtle aspects. Eventually, the conclusion I reached was: “Let’s make the most of our situation.” At the time, the members hadn’t been revealed, and no one knew how many of them there were or what kind of group this would be. So I wanted to maximize that curiosity. You know how the more something is concealed, the more curious people become? I wanted to build that curiosity to a peak and then release everything all at once. That’s why we decided not to release a teaser and instead go straight into a full music video. (This was actually inspired by Hyein suggesting we skip teasers.) I didn’t think still images or photos would be enough to fully convey the feeling I wanted to express. I felt that video and music together would evoke the emotional response I was looking for because people experience things synesthetically. When sound, image, and feeling come together, the emotional impact is stronger. I believed the best way to present the members’ images was through music and a moving picture… that’s why we led with a music video. In the debut music video, “Attention,” there’s a scene where the members act out a little drama. I paid very close attention to that moment and created music that would fit it precisely. For me, I don’t just make content… I design the entire process of how it should be shown for the greatest effect. And I believe that’s incredibly important. That first feeling someone gets when they encounter something… that emotion, that spark… is so important to me. I’m very detail-oriented, but I also value fun deeply. So rather than just releasing content, I want to enjoy the process leading up to it. Even when we released our second album, since we shot the entire music video across the country, the sequence of how we released the videos was critical for me. It’s hard to explain all this simply in an interview, but maybe some people noticed: the first content we released that time was actually a teaser for the last track, “ASAP,” and then we followed that with the full music video for “New Jeans,” which was the first track. That order was a carefully calculated strategy. It was designed to guide the audience’s emotional journey. Seeing the audience react just as I had hoped—that whole process was honestly so fun and thrilling for me. I think I really enjoy that kind of thing. ——— “How 'Ditto' was born” 🧢: People often praise the music of NewJeans, and I hear a lot of talk about genres. But actually, I don’t feel bound by genre at all. I love a wide variety of music. I’m not the type to insist on only one particular genre. What I love are songs that blend genres cleverly… those are my personal favorites. So going forward, my focus is not on genre but on whether something feels fresh and whether it can create an emotional moment. I don’t want to define what kind of music we make. And I think you have to experience the flow of the times to really understand what’s meaningful in a given moment. For instance, the song “Ditto” was chosen because it delivered emotion. It matched perfectly with the winter album concept I had envisioned, both in terms of timing and mood. When I hear a song, I tend to trust my gut. I have a pretty strong intuition for which songs will resonate. It’s not about objectively predicting what will be a “hit,” but about whether a song moves your heart… you can just feel it. Of course, my own taste plays a big role. But I think that’s actually my strength as a producer, not as a composer. When I hear a song, I can immediately picture the visual… what kind of story, what kind of vibe it could carry. That allows me to work faster. For example, when expressing something like school uniforms, there are so many possible variations. But I always like to start from the basics… what’s the original idea of a school uniform? I try to return to that. So with “Ditto,” I wanted to tap into something primal… the pure, basic feeling of liking someone. That kind of emotion is universal. Everyone has it; it’s wired into us. When I saw Director Shin Woo-seok’s interpretation of it, I thought, “Yes, that’s it.” That’s the kind of complete interpretation I look for. I believe the completion of a project comes from every person involved thinking about their part down to the final detail… the maximum quality they can bring out. My role is to unify and refine all of that. I draw out the essence of each person’s creativity, trimming away anything unnecessary. So the final product is something that’s polished and high-quality, just the way I envisioned it. That’s my working style. So it’s not like I’m fixated on retro or stuck in a particular style. I don’t think human taste has changed all that much. Things people liked in the past are the same things we like now. It’s just the form of expression that changes with time. I don’t feel bound by “past” or “present.” I don’t even think in those boundaries. To me, it’s all just good taste. You know how kids sometimes have their own little treasure boxes when they’re young? I think my work is kind of like that. I want to make things that never feel dated—that are timelessly enjoyable. ——— “Dance Expression and 'Hype Boy'” 🧢: I had a vision of what kind of girl group I wanted to create. That’s why I chose a song like “Hype Boy.” And to bring out that feeling, we created four different versions of the music video. Every choice had a purpose, everything was designed to maximize the experience of the song. “Hype Boy” is such a unique song. It has this strange, piercing melody that gives people chills in a good way. To emphasize that tingling feeling, I had to break away from the standard K-pop choreography format… you know, the kind where everyone is in perfect formation, doing synchronized moves. But our songs don’t suit that kind of choreography. Our dances are much harder. They require the body to move very naturally with the groove of the melody and beat. So I think our members are incredible. It’s not easy to express naturalness with your body, and you have to really enjoy it to make it look effortless. But they pulled it off so well. They’re still young, but they’re so talented. And through it all, I wanted to avoid making them look like they were performing just for business. I wanted them to show the pure joy and bright spirit that’s natural for people their age… genuine, carefree, radiant. ——— “The difference between NewJeans and conventional K-POP” 🧢: Ah, for me, it’s all about naturalness. And honestly, naturalness isn’t something you can produce or direct into existence. It comes from how I interact with the NewJeans members on a daily basis… what kind of environment they practice in, how they live and work. There are so many things that don’t appear on camera, but those unseen aspects have to be in place in order for true naturalness to come through. That’s why I wanted to create that kind of environment for the girls. And also, I wanted to shape my own working environment in that way too. Only then can something truly natural, something unforced and not overly stimulating, really come out. To begin with, I don’t believe anyone can be completely natural in front of a camera or under the gaze of others. It’s human nature to become self-conscious. That’s why I think naturalness is our strength, but it can’t be our concept. If you try to turn “naturalness” into a concept, it actually becomes incredibly artificial. So why do I place so much importance on naturalness? It’s because the girls are still so young. While other kids their age are going through school and having a wide range of life experiences, these members are living very different lives. Before they officially debuted, I told them, “This is like studying together with me.” Our standard contract is seven years, which is about the same length as going through high school and college in Korea: three years of high school and four years of university. So I told them, “We’re going to school together. We’re learning together.” And in that sense, I want to be a good teacher to them. They’re also surrounded by an incredibly professional team, people they’d never meet even in a traditional school setting. I’ve never really liked the word idol. These days, that word is used more like a job title, something manufactured by the industry, and it’s far from its original meaning. To me, the term idol feels misplaced. It doesn’t really reflect who these artists are or what they represent. And I’m not the kind of person who clings to labels or terminology. In fact, what I really want is to break the stereotypes and preconceptions that come with the idol industry. I want us to show people something different… to challenge those assumptions and redefine what this can look like. That’s the kind of mindset I have. ——— “Isn't it difficult for the members to express "naturalness"?” 🧢: There were a lot of things I considered when forming the group. First and foremost, I think it was important that the members shared a similar vibe… like how I prefer working with staff who align with my taste. It’s important for the crew to be on the same wavelength. And by that, I mean more than just getting along… it also extends to shared values. Of course, people won’t all share identical values, but when we’re facing in a similar direction, everything becomes easier. It’s also just more efficient to work with people who have overlapping tastes. Now, when it comes to our members, they each have their own individual tastes, but those preferences are still in development. Just like we all went through as kids, they’re still growing, still discovering themselves. They’re not in a finished state. So we didn’t cast them based on some complete or polished version of themselves. It wasn’t like, “This person is fully formed, let’s pick her.” It was more like, “Ah, she has potential, there’s something there.” That sense of a spark… those were the kinds of subtleties I paid attention to. I didn’t cast anyone just because they were pretty or could sing well. I don’t work like that. I really value those finer, more delicate aspects. Even the design of the light stick wasn’t something that came from a long strategic planning session… it was actually a spontaneous idea. I didn’t sit down and think, “Let’s make a light stick like this.” NewJeans didn’t have a fixed logo, but I felt we still needed a unifying symbol. So one night, just before going to sleep, I kept thinking about it. Right before dozing off, I started sketching and it turned into a rabbit’s face. When I drew it out, the shape just continued and turned into a bunny. To me, the NewJeans members are like little bunnies… playful, innocent. Their visuals also resemble rabbits in a way. And rabbits symbolize abundance. That made me think: “Ah, maybe our fans will multiply like rabbits. That would be great.” So that bunny face became both a symbol for the members and the fans. The image came to me all at once, and I imagined a venue completely filled with bunny light sticks. That vision led to the creation of the light stick itself. Since I always prioritize fun in everything I do, the next idea that came to mind was making the light stick customizable. I thought, “Wouldn’t it be great if fans could personalize their bunny?” That way, each rabbit would represent a different person’s character. So we included accessories, allowing everyone to customize their own bunny. It’s symbolic of all these different bunnies coming together and enjoying a good time as one. Our light stick has a big head, so when it’s used in a concert hall, it lights up in heart shapes that are very visible. That was the image I really wanted. And that bunny face… it’s also a heart. It represents both the face of NewJeans and our hearts. It’s the love we’re showing to our fans, and the love we want to receive in return. Every time I see it, I feel deeply moved. It’s very emotional for me because it’s a perfect realization of what I envisioned. As someone with a background in creative direction, there’s nothing more satisfying than seeing an idea materialize exactly the way you imagined it. That kind of work holds deep meaning for me. ⸻ 🧢: Looking back, I think in 2023 we were able to achieve almost everything we had hoped for. I’m so incredibly grateful for that. Of course, this is an ongoing challenge… and the better things go, the more pressure there is. That’s why I always try to return to my original mindset. Just like I tell the members, I try to remind myself of the beginning and keep things fun. Back then, when we were first putting out content, planning the music, and working on visuals, I felt this thrill… this rush of excitement. I don’t want to forget that feeling. So I try hard to engrave that emotion into every album we release. I’m constantly working to rediscover the joy in all of it. So for 2024, I hope everyone can look forward to us with fresh anticipation. And even if we come out with something completely new, I hope people will receive it warmly and with excitement. That’s really my deepest wish. 🙏

1tokki

17,635 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I wanted to explain to the broader transgender community what happened that ultimately made me leave the "true trans" HBS social circle. Some people have expressed interest in hearing this story, and I do think it's worth discussing because of the social and group psychology dynamics that were at play. That said, this will be as far as I go in publicly discussing the situation. Where to start? The reality is that this eventually became a situation where it was Brianna Wu, Marzi, Allysa, and Willow versus myself. The events leading up to the actual breaking point are important. After Willow broke up with me, she told me that I was not the ideal version of a transsexual. In particular, she told me that, using the antiquated HBS scale, I wasn't a Transsexual VI, but more like a IV or V. The reasoning largely came down to the fact that I had different opinions from the rest of the group on issues such as stealth. The rest of the group found my views offensive. This opened the door to what I came to understand as legitimacy testing. This isn't unique to trans spaces either. It involved the systematic questioning of virtually every aspect of my life: my transition, my dysphoria, how I grew up, my experiences, and what I value today. To give you an idea of how extreme it became, Marzi seriously asked me whether I had only pursued SRS to satisfy a sexual fetish. This was after learning that I had been capable of having sex prior to transition. Apparently, that fact alone was enough to cast suspicion on my entire transition history. This legitimacy testing continued for roughly two and a half weeks. Every day. For most of the day. It became increasingly distressing and isolating. And remember, at this point, I was emotionally dependent on these people. The day everything finally came to a head started with a discussion about transgender women in sports. Brianna entered the group chat and asked if any of us would be willing to debate Blaire White on the issue. People immediately began sharing their positions. As the only former NCAA athlete in the group, I chimed in and stated that I supported transgender women participating in women's sports and that it was not an issue I was willing to move on. That triggered a cascade of responses. I was repeatedly told that the issue was insignificant, that it only affected a tiny number of people, and that sports were ultimately just a hobby. I pushed back. I tried explaining that NCAA athletes are not hobbyists. Their sport is often their entire life. They spend years training, watching film, practicing, traveling, competing, and structuring their entire identity around performance. I also tried explaining that sports had been the medium through which I survived to adulthood. School was not safe for me. Home was not safe for me. The track was. Track and field was the one place in my life where I felt safe, valued, and understood. My relationship with sports was deeply personal. Yet every time I tried explaining this, I was met with the same response: "It's just a hobby." They genuinely did not seem to understand. Eventually, I decided to show them a video of Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaking the women's high jump world record. I wanted them to see what elite competition actually looks like. I wanted them to understand the pressure, the emotion, the adrenaline, and what it means to dedicate your life to something. High jump was my best event. I explained how, at the end of a meet, all eyes are on you. Entire stadiums can clap rhythmically to help carry you over the bar. The pressure is immense. And honestly? I lived for that feeling. So I showed them the video. They dismissed it entirely. Then Brianna commented that when she was in high school, she was simply focused on fitting in and being one of the girls. Immediately afterward, Marzi told me that being a competitive athlete was "male-coded." That was my wake-up call. In that moment, I suddenly snapped out of everything. I realized what had been happening to me psychologically. I realized this was no longer a discussion. This was an attempt to socially discipline me into conformity. It was another attempt to reshape my views and my identity to fit within the group's expectations. For the first time, they had collided with something I was unwilling to surrender. An immovable force had met an immovable object. Sports were not just a hobby to me. Track and field helped me survive. It shaped my values. It shaped my sense of pride in myself. It shaped who I became as a person. Those experiences and values were not something I was willing to compromise on. The "male-coded" comment affected me more deeply than I can adequately explain. By that point, I had become so emotionally dependent on these people that comments like that carried the implicit message that I did not belong. That I was an outsider. That I was somehow less of a woman. The experience left me feeling suicidal. I drove to my local riverfront park to ground myself and reflect on how I had ended up in that position. The following day, I removed myself from the group entirely and publicly called out what had happened. Willow attempted to reframe my lived experiences in private messages. Brianna attempted to downplay the situation and position herself as a motherly or managerial figure trying to bring everyone back together. I wanted no part of it. The weeks of legitimacy testing, the constant questioning of my transition, the attacks on a core part of my identity, and the repeated implication that I was somehow a man ultimately took a tremendous toll on me. Unfortunately, my therapist and psychiatrist believe it contributed to what has become a trauma response. Today, I struggle at times with tunnel vision, sensory overload, shaking, racing thoughts, a racing heart, and panic attacks. I'm working closely with my care team to recover and return to equilibrium. I share this story because I think it highlights how powerful social and group dynamics can be. No one sat me down and brainwashed me. What happened was far more subtle. When your entire social world becomes concentrated in one place, the pressure to conform can become overwhelming. It can make you doubt your own judgment. It can make you question your own experiences. And if left unchecked, it can leave very real psychological scars. This will be the last time I discuss the inner workings of that group publicly. I will simply note that many neutral observers witnessed these events unfold in real time and have since independently acknowledged that they occurred. Also, please, for the sake of my health, please don't try to liken my experiences to leopards. I'm aware of what it looks like, but that's not helpful to me at this moment. So, I beg you, please reserve that kind of talk. Bonus: The video that I attempted to show them. Please watch it. It gives me tears of joy for the athlete in question. It's something we all live for to experience. And she did it at the highest level.

I wanted to explain to the broader transgender community what happened that ultimately made me leave the "true trans" HBS social circle. Some people have expressed interest in hearing this story, and I do think it's worth discussing because of the social and group psychology dynamics that were at play. That said, this will be as far as I go in publicly discussing the situation. Where to start? The reality is that this eventually became a situation where it was Brianna Wu, Marzi, Allysa, and Willow versus myself. The events leading up to the actual breaking point are important. After Willow broke up with me, she told me that I was not the ideal version of a transsexual. In particular, she told me that, using the antiquated HBS scale, I wasn't a Transsexual VI, but more like a IV or V. The reasoning largely came down to the fact that I had different opinions from the rest of the group on issues such as stealth. The rest of the group found my views offensive. This opened the door to what I came to understand as legitimacy testing. This isn't unique to trans spaces either. It involved the systematic questioning of virtually every aspect of my life: my transition, my dysphoria, how I grew up, my experiences, and what I value today. To give you an idea of how extreme it became, Marzi seriously asked me whether I had only pursued SRS to satisfy a sexual fetish. This was after learning that I had been capable of having sex prior to transition. Apparently, that fact alone was enough to cast suspicion on my entire transition history. This legitimacy testing continued for roughly two and a half weeks. Every day. For most of the day. It became increasingly distressing and isolating. And remember, at this point, I was emotionally dependent on these people. The day everything finally came to a head started with a discussion about transgender women in sports. Brianna entered the group chat and asked if any of us would be willing to debate Blaire White on the issue. People immediately began sharing their positions. As the only former NCAA athlete in the group, I chimed in and stated that I supported transgender women participating in women's sports and that it was not an issue I was willing to move on. That triggered a cascade of responses. I was repeatedly told that the issue was insignificant, that it only affected a tiny number of people, and that sports were ultimately just a hobby. I pushed back. I tried explaining that NCAA athletes are not hobbyists. Their sport is often their entire life. They spend years training, watching film, practicing, traveling, competing, and structuring their entire identity around performance. I also tried explaining that sports had been the medium through which I survived to adulthood. School was not safe for me. Home was not safe for me. The track was. Track and field was the one place in my life where I felt safe, valued, and understood. My relationship with sports was deeply personal. Yet every time I tried explaining this, I was met with the same response: "It's just a hobby." They genuinely did not seem to understand. Eventually, I decided to show them a video of Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaking the women's high jump world record. I wanted them to see what elite competition actually looks like. I wanted them to understand the pressure, the emotion, the adrenaline, and what it means to dedicate your life to something. High jump was my best event. I explained how, at the end of a meet, all eyes are on you. Entire stadiums can clap rhythmically to help carry you over the bar. The pressure is immense. And honestly? I lived for that feeling. So I showed them the video. They dismissed it entirely. Then Brianna commented that when she was in high school, she was simply focused on fitting in and being one of the girls. Immediately afterward, Marzi told me that being a competitive athlete was "male-coded." That was my wake-up call. In that moment, I suddenly snapped out of everything. I realized what had been happening to me psychologically. I realized this was no longer a discussion. This was an attempt to socially discipline me into conformity. It was another attempt to reshape my views and my identity to fit within the group's expectations. For the first time, they had collided with something I was unwilling to surrender. An immovable force had met an immovable object. Sports were not just a hobby to me. Track and field helped me survive. It shaped my values. It shaped my sense of pride in myself. It shaped who I became as a person. Those experiences and values were not something I was willing to compromise on. The "male-coded" comment affected me more deeply than I can adequately explain. By that point, I had become so emotionally dependent on these people that comments like that carried the implicit message that I did not belong. That I was an outsider. That I was somehow less of a woman. The experience left me feeling suicidal. I drove to my local riverfront park to ground myself and reflect on how I had ended up in that position. The following day, I removed myself from the group entirely and publicly called out what had happened. Willow attempted to reframe my lived experiences in private messages. Brianna attempted to downplay the situation and position herself as a motherly or managerial figure trying to bring everyone back together. I wanted no part of it. The weeks of legitimacy testing, the constant questioning of my transition, the attacks on a core part of my identity, and the repeated implication that I was somehow a man ultimately took a tremendous toll on me. Unfortunately, my therapist and psychiatrist believe it contributed to what has become a trauma response. Today, I struggle at times with tunnel vision, sensory overload, shaking, racing thoughts, a racing heart, and panic attacks. I'm working closely with my care team to recover and return to equilibrium. I share this story because I think it highlights how powerful social and group dynamics can be. No one sat me down and brainwashed me. What happened was far more subtle. When your entire social world becomes concentrated in one place, the pressure to conform can become overwhelming. It can make you doubt your own judgment. It can make you question your own experiences. And if left unchecked, it can leave very real psychological scars. This will be the last time I discuss the inner workings of that group publicly. I will simply note that many neutral observers witnessed these events unfold in real time and have since independently acknowledged that they occurred. Also, please, for the sake of my health, please don't try to liken my experiences to leopards. I'm aware of what it looks like, but that's not helpful to me at this moment. So, I beg you, please reserve that kind of talk. Bonus: The video that I attempted to show them. Please watch it. It gives me tears of joy for the athlete in question. It's something we all live for to experience. And she did it at the highest level.

Jenna Taylor ♀️

30,472 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Earth Unveiled

105,667 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

Most people scroll past suffering every single day and don't even notice. She didn't. And that one decision — made in less than three seconds, with zero hesitation, zero plan, zero audience — is why this video is currently wrecking people's timelines and making grown adults cry at their desks. I've been studying viral content for over a decade. I've watched thousands of videos get dissected, algorithm-tested, A/B'd to death by teams trying to "engineer" emotion. And every single time, the ones that actually break the internet have one thing in common: they weren't engineered at all. They just happened. This is one of those. You need to watch this one. Not read about it. Watch it. Because there's a specific moment in this video — you'll know it when you see it — where the entire emotional weight of the situation flips in half a second, and no description, no summary, no paragraph I write is going to do that moment justice. I'm not even going to try. What I am going to do is tell you why this matters, why it's spreading the way it is, and why — once you see it — you won't be able to stop thinking about it. Let's talk about what nobody talks about. There is an entire invisible war happening in every park, every lake, every pond, every quiet patch of "nature" tucked into our cities. It's silent. It doesn't trend. It doesn't get news coverage. Animals get hurt, get tangled, get trapped, get sick, get slowly, quietly destroyed by things we left behind — and 99.9% of the time, nobody is there to notice. Nobody is there to act. The animal just... disappears. No headline. No hashtag. No one ever knows. That's the baseline. That's what "normal" looks like for wildlife living next to humans. Quiet suffering, unwitnessed, unresolved. And then — every once in a while — someone walks into that invisible war by accident, on a normal day, wearing normal clothes, holding nothing but a phone and maybe a bag of bread, expecting absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. And something in them refuses to just keep walking. That's what you're watching here. Not a stunt. Not a "content piece." Not something built for the algorithm. A real, unscripted, completely human reflex — the kind that separates the people who notice from the people who don't, and then separates the people who notice from the tiny, tiny percentage who actually do something about it. Here's the thing that gets me every time I rewatch this. It's not the rescue itself that hits hardest. It's the speed. There is no internal debate happening on screen. There's no "should I get involved," no calling someone else to handle it, no filming from a distance for views. There's a problem, and then there's motion. That gap — the one between noticing and acting — is usually where 95% of us live our entire lives. We notice. We feel something. We keep walking. This video is what happens when that gap doesn't exist. I want you to sit with that for a second, because it's actually rare. Genuinely rare. Most "hero" content you see online has been staged, has been reshot, has a director just out of frame. This isn't that. You can feel it in the way things unfold — messy, urgent, real, imperfect in all the ways real moments are and staged moments never are. That authenticity is exactly why it's spreading the way it's spreading. People are starving for something real in a feed built entirely out of things that are fake. Now let's talk about the animal at the center of this, because most people underestimate exactly how much is at stake for a creature like this in a situation like this. Waterfowl — geese specifically — are tougher and more resilient than almost anyone gives them credit for. They migrate thousands of miles. They survive brutal winters. They defend their families with a ferocity that has made more than one grown adult sprint across a parking lot in fear. But that same toughness has a blind spot: when something goes wrong — when they get tangled, injured, caught in something man-made — they often have no way to fix it themselves. No hands. No way to cut, unwind, or remove whatever's constricting them. Just time, working against them, second by second, while the injury gets worse and the body starts shutting down blood flow to protect the rest of itself. Left alone, that kind of situation doesn't resolve. It doesn't "work itself out." It ends exactly one way, and it's not a good one. Which is why the window that matters here is so brutally small. Not days. Not hours in some cases. The margin between "this animal makes it" and "this animal doesn't" can come down to a single person, on a single day, choosing not to keep walking. That's the stakes you're watching play out. That's why your chest tightens the second you hit play. Your body understands the stakes before your brain even finishes processing what's happening on screen. And this is the part that I think explains why videos like this hit different than almost anything else on this platform. We are, all of us, walking around holding an enormous amount of helplessness we can't do anything with. The news. The scale of everything wrong in the world. Problems so big, so systemic, so far outside any single person's control that we've collectively learned to just... go numb. Scroll past. Compartmentalize. It's a survival mechanism. You cannot feel the full weight of everything, all the time, or you'd never get out of bed. But every so often, something shows up in your feed that's the exact opposite of that. A problem small enough — specific enough — local enough — that one single, ordinary, non-famous, non-wealthy, non-powerful person can just... solve it. With their hands. In real time. No committee. No funding request. No permission slip. Just a person deciding that this particular piece of suffering, right here, right now, is not going to continue on their watch. That is enormously, viscerally satisfying to witness. It's satisfying in a way that almost nothing else in your feed is, because it's proof — actual, undeniable, on-camera proof — that individual action still means something. That you, one person, with no special resources, could be the difference between an animal living and an animal not living. That agency still exists. That the world isn't only made of problems too big for any of us. That's not a small thing to be reminded of. That's actually one of the most quietly desperate things people are craving right now, whether they'd admit it or not. Now here's where it gets even more interesting, because this isn't just an emotional story — this is a legitimately fascinating one if you understand what's actually happening biologically and behaviorally in the footage. Watch how the surrounding flock reacts. Watch what the rest of the group does, and doesn't do, while all of this unfolds. Geese are famously social, famously alert, famously reactive to any perceived threat near one of their own — and yet what you'll see here defies the instinct you'd expect. There's a reason for that, rooted in how these animals actually assess threat versus help, and once you notice it, you won't be able to unsee it in the rest of the clip. I'm not going to spell it out for you. Watch for it. It's there, right in front of you, and it's one of the most quietly remarkable details in the entire video — the kind of detail that separates people who watch it once from people who watch it five times in a row trying to catch everything they missed. Then there's the ending. I will tell you this much and nothing more: the ending is the reason this is getting saved, not just liked. Saved. Sent to group chats. Sent to people's moms. Sent with the caption "I'm not crying, you're crying." There is a specific final few seconds that recontextualizes literally everything that came before it — turns what could have been a simple "good deed" clip into something that feels closer to a small, perfect short film. A beginning, a crisis, an intervention, and a resolution that actually lands, emotionally, in a way most content never manages to pull off in fifteen seconds or two minutes or however long you end up watching it for. I've watched a lot of "feel-good animal content." Most of it is forgettable. Cute, sure. A dopamine hit, sure. Gone from your memory in ten minutes. This is not that. This is the rare kind that actually sits with you — that you think about later that night, or the next morning, for reasons you can't fully articulate. That's the difference between content and a moment. This is a moment. Let's talk for a second about who does this. Because I think that matters too. There's a version of this story where the "hero" is a trained wildlife rescuer, someone with credentials, equipment, years of experience, a whole organizational apparatus behind them. That story is good. It's reassuring in its own way — proof that the system works, that there are professionals out there handling things. This is not that story. This is an ordinary person. Someone who woke up that day with no plan to become anyone's hero. No training montage. No wildlife rescue license. Just a person who happened to be in the right place, who happened to actually look — really look — instead of glancing and moving on, and who happened to have whatever internal wiring makes some people act instead of hesitate. That distinction matters enormously, because it collapses the distance between "the kind of person who does something like this" and you. It's not a superhero story. It's a "this could have been literally anyone, including me" story. And the honest, slightly uncomfortable truth buried inside that realization is: most of us, most days, would have kept walking. We'd have felt a flicker of concern, maybe taken a photo, maybe felt vaguely bad about it for the rest of the afternoon, and then moved on with our lives, because that's simply what most people do, most of the time, when they're not forced to reckon with an alternative right in front of them. This video is that alternative, playing out in real time, and it's impossible to watch without quietly asking yourself which version of a person you actually are. I don't think that's a comfortable question. I think that's exactly why people can't stop sharing it. Now — a word on why this specific footage works so well from a pure craft standpoint, because even setting aside the emotional weight, there's something happening here structurally that most creators spend years trying to figure out and never quite land. Great short-form video has a shape. Setup. Escalation. Turn. Payoff. Most people who try to make "emotional" content front-load everything — they tell you how to feel before you've felt anything, they oversell, they manipulate obviously, and audiences today can smell that from a mile away and bounce immediately. What makes a clip like this different is that it doesn't ask you to feel anything. It just shows you a sequence of real events, unfolding in real time, and trusts you — correctly — to arrive at the emotion yourself. That trust is rare. That restraint is rare. And it's exactly why, when the turn comes, it hits as hard as it does. Nobody told you it was going to. You got there on your own, which means you actually feel it, instead of being told you should. That's not something you can fake with editing tricks or a trending sound. That's something that only happens when the moment itself is genuinely, unmistakably real. I also want to talk about scale for a second, because I think it's easy to miss how much bigger this issue is than one video, one goose, one lake, one afternoon. Every single day, in cities all over the world, urban wildlife is quietly colliding with human infrastructure in ways most of us never think about. Fishing line nobody bothered to clean up. Litter that looks harmless to us and is a death trap to something smaller, more fragile, more entangled in its environment than we are. Storm drains. Discarded packaging. The debris of a species — us — that moves through the world without much thought for what we leave behind. Most of the time, none of us see the consequences. The animals affected by it don't post about it. They don't trend. They just quietly don't make it, somewhere out of frame, and life goes on for the rest of us completely unaware that anything happened at all. This video is a rare, accidental window into that entire hidden layer of reality — the one that exists parallel to ours, constantly, that we almost never get to actually witness. And for a few minutes, thanks to one person's phone and one person's reflexes, we get to see it, and we get to see it resolved the right way instead of the way it usually resolves when nobody's there. That's not nothing. That's actually kind of extraordinary when you sit with it. Here's a question worth asking yourself honestly, and I want you to actually answer it, not just skim past it: when was the last time you personally stopped — actually stopped, changed your plans, got your hands dirty, inconvenienced yourself in some real way — for a creature that couldn't thank you, couldn't pay you back, couldn't do anything for you in return except exist a little longer because you showed up? If your honest answer is "I can't remember," you're not alone. Most people can't. That's not a moral failing, exactly — it's just how modern life is structured. We're busy. We're distracted. We're moving fast between obligations that already feel like too much. Stopping for something that asks nothing of us and offers nothing back except the fact of having helped is, increasingly, a rare kind of choice. Which is exactly why watching someone else make that choice, cleanly, instinctively, without hesitation, feels almost like watching a small miracle. Not because it's supernatural. Because it's so uncommon in practice, even though in theory it's the simplest, most obviously "right" thing a person could do. I'll say this plainly: I've built accounts to millions of followers. I've seen what actually spreads versus what merely performs well for a day and disappears. The stuff that performs well for a day is clever. It's well-edited. It rides a trend. The stuff that actually spreads — that gets forwarded person to person, week after week, long after the algorithm has moved on to the next thing — is always, always this. Real stakes. Real people. A real moment where something could have gone one of two ways, and it went the better way, because someone decided it would. You're looking at one of those right now. So here's my actual advice, and I don't give this kind of direct instruction often: don't read a recap of this. Don't let someone else's summary substitute for the thing itself. There is a version of this moment happening on your screen, right now, in full, unedited by anyone's words including mine — and it is genuinely, unambiguously worth the two minutes of your life it will cost you. You will see the moment where everything is uncertain. You will see the moment where a decision gets made in real time, with real risk of it not working. You will see the moment where you don't know, and neither did anyone there in that moment, how this was going to end. And then you will see how it actually ended. I'm not going to tell you what that ending looks like. I'm telling you that when you get there, you'll understand exactly why this is the video everyone's been sending to everyone else this week, why it's sitting in a hundred thousand people's "saved" folders, why comment sections under it are full of people saying some version of the same three words over and over. Hit play. You'll get it in the first ten seconds, and you won't regret the two minutes after that. One more thing before you go watch it, because I think it's actually the most important part of all of this, and it's the part that gets lost in every "feel-good video" cycle the internet runs on: the feeling this video gives you — that lump in your throat, that little surge of hope, that reminder that individual action still matters — that feeling is not supposed to be a one-time hit you get from watching someone else do something good and then close the app and move on with your day unchanged. That feeling is supposed to be a signal. A nudge. Evidence, presented to you directly, that the gap between noticing and acting is smaller than you think, and that crossing it is available to you too, the next time you're the one standing there, noticing something that most people would just walk past. You don't need a license. You don't need training. You don't need permission, or an audience, or a camera rolling, or anyone to ever find out you did it at all. You just need to be the kind of person who doesn't keep walking. This video is proof that person exists. Go watch it, and then decide if you're going to be one too. Sound on. Full screen. Watch it to the very end — the last few seconds are the whole reason this is everywhere right now, and no summary, no recap, no paragraph anyone writes about it is a substitute for actually seeing it happen with your own eyes. This is what it looks like when someone chooses not to look away. Now you choose. Let me go a little deeper, because I don't think most people actually understand why their own reaction to this footage is so strong, and I think understanding it makes the video hit even harder the second time around. Psychologists have a name for what you're feeling right now if you've already watched this once. It's sometimes called "moral elevation" — a very specific, very physical response that happens when you witness an act of unexpected goodness. Not just any positive emotion. A distinct one. Your chest can feel warm. Your throat can tighten. Some people report actual chills. It's not the same thing as happiness, and it's not the same thing as being impressed. It's your nervous system responding to proof that people are better than you'd started to assume they were. And here's the part that matters: that response isn't random, and it isn't rare because it's hard to trigger. It's rare because most of what we consume all day is engineered to trigger the opposite — outrage, comparison, anxiety, fear of missing out. Feeds are optimized for reaction, not elevation, because outrage is cheap to produce and elevation isn't. You can't fake this feeling with a clever caption. You can't manufacture it with a trending sound or a plot twist. It only happens when something real, something with actual stakes, resolves in a way that reminds you decency still exists in the wild, unscripted, unpaid, unrewarded. That's why this spreads the way outrage spreads, except it leaves you feeling the opposite of drained afterward. Outrage burns you out. Elevation refuels you. People aren't just sharing this because it's touching — they're sharing it because, for the length of one short video, it makes them feel like being a decent person is still worth it. That's an incredibly rare thing for any piece of content to do, and it's exactly why you're seeing it everywhere this week. Let's talk about the setting for a second too, because I think it's easy to overlook how much it matters that this didn't happen somewhere remote, somewhere wild, somewhere far from ordinary life. This happened in the kind of place you've walked past a thousand times without thinking twice. A park. A pond. The kind of unremarkable, background scenery that exists in almost every neighborhood, that most of us jog past, walk our dogs past, eat lunch near, without ever really looking at it as a place where anything could actually happen. That's exactly the point. The ordinary backdrop is what makes the extraordinary moment inside it land so hard. This isn't some far-off nature documentary shot by a professional crew with a permit and a budget. This is five minutes from somebody's house. This is the kind of place that exists five minutes from your house too. Which means the opportunity this video captures — the chance to notice, to stop, to help — isn't some rare alignment of stars that only happens once in a lifetime, in some exotic location, to some uniquely positioned person. It's sitting there, quietly, in ordinary places, all the time, waiting for someone to actually look. Most days, nobody does. This is what it looks like on the rare day when somebody finally does. I keep coming back to that idea because I think it's the actual core of why this resonates so widely, across ages, across backgrounds, across every single kind of person who ends up watching it. It's not really a story about a goose. It's a story about attention — about what happens in the tiny, easily ignored moment when you notice something is wrong, and what you do with that noticing. Everything else — the outcome, the emotion, the ending that's got everyone talking — flows directly out of that one, incredibly small, incredibly human decision. And if I'm honest, that's what makes content like this so much more valuable than almost anything else competing for your attention today. It doesn't sell you anything. It doesn't want you to buy a product, follow a brand, join a movement, or believe a particular opinion about a particular issue. It just quietly asks you to notice something you might otherwise have scrolled past, the same way the person in this video almost could have too, and didn't. A few things people keep asking in the comments under this video, worth addressing directly: Was this real, or staged? Watch closely and you'll answer that question yourself within the first several seconds — nothing about the pacing, the urgency, or the imperfection of how it unfolds reads like something blocked out in advance. Staged content has a rhythm to it. This doesn't have that rhythm. It has the rhythm of something happening for the first and only time, exactly once, exactly as it happened. Was the animal okay afterward? That's exactly the question this video answers — and it's the reason the final stretch of footage matters so much. I won't spoil it. I'll just say: pay close attention to the very end, because that's the payoff the entire rest of the video has been building toward, whether you consciously noticed the build or not. Why does a video like this get more engagement than videos with way bigger production value, bigger creators, bigger budgets behind them? Because production value has never been what actually moves people. Truth does. A shaky, imperfect, unscripted two minutes of someone doing the right thing at the right moment will outperform a polished, professionally shot piece of content nine times out of ten, because audiences aren't actually asking to be impressed. They're asking to be moved. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is genuinely rare. Here's something else worth sitting with. Somewhere, right now, there's a version of this exact situation playing out with no witness at all. No phone rolling. No person who happens to notice. No intervention. It's happening constantly, everywhere, completely unrecorded, completely unremarked upon, because most of the time, nobody's there, or the person who's there keeps walking. This video isn't rare because the situation itself is rare. The situation is common — heartbreakingly, quietly common. What's rare is the outcome. What's rare is someone actually being there, actually noticing, actually choosing to act, and someone else actually catching it on camera so the rest of us get to witness what usually happens completely out of view. That's the real reason this deserves your two minutes more than almost anything else you'll see in your feed today. Not because it's rare that an animal needed help. Because it's rare that help actually showed up in time, and rarer still that any of us get to see it. So go watch it. Not the summary. Not somebody's recap in the replies. The actual footage, start to finish, full screen, sound on. Let the moment build the way it's supposed to build. Let yourself not know how it ends until it ends. That uncertainty — that genuine not-knowing — is exactly what makes the resolution land the way it's supposed to land. And when you get to the end, and you feel whatever you're about to feel, do one more thing: send it to somebody. Not because it needs the views. Because somebody in your life probably needs the reminder, just as much as you did, that this is still what people are capable of when nobody's asking them to be. That's the whole point. That's why it's everywhere. That's why you should watch it right now, before you scroll past one more thing today without actually seeing it. #AnimalRescue #WildlifeRescue #GooseRescue #AnimalsOfTwitter #RescueStory #ActOfKindness #HumanityRestored #WildlifeConservation #UrbanWildlife #ViralVideo #EmotionalStory #DoGood #AnimalLovers #NatureRescue #HeroesAmongUs #WeLoveAnimals #RescueMission #CompassionInAction #FaithInHumanity #WatchTillTheEnd

Earth Unveiled

37,357 görüntüleme • 18 gün önce

Penny, McMuffin And Tina - Why I Make Happy Doggo Videos If you are reading this I’m sure you’ve watched at least one of the videos I make which feature dogs. Hopefully it put a big smile on your face and left you feeling like a positive difference was being made in the world. I wanted to explain the massive importance of these videos… Taking Old Dogs To The Beach 🌴🥥 This week we did the “Old Dogs Beach Day Out”. It featured the OAP dogs who have been battling serious health issues lately and has close to a million views across different sites. McMuffin - Cancer survivor and had to have an eye removed this week Derek - Very old abandoned dog who was close to death on arrival Lady - Senior girl with 2 broken hips who was dying on the streets Snoop - My own rescue who has numerous tumours and a fused spine It was about as joyous a day out as you can imagine. You could see the dogs enjoying every single second as they swam, sunbathed and ate treats. But what is the point of this? Wouldn’t I be better spending the couple of hours it took doing something else like taking dogs to the vet or feeding even more out on the streets? Good question… Videos Help Me Do The “Boring” Stuff For The Dogs These are some of the things that I do in a typical month… Funding the sterilising of over 100 dogs ✂️ Feeding 20,000 meals for street dogs 🥘 Pay for between 20-40 vet visits for sick dogs 🐶 Purchasing preventative medicines for street dogs 💊 Paying for travel to re-home 7-10 dogs in Thailand ⛴️ Although these things are super important and change lives for the better they aren’t always super interesting. I’ve tried making videos about sterilising or vet visits but most people are not interested after they’ve seen it once. I understand that because I would be the exact same personally watching content on social media. I’d have very limited interest in opening Twitter and seeing dogs getting medical procedures or being abused. Most people simply unfollow or mute that sort of content. People know there is suffering but “out of sight, out of mind” is the attitude on social media. But Don’t Dog Suffering Videos Get Donations? Yes. You’ll probably notice that most content around the world from all types of animal charities can be quite gruesome or sad. This is the same with human tragedies. People are much more likely to donate if they see suffering. The need is more immediate and urgent. I wanted to try something completely different and not share gruesome content. Instead of showing content like Sterilisations (Tina below) or horrific injuries (McMuffin below is already operated on and healing) I wanted to share happy content. I wanted to create content that was so happy and upbeat that people would actually want to share it with others. To tell their friends about the plight of the street dogs and maybe even get excited about changing it too. Penny Is The Perfect Example Penny is a tiny little dog that came into my possession recently. The simple facts of her story are horrific… Kept locked up in a tiny box under a house Tortured by a human Broken leg so bad it needed large scale surgery I have videos on my phone of her before the rescue that would leave you sick to your stomach. I couldn’t sleep the night I saw them. I don’t want people to see all that though and instead focus on the positives… She is safe and alive She was able to go on a huge journey to a wonderful foundation called Soi Dog who worked on saving her leg. She is so cute that I’ve had over 100 people message me about giving her a forever home It costs a lot of money, time and effort to change Penny’s life. I’d say about 20 people have been involved. I try to keep the content around her positive and uplifting and focus on her turnaround and the people helping to change her life. Subtly I can educate around where she came from and the need to change that but people don’t want to see a video of her getting tortured. Ultimately like many of the dogs she is a story of hope and the innate goodness in the people who helped change her life. The Subtle Benefits Of Feeling Good When I started the videos I remember looking at social media and it was so depressing. Every post was about war in Ukraine, people arguing about politics, the cost of living crisis or Covid (2022). I suffer from depression and anxiety and I found that social media was just making it worse for me. I thought “Maybe there is room in there for something super positive about dogs”. Thats what I am trying to create. It is also worth remembering some huge added bonuses about the videos… They make the dogs feel good They make people watching feel good They make people around the world aware of street dogs They make myself and others feel good in person doing something practical on the ground as our days can be pretty tough at times. I’d imagine Jumbo forgot about his painful legs when we took him to 7-11 this week and Lady couldn’t believe her luck after such a horrific recent past on the streets. There are probably faster ways to save more dogs. Probably more efficient ways to use my time. I think about that all the time. I’m just trying to fix the problem of dog suffering globally and come at it from a whole new angle. Maybe I’m right and maybe I’m wrong but there is no perfect simple solution to this. I want to share the individual dog stories as every life maters. I want to highlight amazing organisations like Soi Dog and individuals like Sybille who need as much coverage as possible. I want people to look at their phones around the world and think “that makes me feel so happy and wholesome and real change is possible”. I want people who are down and suffering themselves to think “maybe there is some hope for me”. McMuffin, Penny and Tina are just a couple of dogs we all know and love but they will also help thousands of future dogs indirectly. They are the little dogs who will help the other voiceless ones. Have a lovely weekend everybody wherever you are Big Love Niall P.S You can always support by either donating here Or you can now hit Subscribe here on Twitter for a monthly donation which is brand new

Niall Harbison

217,663 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.

Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸)

37,972 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

He didn't run. That's the detail nobody expects. Every instinct in a wild, broken animal screams "run" the second a human gets close. Flight is the oldest survival code there is. And yet — he didn't run. Watch the video and you'll understand why that single fact should terrify you more than comfort you. Because an animal that doesn't run from you anymore has already given up on the idea that running matters. He has already decided, somewhere in that starving, exhausted brain, that whatever comes next can't possibly be worse than what came before. Sit with that for a second. What does it take to break that instinct? What does it take to make a living creature so depleted, so past the point of hope, that self-preservation itself shuts off? We're not talking about a dog that was "a little scared." We're talking about a dog who had already made peace with dying alone in the grass, hidden from a world that had already decided he didn't matter. And then someone showed up anyway. This is the part of the internet nobody warns you about. Not the cute part. Not the "aww" part. The part where you realize how close "almost too late" actually is — and how many of these moments are happening right now, in ditches and fields and abandoned lots, with nobody filming, nobody coming, nobody ever finding out. This one was found. I'm not going to walk you through what happens in the footage. I'm not going to spoil the moment his body language shifts, or the second you can physically see the exact heartbeat where "prey" turns into "please." Words can't carry that anyway. You have to watch it happen in real time, frame by frame, to feel what it actually is: the most fragile, most honest negotiation on earth — a terrified animal deciding, right in front of a camera, whether trust is worth the risk one more time. Here's what almost nobody talks about when it comes to strays like this. Dogs abandoned long enough don't behave like pets. They behave like wild animals, because that's exactly what they've had to become. The friendliness gets stripped away first — that's a luxury, and luxuries are the first thing survival deletes. What's left underneath is raw calculation: threat or not a threat, food or not food, safe or not safe. Every second spent deciding wrong could be the last second they get. So when you see an animal in that state hold still — when you see it let a stranger's hand get closer than four legs and thirty years of abandonment should ever allow — you're not looking at "cute." You're looking at the single bravest decision an animal without language, without hope, without any promise of a good outcome, is capable of making. That's what's buried in this video. That's the part that will actually get you. And here's the twist that makes this whole thing so much heavier once you know it: this isn't rare. This is happening at a scale most people never let themselves think about. Estimates on free-roaming and abandoned dogs worldwide run into the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of versions of this exact moment — animals lying in grass, behind dumpsters, under bridges, past the point of hoping anyone comes — and only a fraction of them ever get a camera pointed at them, let alone a hand extended. Every viral rescue video you've ever scrolled past is a survivor's story. For every one of these, there are dozens that never get told, because nobody showed up in time to tell them. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to explain why this specific video hits different the second you actually watch it instead of skimming past it. You're not watching content. You're watching one of the rare good outcomes in a numbers game that is brutally stacked against good outcomes. Now — about the moment itself. There's a very specific window in every rescue like this. Rescuers call it different things, but it comes down to the same handful of seconds: the animal has to choose, right then, whether the human in front of it is a predator or a possibility. There's no in-between. No negotiation period. No "let me think about it." It happens in the space of a breath, and everything after depends on which way it breaks. You can see it happen in this footage. You can actually watch the exact moment where the decision gets made — where you'd swear the animal's whole nervous system recalibrates in real time. If you've never seen that moment up close, you don't actually know what "trust" looks like at its most primal. Most of us only ever encounter trust after it's already established, already comfortable, already taken for granted. This is trust being built from absolute zero, live, on camera, with everything on the line. I've watched hundreds of these rescue videos over the years — the genuinely real ones, not the staged reels that flood every feed now with fake "before" shots and suspiciously perfect lighting. The real ones all share this same fingerprint: a pause. A held breath. A moment where absolutely nothing happens except two creatures deciding, silently, whether the next few seconds are going to be safe. This video has that pause. And it's the reason you need to actually watch it instead of just reading about it. Because here's the thing text can never replicate: body language. The tension in a spine before it releases. The exact angle of an ear that tells you, before anything else does, whether fear is winning or losing. None of that survives translation into words. You either watch it happen, or you miss it completely. Let's talk about what "broken" actually costs an animal, physically, because most people underestimate it wildly. Extended abandonment doesn't just mean hunger. It means the body starts making impossible trade-offs. Muscle gets sacrificed for basic organ function. Coat and skin — usually the first thing to show damage — become secondary priorities compared to keeping a heart beating and lungs working. By the time visible damage shows up on the outside, the inside has usually already been compromising for weeks, sometimes months. Vets who specialize in stray and feral rescue will tell you the same thing over and over: what you see on the surface is never the full story. The surface is the last thing the body protects. If the outside already looks that rough, you almost don't want to know what's happening underneath. That's the stakes this video is actually operating at, even if the softness of the moment makes it easy to forget. This isn't a feel-good clip about a slightly dirty dog getting a bath. This is triage. This is the line between "made it" and "didn't," captured completely by accident, because someone happened to have a phone out at exactly the right moment. And that's maybe the most unsettling part of all of this, if you actually think about it for more than five seconds: how much of survival — for an animal with zero ability to ask for help — comes down to pure, dumb chance. Right place. Right time. Right person, willing to stop instead of walk past. How many times has "walking past" been the actual ending to a story like this one? We'll never know, because those endings don't get filmed. They don't get posted. They don't get millions of views and thousands of comments. They just... end, quietly, in a field somewhere, with nobody ever finding out there was a story there at all. This time, someone stopped. I want to be straight with you about something else, because it's the part that actually separates a real rescue from a manufactured one, and it matters more than people think. You can tell — almost instantly — when a rescue video is authentic versus when it's been engineered for engagement. Authentic ones are messy. Uncomfortable. Slow in places where a scripted video would cut. The animal doesn't hit its emotional beats on cue. There's confusion, hesitation, sometimes a step backward before the step forward. Real fear doesn't resolve on a content creator's timeline. It resolves on the animal's timeline, whenever that ends up being — thirty seconds, three minutes, sometimes far longer than anyone filming has patience for. This one has that texture. That's what makes it worth your two minutes instead of just another manufactured "rescue" clip built for a fake reaction. There's a reason rescue footage — the real kind — keeps outperforming almost everything else on this platform, and it's not because people are shallow or looking for cheap emotion. It's because this content taps into something most of us don't get nearly enough exposure to anymore: raw, unscripted stakes. Something is genuinely at risk. Something genuinely uncertain is happening. In a feed built almost entirely out of performance, irony, and content calculated down to the frame, a moment like this lands like a gut punch precisely because nobody could have staged the way it actually plays out. You can't fake that pause. You can't script that flinch, or the moment right after it, when the flinch stops. That's why you need to watch this instead of scrolling past the description of it. Because I can tell you it happened. I can't make you feel it happening. That gap — between knowing about something and actually witnessing it — is the entire reason video exists as a medium in the first place. Let's talk for a second about what happens after a moment like this, because most people watch these videos and never think past the ending card. Rescue is not resolution. It's the very first data point in a much longer, much harder process that almost nobody films because it isn't visually dramatic enough to go viral. Quarantine periods. Vet visits. Bloodwork. The slow, exhausting process of convincing a nervous system that's been running on high alert for months that it's actually allowed to relax now. Some animals take days to decompress. Some take literal years. Trust, once it's been broken at the level this video hints at, doesn't rebuild on anyone's convenient schedule. That's the part that never gets the same reach. The three-months-later update, the "he finally slept through the night" post, the "he let a stranger pet him for the first time" milestone that would look like nothing to anyone who didn't know the whole story. Those posts get a fraction of the views the rescue moment gets, even though they're arguably the more important part of the story. The internet loves a beginning. It's much worse at sticking around for the middle. So if this video moves you — and it will, if you actually watch it instead of skimming past — do something with that feeling beyond just scrolling to the next post. Rescues like this don't happen because of luck alone. They happen because someone, somewhere, decided that stopping mattered more than being on time to wherever they were headed. They happen because someone funded a vet bill, fostered an animal mid-recovery, drove two hours to pick up a dog that wasn't even theirs yet. None of that is glamorous. None of it goes viral on its own. But all of it is the actual machinery behind every single one of these videos you've ever watched and felt something about. If there's one thing I'd want you to take from this before you hit play, it's this: pay attention to the exact moment things shift. Don't just watch for the "aww." Watch for the decision. Watch for the specific second an animal that has every biological reason to run instead chooses to stay. That's the whole story, compressed into a handful of frames. Everything else — the outcome, the relief, the ending — is just what happens after that decision gets made. Most people will watch this video for the ending. Watch it for the middle instead. That's where the real thing is happening. And once you've seen it — once you've actually watched that shift happen in real time instead of reading about it secondhand — you'll understand why videos like this stop people mid-scroll every single time, no matter how many of them they've already seen. Because no matter how many of these you watch, that exact moment never gets less powerful. It just reminds you, over and over, of how much is riding on someone simply choosing to stop. Let's go back to the beginning for a second, because there's a question almost nobody asks about videos like this, and it's the one that actually matters most. How long was he out there before anyone found him? Nobody in the video knows the answer. Nobody watching it will ever know the answer. That's the part that sits with you long after the clip ends — not the moment of rescue itself, but the enormous, silent, unfilmed stretch of time that came before it. Days? Weeks? However long it was, it was long enough to erase every part of him except the will to keep breathing. Long enough that hiding in overgrown grass, invisible to a world that had stopped looking for him, had become the only strategy left. That's the actual horror hiding underneath a video that, on the surface, looks gentle. Everything soft about the footage is only possible because of everything brutal that happened just outside the frame, in the hours and days the camera never captured. This is why I keep telling you not to treat this as passive scrolling material. There is an entire invisible story sitting behind every second of visible footage, and your brain fills in almost none of it unless you slow down and actually let the video play out in full, without skipping ahead, without half-watching while doing five other things. Now, let's talk about why content like this spreads the way it does — because understanding the mechanics actually makes the moment hit harder, not softer. Platforms reward exactly one thing above everything else: retention. Not likes. Not shares. Not comments. Time spent actually watching, second by second, without looking away. And there is almost nothing on this entire platform that earns retention like genuine, unscripted animal footage where the outcome isn't obvious from frame one. Think about why that is. A cooking video, you already know the dish is going to come out fine. A prank video, you already know it's a joke. A dance video, a fashion video, a "get ready with me" video — the outcome was never in question to begin with. But a video like this one? The outcome is not guaranteed. For the first several seconds, you genuinely do not know which way it's going to go. That uncertainty is exactly what makes your eyes stay locked on the screen instead of your thumb flicking to the next post. That's not manipulation. That's not a trick. That's just what happens when something real, with real stakes, ends up on a feed built almost entirely out of things that were never actually uncertain in the first place. Here's something worth sitting with: most people, if you stopped them and asked directly, would say they care about animal welfare. Genuinely, sincerely, most people mean it when they say that. And yet the actual scale of the stray and abandoned animal crisis worldwide remains something most of the same people have almost no real information about. Not because they don't care — because nobody ever hands them the numbers in a way that actually lands. So here they are, stated plainly, without softening them: hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays globally, a significant share of them in conditions of chronic hunger, untreated injury, and disease. Shelters in country after country report the same pattern every single year — intake numbers that outpace adoption numbers, resources that fall short of need, and volunteers stretched thin trying to hold together a system that was never built to handle the actual scale of the problem. None of that is abstract when you're watching one specific dog in one specific patch of grass. It becomes very real, very fast, once you understand that what you're looking at isn't an isolated incident. It's one visible thread pulled out of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern. That's part of why this particular video deserves more than a passive scroll-past. It's not just "a nice moment." It's a small, rare, filmed exception to something that is happening constantly, relentlessly, without cameras, without rescuers, without any kind of happy resolution at all. Let's talk about the rescuer for a second, because they never get enough credit in videos like this, and it's worth correcting that. Whoever is behind that camera — whoever made the decision to stop, to approach slowly, to read an animal's body language carefully enough to know when to move closer and when to hold back — did something that looks simple on video and is genuinely difficult in real life. Approaching a frightened, possibly injured, possibly defensive stray animal correctly is a skill. Get it wrong, and you can panic the animal into fleeing somewhere far worse, or hurting itself trying to escape, or in rare cases, defending itself the only way it knows how. The people who do this well, over and over, in situation after situation, are operating on a mix of instinct and hard-earned experience that most of us will never develop, because most of us will never need to. That instinct is exactly why this rescue plays out the way it does instead of ending in a chase, a panic, or worse. Give that person their due before you close this tab. What you're watching is competence dressed up as tenderness. It looks soft. It is not easy. Now — a quick myth-versus-reality breakdown, because misconceptions about rescue moments like this one are everywhere, and they change how people watch this kind of footage. Myth: a starving, frightened stray will always be aggressive toward humans. Reality: fear responses vary enormously animal to animal. Some go defensive. Many, especially those who were once someone's pet before being abandoned, retain a flicker of learned trust toward people, buried under the fear, waiting for a reason to resurface. Myth: rescue is basically instant — approach, comfort, done. Reality: what you see in a two-minute clip is often the result of a much slower, more careful approach happening just before the camera starts rolling, sometimes minutes, sometimes far longer. Myth: once rescued, an animal is "fine." Reality: rescue is step one of dozens. Medical evaluation, parasite treatment, nutritional rehabilitation, and behavioral decompression all come after, often over a period of weeks or months, invisible to anyone who only ever saw the viral clip. Keep those in mind while you watch. They completely change what you're actually looking at. One more thing before you go press play, because it's the detail that changes how the whole video reads. Location matters more than people think. An animal hidden deep in overgrown grass, off any visible path, away from foot traffic, isn't there by accident. Animals in that condition instinctively seek concealment — it's one of the last functioning defense mechanisms left once running is no longer a realistic option. Being found at all, in a spot chosen specifically to not be found, is already a low-probability event before a single second of footage even starts. That's the invisible math sitting underneath this entire video. The odds of this exact outcome happening were never good. And yet here we are. If you've read this far without watching the video yet, that's honestly a little bit funny, because everything above was building toward one single, simple, unavoidable conclusion: None of this — the psychology, the statistics, the survival instinct, the odds stacked against him — means anything close to what it means once you actually see it unfold in real time, on his face, in his body, in the exact second everything changes. Reading about a moment like this is the trailer. Watching it is the movie. Let me leave you with one last thing, because it's the part people usually forget by the time they close the app and move on with their day. Every single one of us has scrolled past a moment like this before. Not this exact video — but this exact shape of moment. The thumbnail that looked heavy. The caption that hinted at something hard. The three seconds of hesitation before deciding whether today was a day you had the emotional bandwidth to watch an animal suffer before things got better. Most days, most people, scroll past. That's not a character flaw. That's just what an endless feed trains you to do — protect your attention, protect your mood, keep moving. But here's the thing about this specific kind of video that makes stopping worth it, every single time: the discomfort at the start is never the point. It's the toll you pay to get to the part that actually matters — the shift, the decision, the moment fear loses. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the entire reason the video exists in the first place. You end up with secondhand information about a moment that was never designed to be understood secondhand. Think about the last time a video actually changed your mood for the rest of the day. Not entertained you — changed something. Made you call someone. Made you donate somewhere you'd never donated before. Made you look at your own dog curled up on the couch and feel something different for a second. Those moments are rare precisely because most content isn't built to carry that kind of weight. Most content is built to be forgotten by the next scroll. This isn't most content. There's a reason rescue footage keeps circulating years after it's first posted, resurfacing on different accounts, different platforms, different captions, over and over, long after the original context is gone. It's because moments like this don't expire. A joke gets old. A trend dies in a week. But the exact second an abandoned, broken animal decides to trust a stranger anyway — that doesn't age. It hits the same way in five years that it hits today, because the thing it's tapping into isn't a trend. It's something much older than any platform, any algorithm, any feed. It's the oldest story there is, really, just told without words: something was broken, someone showed up anyway, and against every reasonable expectation, that was enough. We don't get many unscripted, unforced examples of that anymore. Almost everything in front of us now is curated, edited, angled for a reaction. This isn't. This is just what actually happened, captured because a phone happened to be there, no different than it would have looked if no camera existed at all. That's rare. That's worth two minutes of your undivided attention instead of a half-watched scroll-by. So here's the actual ask, plain and simple: don't just watch this one and move on like it's any other post in your feed today. Watch it properly. Let it play all the way through without skipping ahead to see how it ends. Notice the exact second his body changes. Notice what happens right after that. And then, if it moves you even a fraction as much as it should, do one small thing with that feeling before it fades — share it with someone, support a rescue near you, or just remember, the next time you see a stray on the side of a road, that stopping is always an option. It's always been an option. Somebody just has to choose to take it. That choice is the entire video. Everything else is just what happens after it gets made. One last thought, and then I'll let you go watch it instead of reading about it any longer. Somewhere out there, right now, there's another version of this exact scene playing out with no camera anywhere near it. No rescuer. No hand reaching out slowly through tall grass. No moment where fear loses. Just an animal, alone, running out of time in silence. We can't fix that with a video. Nobody's pretending we can. But we can make sure the ones that do get found, the ones that do get a camera and a rescuer and a happy ending, actually get seen — properly seen, not scrolled past in half a second on the way to something louder and easier. This is one of the good ones. One of the rare stories where showing up actually happened in time. Don't waste that by treating it like background noise. He didn't run. Now go find out why.

He didn't run. That's the detail nobody expects. Every instinct in a wild, broken animal screams "run" the second a human gets close. Flight is the oldest survival code there is. And yet — he didn't run. Watch the video and you'll understand why that single fact should terrify you more than comfort you. Because an animal that doesn't run from you anymore has already given up on the idea that running matters. He has already decided, somewhere in that starving, exhausted brain, that whatever comes next can't possibly be worse than what came before. Sit with that for a second. What does it take to break that instinct? What does it take to make a living creature so depleted, so past the point of hope, that self-preservation itself shuts off? We're not talking about a dog that was "a little scared." We're talking about a dog who had already made peace with dying alone in the grass, hidden from a world that had already decided he didn't matter. And then someone showed up anyway. This is the part of the internet nobody warns you about. Not the cute part. Not the "aww" part. The part where you realize how close "almost too late" actually is — and how many of these moments are happening right now, in ditches and fields and abandoned lots, with nobody filming, nobody coming, nobody ever finding out. This one was found. I'm not going to walk you through what happens in the footage. I'm not going to spoil the moment his body language shifts, or the second you can physically see the exact heartbeat where "prey" turns into "please." Words can't carry that anyway. You have to watch it happen in real time, frame by frame, to feel what it actually is: the most fragile, most honest negotiation on earth — a terrified animal deciding, right in front of a camera, whether trust is worth the risk one more time. Here's what almost nobody talks about when it comes to strays like this. Dogs abandoned long enough don't behave like pets. They behave like wild animals, because that's exactly what they've had to become. The friendliness gets stripped away first — that's a luxury, and luxuries are the first thing survival deletes. What's left underneath is raw calculation: threat or not a threat, food or not food, safe or not safe. Every second spent deciding wrong could be the last second they get. So when you see an animal in that state hold still — when you see it let a stranger's hand get closer than four legs and thirty years of abandonment should ever allow — you're not looking at "cute." You're looking at the single bravest decision an animal without language, without hope, without any promise of a good outcome, is capable of making. That's what's buried in this video. That's the part that will actually get you. And here's the twist that makes this whole thing so much heavier once you know it: this isn't rare. This is happening at a scale most people never let themselves think about. Estimates on free-roaming and abandoned dogs worldwide run into the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of versions of this exact moment — animals lying in grass, behind dumpsters, under bridges, past the point of hoping anyone comes — and only a fraction of them ever get a camera pointed at them, let alone a hand extended. Every viral rescue video you've ever scrolled past is a survivor's story. For every one of these, there are dozens that never get told, because nobody showed up in time to tell them. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to explain why this specific video hits different the second you actually watch it instead of skimming past it. You're not watching content. You're watching one of the rare good outcomes in a numbers game that is brutally stacked against good outcomes. Now — about the moment itself. There's a very specific window in every rescue like this. Rescuers call it different things, but it comes down to the same handful of seconds: the animal has to choose, right then, whether the human in front of it is a predator or a possibility. There's no in-between. No negotiation period. No "let me think about it." It happens in the space of a breath, and everything after depends on which way it breaks. You can see it happen in this footage. You can actually watch the exact moment where the decision gets made — where you'd swear the animal's whole nervous system recalibrates in real time. If you've never seen that moment up close, you don't actually know what "trust" looks like at its most primal. Most of us only ever encounter trust after it's already established, already comfortable, already taken for granted. This is trust being built from absolute zero, live, on camera, with everything on the line. I've watched hundreds of these rescue videos over the years — the genuinely real ones, not the staged reels that flood every feed now with fake "before" shots and suspiciously perfect lighting. The real ones all share this same fingerprint: a pause. A held breath. A moment where absolutely nothing happens except two creatures deciding, silently, whether the next few seconds are going to be safe. This video has that pause. And it's the reason you need to actually watch it instead of just reading about it. Because here's the thing text can never replicate: body language. The tension in a spine before it releases. The exact angle of an ear that tells you, before anything else does, whether fear is winning or losing. None of that survives translation into words. You either watch it happen, or you miss it completely. Let's talk about what "broken" actually costs an animal, physically, because most people underestimate it wildly. Extended abandonment doesn't just mean hunger. It means the body starts making impossible trade-offs. Muscle gets sacrificed for basic organ function. Coat and skin — usually the first thing to show damage — become secondary priorities compared to keeping a heart beating and lungs working. By the time visible damage shows up on the outside, the inside has usually already been compromising for weeks, sometimes months. Vets who specialize in stray and feral rescue will tell you the same thing over and over: what you see on the surface is never the full story. The surface is the last thing the body protects. If the outside already looks that rough, you almost don't want to know what's happening underneath. That's the stakes this video is actually operating at, even if the softness of the moment makes it easy to forget. This isn't a feel-good clip about a slightly dirty dog getting a bath. This is triage. This is the line between "made it" and "didn't," captured completely by accident, because someone happened to have a phone out at exactly the right moment. And that's maybe the most unsettling part of all of this, if you actually think about it for more than five seconds: how much of survival — for an animal with zero ability to ask for help — comes down to pure, dumb chance. Right place. Right time. Right person, willing to stop instead of walk past. How many times has "walking past" been the actual ending to a story like this one? We'll never know, because those endings don't get filmed. They don't get posted. They don't get millions of views and thousands of comments. They just... end, quietly, in a field somewhere, with nobody ever finding out there was a story there at all. This time, someone stopped. I want to be straight with you about something else, because it's the part that actually separates a real rescue from a manufactured one, and it matters more than people think. You can tell — almost instantly — when a rescue video is authentic versus when it's been engineered for engagement. Authentic ones are messy. Uncomfortable. Slow in places where a scripted video would cut. The animal doesn't hit its emotional beats on cue. There's confusion, hesitation, sometimes a step backward before the step forward. Real fear doesn't resolve on a content creator's timeline. It resolves on the animal's timeline, whenever that ends up being — thirty seconds, three minutes, sometimes far longer than anyone filming has patience for. This one has that texture. That's what makes it worth your two minutes instead of just another manufactured "rescue" clip built for a fake reaction. There's a reason rescue footage — the real kind — keeps outperforming almost everything else on this platform, and it's not because people are shallow or looking for cheap emotion. It's because this content taps into something most of us don't get nearly enough exposure to anymore: raw, unscripted stakes. Something is genuinely at risk. Something genuinely uncertain is happening. In a feed built almost entirely out of performance, irony, and content calculated down to the frame, a moment like this lands like a gut punch precisely because nobody could have staged the way it actually plays out. You can't fake that pause. You can't script that flinch, or the moment right after it, when the flinch stops. That's why you need to watch this instead of scrolling past the description of it. Because I can tell you it happened. I can't make you feel it happening. That gap — between knowing about something and actually witnessing it — is the entire reason video exists as a medium in the first place. Let's talk for a second about what happens after a moment like this, because most people watch these videos and never think past the ending card. Rescue is not resolution. It's the very first data point in a much longer, much harder process that almost nobody films because it isn't visually dramatic enough to go viral. Quarantine periods. Vet visits. Bloodwork. The slow, exhausting process of convincing a nervous system that's been running on high alert for months that it's actually allowed to relax now. Some animals take days to decompress. Some take literal years. Trust, once it's been broken at the level this video hints at, doesn't rebuild on anyone's convenient schedule. That's the part that never gets the same reach. The three-months-later update, the "he finally slept through the night" post, the "he let a stranger pet him for the first time" milestone that would look like nothing to anyone who didn't know the whole story. Those posts get a fraction of the views the rescue moment gets, even though they're arguably the more important part of the story. The internet loves a beginning. It's much worse at sticking around for the middle. So if this video moves you — and it will, if you actually watch it instead of skimming past — do something with that feeling beyond just scrolling to the next post. Rescues like this don't happen because of luck alone. They happen because someone, somewhere, decided that stopping mattered more than being on time to wherever they were headed. They happen because someone funded a vet bill, fostered an animal mid-recovery, drove two hours to pick up a dog that wasn't even theirs yet. None of that is glamorous. None of it goes viral on its own. But all of it is the actual machinery behind every single one of these videos you've ever watched and felt something about. If there's one thing I'd want you to take from this before you hit play, it's this: pay attention to the exact moment things shift. Don't just watch for the "aww." Watch for the decision. Watch for the specific second an animal that has every biological reason to run instead chooses to stay. That's the whole story, compressed into a handful of frames. Everything else — the outcome, the relief, the ending — is just what happens after that decision gets made. Most people will watch this video for the ending. Watch it for the middle instead. That's where the real thing is happening. And once you've seen it — once you've actually watched that shift happen in real time instead of reading about it secondhand — you'll understand why videos like this stop people mid-scroll every single time, no matter how many of them they've already seen. Because no matter how many of these you watch, that exact moment never gets less powerful. It just reminds you, over and over, of how much is riding on someone simply choosing to stop. Let's go back to the beginning for a second, because there's a question almost nobody asks about videos like this, and it's the one that actually matters most. How long was he out there before anyone found him? Nobody in the video knows the answer. Nobody watching it will ever know the answer. That's the part that sits with you long after the clip ends — not the moment of rescue itself, but the enormous, silent, unfilmed stretch of time that came before it. Days? Weeks? However long it was, it was long enough to erase every part of him except the will to keep breathing. Long enough that hiding in overgrown grass, invisible to a world that had stopped looking for him, had become the only strategy left. That's the actual horror hiding underneath a video that, on the surface, looks gentle. Everything soft about the footage is only possible because of everything brutal that happened just outside the frame, in the hours and days the camera never captured. This is why I keep telling you not to treat this as passive scrolling material. There is an entire invisible story sitting behind every second of visible footage, and your brain fills in almost none of it unless you slow down and actually let the video play out in full, without skipping ahead, without half-watching while doing five other things. Now, let's talk about why content like this spreads the way it does — because understanding the mechanics actually makes the moment hit harder, not softer. Platforms reward exactly one thing above everything else: retention. Not likes. Not shares. Not comments. Time spent actually watching, second by second, without looking away. And there is almost nothing on this entire platform that earns retention like genuine, unscripted animal footage where the outcome isn't obvious from frame one. Think about why that is. A cooking video, you already know the dish is going to come out fine. A prank video, you already know it's a joke. A dance video, a fashion video, a "get ready with me" video — the outcome was never in question to begin with. But a video like this one? The outcome is not guaranteed. For the first several seconds, you genuinely do not know which way it's going to go. That uncertainty is exactly what makes your eyes stay locked on the screen instead of your thumb flicking to the next post. That's not manipulation. That's not a trick. That's just what happens when something real, with real stakes, ends up on a feed built almost entirely out of things that were never actually uncertain in the first place. Here's something worth sitting with: most people, if you stopped them and asked directly, would say they care about animal welfare. Genuinely, sincerely, most people mean it when they say that. And yet the actual scale of the stray and abandoned animal crisis worldwide remains something most of the same people have almost no real information about. Not because they don't care — because nobody ever hands them the numbers in a way that actually lands. So here they are, stated plainly, without softening them: hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays globally, a significant share of them in conditions of chronic hunger, untreated injury, and disease. Shelters in country after country report the same pattern every single year — intake numbers that outpace adoption numbers, resources that fall short of need, and volunteers stretched thin trying to hold together a system that was never built to handle the actual scale of the problem. None of that is abstract when you're watching one specific dog in one specific patch of grass. It becomes very real, very fast, once you understand that what you're looking at isn't an isolated incident. It's one visible thread pulled out of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern. That's part of why this particular video deserves more than a passive scroll-past. It's not just "a nice moment." It's a small, rare, filmed exception to something that is happening constantly, relentlessly, without cameras, without rescuers, without any kind of happy resolution at all. Let's talk about the rescuer for a second, because they never get enough credit in videos like this, and it's worth correcting that. Whoever is behind that camera — whoever made the decision to stop, to approach slowly, to read an animal's body language carefully enough to know when to move closer and when to hold back — did something that looks simple on video and is genuinely difficult in real life. Approaching a frightened, possibly injured, possibly defensive stray animal correctly is a skill. Get it wrong, and you can panic the animal into fleeing somewhere far worse, or hurting itself trying to escape, or in rare cases, defending itself the only way it knows how. The people who do this well, over and over, in situation after situation, are operating on a mix of instinct and hard-earned experience that most of us will never develop, because most of us will never need to. That instinct is exactly why this rescue plays out the way it does instead of ending in a chase, a panic, or worse. Give that person their due before you close this tab. What you're watching is competence dressed up as tenderness. It looks soft. It is not easy. Now — a quick myth-versus-reality breakdown, because misconceptions about rescue moments like this one are everywhere, and they change how people watch this kind of footage. Myth: a starving, frightened stray will always be aggressive toward humans. Reality: fear responses vary enormously animal to animal. Some go defensive. Many, especially those who were once someone's pet before being abandoned, retain a flicker of learned trust toward people, buried under the fear, waiting for a reason to resurface. Myth: rescue is basically instant — approach, comfort, done. Reality: what you see in a two-minute clip is often the result of a much slower, more careful approach happening just before the camera starts rolling, sometimes minutes, sometimes far longer. Myth: once rescued, an animal is "fine." Reality: rescue is step one of dozens. Medical evaluation, parasite treatment, nutritional rehabilitation, and behavioral decompression all come after, often over a period of weeks or months, invisible to anyone who only ever saw the viral clip. Keep those in mind while you watch. They completely change what you're actually looking at. One more thing before you go press play, because it's the detail that changes how the whole video reads. Location matters more than people think. An animal hidden deep in overgrown grass, off any visible path, away from foot traffic, isn't there by accident. Animals in that condition instinctively seek concealment — it's one of the last functioning defense mechanisms left once running is no longer a realistic option. Being found at all, in a spot chosen specifically to not be found, is already a low-probability event before a single second of footage even starts. That's the invisible math sitting underneath this entire video. The odds of this exact outcome happening were never good. And yet here we are. If you've read this far without watching the video yet, that's honestly a little bit funny, because everything above was building toward one single, simple, unavoidable conclusion: None of this — the psychology, the statistics, the survival instinct, the odds stacked against him — means anything close to what it means once you actually see it unfold in real time, on his face, in his body, in the exact second everything changes. Reading about a moment like this is the trailer. Watching it is the movie. Let me leave you with one last thing, because it's the part people usually forget by the time they close the app and move on with their day. Every single one of us has scrolled past a moment like this before. Not this exact video — but this exact shape of moment. The thumbnail that looked heavy. The caption that hinted at something hard. The three seconds of hesitation before deciding whether today was a day you had the emotional bandwidth to watch an animal suffer before things got better. Most days, most people, scroll past. That's not a character flaw. That's just what an endless feed trains you to do — protect your attention, protect your mood, keep moving. But here's the thing about this specific kind of video that makes stopping worth it, every single time: the discomfort at the start is never the point. It's the toll you pay to get to the part that actually matters — the shift, the decision, the moment fear loses. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the entire reason the video exists in the first place. You end up with secondhand information about a moment that was never designed to be understood secondhand. Think about the last time a video actually changed your mood for the rest of the day. Not entertained you — changed something. Made you call someone. Made you donate somewhere you'd never donated before. Made you look at your own dog curled up on the couch and feel something different for a second. Those moments are rare precisely because most content isn't built to carry that kind of weight. Most content is built to be forgotten by the next scroll. This isn't most content. There's a reason rescue footage keeps circulating years after it's first posted, resurfacing on different accounts, different platforms, different captions, over and over, long after the original context is gone. It's because moments like this don't expire. A joke gets old. A trend dies in a week. But the exact second an abandoned, broken animal decides to trust a stranger anyway — that doesn't age. It hits the same way in five years that it hits today, because the thing it's tapping into isn't a trend. It's something much older than any platform, any algorithm, any feed. It's the oldest story there is, really, just told without words: something was broken, someone showed up anyway, and against every reasonable expectation, that was enough. We don't get many unscripted, unforced examples of that anymore. Almost everything in front of us now is curated, edited, angled for a reaction. This isn't. This is just what actually happened, captured because a phone happened to be there, no different than it would have looked if no camera existed at all. That's rare. That's worth two minutes of your undivided attention instead of a half-watched scroll-by. So here's the actual ask, plain and simple: don't just watch this one and move on like it's any other post in your feed today. Watch it properly. Let it play all the way through without skipping ahead to see how it ends. Notice the exact second his body changes. Notice what happens right after that. And then, if it moves you even a fraction as much as it should, do one small thing with that feeling before it fades — share it with someone, support a rescue near you, or just remember, the next time you see a stray on the side of a road, that stopping is always an option. It's always been an option. Somebody just has to choose to take it. That choice is the entire video. Everything else is just what happens after it gets made. One last thought, and then I'll let you go watch it instead of reading about it any longer. Somewhere out there, right now, there's another version of this exact scene playing out with no camera anywhere near it. No rescuer. No hand reaching out slowly through tall grass. No moment where fear loses. Just an animal, alone, running out of time in silence. We can't fix that with a video. Nobody's pretending we can. But we can make sure the ones that do get found, the ones that do get a camera and a rescuer and a happy ending, actually get seen — properly seen, not scrolled past in half a second on the way to something louder and easier. This is one of the good ones. One of the rare stories where showing up actually happened in time. Don't waste that by treating it like background noise. He didn't run. Now go find out why.

Earth Unveiled

200,400 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."

Joe Murgia

44,343 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce