“Love isn’t measured in carats, in candlelit dinners, or in how much we spend. It’s measured in the quiet moments, the small gestures, the everyday kindness that no marketing campaign can sell us.”
Every February, it happens like clockwork. The ads start rolling in—diamonds, chocolates, five-star dinner reservations. Billboards whisper, If you really love them, you’ll buy this.
And before we know it, Valentine’s Day starts to feel less like a celebration of love and more like a test of how much we’re willing to spend.
But let’s be honest—was love ever supposed to look like this?
There was a time when love was handwritten letters. When it was long walks, late-night conversations, stolen moments. But somewhere along the way, something changed.
A century ago, Valentine’s Day was simple. Then the greeting card industry got involved. Then the jewelry companies. Then the florists, the restaurants, the luxury brands. Now?
Love didn’t get stronger because we started spending more. But profits sure did.
Here’s the problem: When we’re told love has a price, we start believing it.
And just like that, a holiday meant to celebrate love turns into a source of stress, guilt, and comparison.
Think about the moments in your life when you felt truly loved.
Was it when someone spent a fortune on you? Or was it:
Love isn’t in the receipts. It’s in the time, the effort, the thoughtfulness.
A handwritten note lasts longer than roses. A shared experience means more than a diamond. A moment of undivided attention is priceless.
But that’s not what corporations want us to believe—because there’s no profit in it.
And here’s another thing—love is more than romance.
Why should February 14th only belong to couples? Why not use it to celebrate:
What if we redefined Valentine’s Day—not as a day to consume, but as a day to connect?
Because love—real love—was never about money. It was about meaning.
At the end of the day, we decide what love looks like.
We can let corporations keep selling us a version of romance built on price tags. Or we can take love back—make it simple, make it meaningful, make it ours again.
Because no matter what the commercials tell us, love was never meant to be bought.
It was meant to be felt.
grab the playlist
“If a single child is trapped under rubble, the world stops. If thousands suffer, we call it a crisis—but we move on. Why?”
We don’t like to admit it, but our empathy has limits. We care deeply about our families, our friends, our communities. But beyond that? Beyond our immediate circles, our borders, our cultures?
Something shifts.
A war breaks out in a distant country. A factory collapse kills hundreds. Refugees flee devastation.
And we scroll past.
Not because we’re bad people. Not because we don’t care. But because something inside us—something ancient, something wired into our survival—tells us: That’s not your problem.
This isn’t just about apathy. It’s about how human nature, technology, and politics work together to turn real people into statistics. And if we don’t challenge it, the consequences are dire.
Science has a name for this: psychic numbing—the way our emotions shut down when faced with large-scale suffering.
Paul Slovic, a researcher on human behavior, calls this the collapse of compassion. The larger the tragedy, the harder it is for our brains to compute.
And it’s not just numbers. It’s distance—physical, cultural, emotional.
The further someone is from our world, the harder it is to see them as fully human.
This isn’t an excuse. It’s a warning. Because history shows us what happens when we let this instinct go unchallenged.
We like to believe that atrocities belong to the past. That genocide, war crimes, exploitation—those were the failures of another time.
But here’s the truth: Every mass injustice started with dehumanization.
The moment we stop seeing people as individuals with hopes, fears, and dreams—that’s when anything becomes possible.
And make no mistake: Dehumanization isn’t just something that happens “over there.” It’s happening now. In the way we talk about migrants. Protesters. The poor. The enemy.
This isn’t just about the past. This is about us. Right now.
Have you ever noticed how some tragedies make headlines for weeks—while others disappear in hours?
It’s not random.
Why? Because we prioritize the suffering of people who look like us, live like us, think like us.
The media doesn’t create bias. It reflects it. It feeds us the stories we’re most likely to engage with—the ones that feel closest to home.
And what happens to the rest? The wars, the famines, the crises that don’t fit a convenient narrative? They fade into the background.
The world keeps turning. And people keep suffering, unseen.
If human nature, history, and media all push us toward selective empathy—what do we do about it?
Statistics don’t move people. Stories do.
If you want to care more, seek out the human stories. Don’t let crises become headlines without faces.
Next time you’re scrolling, ask yourself:
Challenge the instinct to only empathize with people who remind you of yourself.
The moment we call people “migrants” instead of families fleeing for their lives, we detach.
The moment we call people “rioters” instead of citizens demanding justice, we lose the story.
Words matter. They shape how we see the world—and who we decide is worth saving.
We can’t control global suffering. But we can control what we engage with.
Empathy is a muscle. Use it.
Every injustice—every war, every genocide, every mass suffering—began with the same excuse:
“That’s not our problem.”
And if we let that thinking take over, if we let ourselves become numb—then we will watch the next crisis unfold in real time, feel bad for a moment, and move on.
But we don’t have to.
We can fight to see people as they are. To challenge the forces that divide us. To break the cycle before it’s too late.
Because the greatest threat to humanity has never been war, or disease, or disaster.
It’s indifference.
And the choice before us everyday is simple: Will we care, or will we look away?
“If It’s Sex You’re Looking For…” Designed by Judith Johnson for Hallmark, 1971. Archived from The Peculiar Manicule. via
Trust is the currency of progress. It’s what holds democracies together, what makes economies function, what turns strangers into communities. Lose it, and everything starts to break down.
Right now, trust is running on empty.
According to the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, only 36% of people believe the next generation will be better off. That’s not just a number. That’s a warning sign. A flashing red light. A sign that something fundamental is breaking in the relationship between people and the institutions that are supposed to serve them.
And let’s be clear: This didn’t happen overnight.
Trust wasn’t stolen from us. It was chipped away, one broken promise at a time.
People don’t wake up one morning and decide to stop trusting institutions. It happens slowly, then all at once.
And over time, we stop expecting anything different.
That’s the real danger—not just that trust is declining, but that we’re getting used to it. That we’ve reached a point where corruption, deception, and broken promises don’t even shock us anymore.
Because once trust is gone, what comes next?
This isn’t just a crisis of trust. It’s a crisis of what happens when trust runs out.
Rebuilding trust isn’t about putting out better press releases. It’s about delivering results. And that means:
Radical Transparency. No more fine print. No more vague promises. If an institution wants trust, it has to earn it in public.
Accountability That Actually Matters. If politicians lie, they should lose power. If companies deceive, they should lose profits. If AI makes decisions that affect us, we should know exactly how.
Media That Puts Truth Over Clicks. We need journalism that informs, not inflames. Outrage makes money, but trust makes democracy work.
Leadership That Serves, Not Profits. The institutions that survive the next decade will be the ones that put people first. Not stockholders. Not advertisers. People.
It’s about whether we believe in the idea that institutions can serve the people again.
Because if we don’t believe that, we’ve already lost.
But if we do—if we demand better, if we hold power accountable, if we refuse to accept that this is just the way things are—then trust isn’t gone for good.
It’s just waiting to be rebuilt.
The only question left is: Are we willing to fight for it?
