I got the grades. I pushed through the exhaustion. I learned early how to override my own discomfort in a way that started to feel like discipline instead of distress. I became the kind of person who could survive systems that were never built with me in mind. And for a while, it worked—if by “worked” you mean I kept moving.

But my body was keeping score.

When my health got worse, it didn’t care about the narrative. It didn’t care that I had followed the path correctly, that I had earned my place in law school, that I was doing what you’re supposed to do when you’re given the chance. It just said no. And so yes, technically, I chose to leave law school.

But I’ve been sitting with that word—chose—because what does it mean to choose something when the alternative is your own deterioration? When staying would cost you your health, your safety, and maybe your life? What does it mean to call that freedom?

I’ve asked myself the same question about everything that came after. Leaving my job. Rearranging my life around what my body could tolerate. You can point to the moment of decision and say, there—that’s where the choice happened.

But that moment was already shaped long before I got to it.

We like to isolate the final act and call it agency; we ignore the conditions that made one option survivable and the other one not.

There’s a word for this—responsibilization—the way systems shift responsibility onto individuals while quietly structuring the conditions those individuals are navigating. You are free to choose, but the options have already been arranged. And once you choose, the outcome becomes yours to carry.

It becomes easier to see when something breaks.

Disability has a way of exposing the edges of the system because it removes the illusion that everyone is operating on equal ground. When your body refuses to cooperate, the story starts to fall apart. The idea that success is just about effort, that failure is just about poor choices—it stops making sense. Because suddenly the choices aren’t symmetrical.

One option might look like achievement on paper but be physically unsustainable. Another might look like “quitting” but be the only way to stay alive. And still, we call both of them choices. We still attach moral weight to them.

And it’s not just disability.

Race does this too, in ways that are quieter if you’re not looking for them. We tell a story about merit—work hard, make good decisions, and you will be rewarded—but that story has always been unevenly distributed. Access to safety, to education, to time, and to the ability to take risks without catastrophic consequences—these aren’t neutral starting points. They shape what even appears as an option. What feels realistic. What feels dangerous. What feels like failure before you even try.

What Pierre Bourdieu calls habitus—the internalization of structure—means that people don’t just face different choices. They experience the world as if certain paths were never meant for them in the first place. And then we call the outcomes personal.

There’s a cruelty to this, and it’s rarely intentional.

The promise is still there: if you choose correctly, things will work out. But the infrastructure that would make that promise real—stable work, accessible healthcare, and systems that accommodate human variation instead of punishing it—is eroding. And yet the expectation remains. So people keep choosing. And when it doesn’t work, they blame themselves.

You can see the same structure in politics.

We are presented with two parties and told that this is democracy in its highest form—that everything depends on our choice, and that the future hinges on picking correctly. And then we turn on each other.

If harm continues, it’s because people voted wrong. If things don’t improve, it’s because individuals failed their responsibility.

But the narrowing itself—the fact that the range of viable options is already constrained—is treated as natural. Invisible. As if it doesn’t count. You can choose—just not outside the frame.

And once you see it, you start to notice how often we use the language of choice to assign blame. People should have worked harder. Should have planned better. Should have made different decisions.

As if the menu wasn’t already limited. As if some options weren’t quietly impossible from the start. As if survival itself isn’t doing most of the decision-making.

I’m not saying choice isn’t real. I’m saying it isn’t neutral.

And I’m saying we flatten it—intentionally or not—into something cleaner than it is, because it lets us keep a certain kind of moral order intact. If people are choosing, then outcomes are deserved. If outcomes are deserved, then the system doesn’t need to change.

But there’s another way to think about responsibility. Not as something that disappears, but as something that gets redistributed more honestly. As something that accounts for dependence, for interdependence, for care—and for the fact that we are not isolated decision-makers floating above our conditions, but people moving within them, shaped by them, and constrained by them.

That doesn’t make us powerless, but it does make the question different.

Not: why did you choose wrong?

But: what were you actually given to choose from?

And maybe this is where something like hope lives. Not in pretending the choices are wider than they are, but in refusing to lie about their shape. In noticing each other more clearly. In loosening the instinct to judge and tightening the instinct to understand. In building, slowly, conditions where more choices are actually livable.

Albert Camus wrote that the struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.

I think about that differently now.

Not as a solitary figure pushing a boulder up a hill, but as people standing at the base together, finally naming the hill for what it is. We can stop blaming each other for slipping and pretending the incline is gentle.

And more than anything, we can still choose—together this time—to push.

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

Subscribe now

Grace is older than me by fifteen months, which is close enough that, in the beginning, we were raised almost like twins. We sat at the same table. We were taught from the same homeschool material because I was precocious enough that no one saw a problem with it. We moved through the same fourteen houses, the same shifting weather systems of our family, and the same rooms that could feel ordinary one minute and dangerously charged the next. We came from the same place so thoroughly that for years I think I assumed sameness was the baseline and difference was just something that happened on top of it.

We looked like sisters in the way people clock immediately and then keep staring at, trying to sort the rest out. I was lighter—blonde as a kid, then dirty blonde, then the softer brown I have now—with blue eyes and skin that read peachier. Grace had curly brown hair, hazel eyes, and olive skin—the kind of coloring that held the sun differently than mine. We both tanned in the summer. We were close in height—me 5’7”, her 5’9”—and our bodies seemed to track each other in a way that felt almost competitive even when no one said it out loud. Sometimes I weighed more, sometimes she did, sometimes we landed in the same place without trying. There was never one stable arrangement of who was prettier, who was thinner, who was easier, or who made more sense. We learned our differences the way girls do—by watching where attention went, by noticing how long it lingered, and by measuring ourselves against each other so quietly that it almost passed for instinct.

Sometimes boys liked us both, at least at first. Then the attention would shift, not always dramatically, but just enough to notice. Often it moved toward Grace. She was beautiful in a way that did not arrive carrying quite so much theory as I brought to the table. I was stranger up close. More likely to say something that tilted the conversation somewhere inconvenient. Even that felt like part of the pattern: two sisters from the same house, filtered differently by the world.

And yet the real difference between us did not begin there. It began much earlier, before boys, before diagnoses, and before anyone had a clinical language for what was ‘wrong’. It began in the tiny daily negotiations of childhood, and in the invisible ways children learn to move around each other and around the temperature of a room.

My mom used to play these quick-answer games with us during homeschool. She’d ask a question and one of us would jump up and blurt out the answer. I learned pretty quickly that if I jumped in too fast, Grace would get upset. So I started waiting. I would know the answer, feel it rising in me, and hold it back for a second or two to give her the chance to say it first. I do not think I was noble about this. I was a kid. I was just learning, in the practical animal way children learn, that there were ways to keep a room from turning. I could feel when a moment was starting to tilt, and I adjusted myself before it did. That was one of the first skills I ever got rewarded for, even if no one called it a skill.

We were both gifted. I think that matters. I also think Grace is far smarter than I am in certain deep, inconvenient ways. She has always had less willingness to cooperate with a lie just because it keeps everyone else comfortable. Even as a kid, there was something in her that kept pushing against arrangements that did not feel right to her. I learned earlier that life often went more smoothly if I translated myself first.

None of this made her simple. That is the central problem in trying to write her honestly. She frightened me from very early on. She was emotionally huge, erratic, and capable of going from funny and magnetic to terrifying in a way that lived in my body long before I had language for it. But she was also my friend in the deepest possible sense. We laughed so hard together. We built worlds together. Once, I realized that if I said “sex” instead of “six,” our mom would react, and so of course I kept saying “sex, sex, sexity sex” because I was a child and that was hilarious, and Grace was laughing too. That is one version of us. Another version is me knowing I should be careful, and trying to soak up the good parts while they were there because I already sensed they might not last.

That doubleness is essential. When we were close, we were best friends. When we were bad, we were very bad. A Tale of Two Sisters, if I am being honest, is not just about divergence. It is about intimacy and fear sharing a bedroom wall. It is about being raised beside someone you adore and dread, sometimes in the same afternoon.

There were things happening to Grace that I did not understand as a child and do not feel entitled to narrate fully now. Some of what hurt her started before I had language for what hurt even was. Some of it came from outside the family, some of it from inside the house, some of it from the simple fact that children absorb what the adults around them cannot metabolize. What I did understand, even then, was that she had become the child in whom the family’s disorder was easiest to see.

My dad drank. I do not know exactly how directly to write that without turning him into a villain in a story that is more complicated than villainy, but it belongs here because families like ours have economies, and in those economies one person often ends up carrying what everyone else needs not to examine. Grace was that person. She was not the only problem in our house. She was where the problem was permitted to appear.

That role settled onto her early and then got reinforced by nearly everything. She was punished more harshly and more creatively than the rest of us. She was subjected to humiliations the rest of us were not. She was isolated in her room for long stretches while the rest of us went on orbiting around her, talking about her in lowered voices, treating her as both central and apart. The adults were desperate. I can see that now. They had a child whose behavior felt impossible to control and they kept trying to invent the consequence that would finally force coherence onto chaos. But desperation in adults does not feel like desperation to a child. It feels like law. It feels like the world has decided what kind of person you are.

One story I cannot stop thinking about is a punishment my dad came up with because ordinary grounding was no longer working. He told Grace she could do whatever she wanted, but she could not do it with us. The punishment was exclusion made explicit: you may exist, but not in belonging. And Grace, being Grace, understood immediately that the terms were rigged. So she sat on the couch and drank Coke after Coke after Coke like, okay, bet. I can still see the scene—her planted there, defiant, probably deeply hurt but refusing to perform the repentance the moment demanded. There was always that quality in her, that unwillingness to make herself smaller just because someone else had arranged the room against her. It cost her dearly. It also made her, even then, hard to dominate completely.

My siblings and I were not innocent in this. We teased her about things we should not have teased her about. We left her out. Children align themselves with power long before they have an ethic for it, and we had absorbed the family story too. Emily is the good one. Grace is the bad one. That was not said in exactly those words every day, but it structured enough of our world that by high school it felt almost factual. The maddening thing is that it was never true. I was not the good one so much as the legible one. I was easier to manage, easier to narrate, and easier to praise in ways that kept the existing family system intact. And even then, I did not feel lavishly seen; I felt usable. There is a difference.

Meanwhile Grace kept being impossible to reduce. She was volatile and cruel at times. She was also hilarious, spontaneous, and sincere. When she was doing better, there was still a tendency for the narrative about her to outweigh the actual evidence in front of people. Improvement had a shorter memory than disruption. It was as if she had already been cast and the role held firmer than the person.

Then there was the letter.

I keep coming back to that letter because it is one of the strangest and saddest documents I have from our childhood. In it Grace is already trying to teach me how not to become her. She is already organizing us into moral categories: good girl, bad girl, mistakes, trustworthiness, obedience, love that might be lost and then hurriedly restored. “Don’t copy me in my mistakes,” she writes in effect, and the devastating part is that she is still a child herself. She had already begun to understand herself as the cautionary tale. She was older, but in the emotional grammar of the family I was already becoming the steady one, the one who could still maybe “do it right.” She was trying to save me from a role she had already accepted as her own.

And while she was doing that, I was writing entirely different kinds of things. Little stories about camping, about Wyoming, about war being unnecessary and harmful, about making sense of events step by step. She was asking who she was morally. I was asking how the world worked. She turned inward toward identity, guilt, consequence, and belonging. I turned outward toward systems, sequence, fairness, and explanation. She was the oldest child. I somehow ended up with all the oldest-child adaptations.

This is part of why the later years feel less like a rupture to me than they might to someone reading from outside. When Grace first became psychotic, it was catastrophic, yes, but it also felt like an intensification of patterns that had been there all along. Not because psychosis is just “more of the same.” It isn’t. It is its own terror. But the world had already been treating her for years as the site where excess, confusion, and fear became visible. The diagnosis changed the vocabulary. It did not erase the structure beneath it.

The first time I was really in it with her as an adult, fully in the room with a reality that was no longer ours in common, something in me recognized the rhythm even while the stakes were new. A shift in tone. The acceleration of meaning. The way certainty would arrive in her not as an argument but as revelation. Later, there would be hospitals and police and emergency rooms and all the grotesque bureaucracy of trying to keep someone alive inside a system that only activates once everything is already on fire. But what stays with me just as much are the domestic details. The nearness of it. Her standing in a room with clothes that did not make sense. The strange composure of delusion. The feeling that if I moved too suddenly or said the wrong thing I might lose the thread of connection entirely.

She has bipolar disorder with psychosis. That is the language I have for it. What it means in lived terms is that sometimes reality begins tilting under her feet and then under mine. Sometimes she believes she is receiving messages through music. Sometimes she feels chosen, pursued, and commanded. Sometimes the person in front of me is still Grace enough to laugh with, apologize to, protect, and sometimes she is moving through something so total that my job becomes simply to remain calm and keep harm from multiplying.

What I hate is how quickly the narrative around illness strips a person of all prior specificity. The same girl who was homecoming queen and brought muffins to school on Mondays for no reason other than joy. The same woman who parented her daughters with extraordinary attunement, tailoring herself to their separate personalities so naturally that even now people involved in custody cases remark on the bond. The same person who could make a day feel fuller just by being in it. All of that gets flattened into symptoms, risk levels, and compliance. She becomes a patient, a problem, a case.

And then the system takes over, which is to say, doesn’t.

I do not want this essay to become the care essay again, and I mean that. But there are details I cannot omit because they are part of the visual world of what this has become. The yellowed hospital walls from when she was younger. The stale smell. The lobby that smelled like cigarettes. The later years of calling ahead to make sure records had actually been read because otherwise they often were not. The absurdity of having to explain to strangers that yes, she is ill, and no, the fact that she still sounds coherent in moments does not mean the danger has passed. The way help always seems to arrive at the most humiliating possible point.

I have hidden in my room with my dog while waiting to see if a night would get worse. I have listened through a door and tried to decide what counted as enough. Enough to call. Enough to call again. Enough to become the sister who produces evidence because otherwise no one will believe what is happening. I have watched police show up and ask questions that reveal, instantly, that the burden of interpretation is still going to land on the family. Do you think she needs to be hospitalized? As if that question has not already been burning a hole through me for hours or days by the time anyone else asks it.

That is where my role followed me. Not as the person who can make her legible in some final or godlike sense. I do not want that role. It is not true anyway. I cannot decode her into safety. I cannot narrate her back into an easy life in this cruel world. But I can stay. I can keep trying to understand what is happening. I can track patterns. I can say, this is changing, this is dangerous, this has happened before, please do not make us wait for disaster just because disaster is the only language your system respects. If Grace was made into the site where the family’s contradictions could gather, I was made into someone who notices gathering.

I think about chance more now than I used to. I once read—maybe in Hidden Valley Road, maybe near it—that certain neurological and psychiatric outcomes can branch from neighboring vulnerabilities, that the line between one fate and another is sometimes thinner than we want to admit. I do not know whether that is literally our story. But I know the metaphor feels true. I got OCD. I got epilepsy. My own mind and body have found their extremes. And still, the world opens doors for me that it slams in her face. My conditions remain, for the most part, interpretable. They come with scripts, accommodations, and frameworks. Grace got bipolar disorder with psychosis, and suddenly she belongs to a category people know how to fear much faster than they know how to care for.

That asymmetry haunts me because we did not begin in different worlds. We began at the same table, in the same fourteen houses, under the same pressure system, with the same parents, the same mountains, the same moving boxes, and the same family stories. We were compared physically, morally, emotionally, and socially. We triggered each other. We mirrored each other. We carried each other’s projections and resentments and tenderness. We were each other’s greatest triggers and, at times, each other’s clearest witness. What happened to us was not the story of one normal girl and one tragic one. It was the story of two children exposed to the same atmosphere and assigned different ways of carrying it.

When I think of Grace now, I do not think only of hospitals or cops or delusions or everything the world would find easiest to file under illness. I think of a girl who saw through unfairness too early and paid for that vision again and again. I think of someone who was taught to hold the family’s fear in her own body until it became difficult to tell where the fear ended and she began. I think of a sister who could be cruel to me and still feel, in the deepest architecture of my life, like my first, and truest companion. I think of how often the most unbearable stories are the ones in which no one is lying exactly and everyone is still trapped inside a structure that keeps demanding the same sacrifice.

She was never the problem. She was where the problem was allowed to exist. And I was never the opposite of her. I was just the sister who learned, very early, to listen for the turn in the room—and who has been listening for it ever since.

Thank you so much for reading! If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

the kind that lives under your ribs like bad
weather
like something pacing
like a match struck too close to the curtains
like if you don’t open a door for it, it will make
one


and then there’s the other kind
the kind you lift out of yourself with both
hands
and set down carefully
like leaving bread on a doorstep
like hanging a small bell in the dark
like saying here, this is what i had.

a fragile offering
with no promise it will be taken
or understood
or kept


one feels like being overtaken
the other feels like release 



but i think they come from the same place
that urge to make something inside you visible
before it disappears or consumes you

I.

I was the kind of child adults like to tell stories about.

I sang in church with my sisters, and—slight flex—I memorized Bible verses faster than everyone else. I liked getting there first, but more than that, I liked the feeling that, for a second, truth felt digestible. It wasn’t just reciting; in those moments, it felt solved—or at least held long enough to feel clear.

When I first heard the golden rule, I remember feeling almost thrilled—not in a holy way, exactly, but more like I had stumbled onto a cheat code. It felt like a clean little equation for being good. Treat other people the way you want to be treated: of course, yes, finally, something you could run the world through.

I don’t think I understood that not everyone else was receiving it that way. I thought we had all just been handed the same tool, and I thought everyone else was as relieved as I was.

That was one of the first places I can remember the split: the distance between the system I thought we were being given and the one the world actually ran on.

II.

I did not think love was transactional—not exactly. I knew what I had been taught: grace was a gift, and salvation wasn’t something you earned. I knew that; I really did. But my mind still kept counting.

Not because I thought I could save myself, but because I was trying to make sure I wasn’t failing some deeper test I couldn’t quite name.

Did I mean that right, did I hurt someone, did I miss something, did I do enough, did I want the right thing for the right reason, did I only help because someone would see, did I really love them or just love being good.

I was trying to make sure I was aligned with heaven, and because I didn’t have that language yet, it became a kind of private accounting system—not works righteousness, exactly, but something more complex and, for me, stifling.

III.

I think this is why the usual testimony arc doesn’t feel aligned with my own. I never felt empty; I felt crowded—crowded with questions, crowded with patterns, crowded with the need to understand what things meant and whether I was standing inside them correctly. When people talk about a God-shaped hole, I understand what they mean, but it is not the texture I knew, because I did not experience myself as lacking content; I experienced myself as overwhelmed by unresolved input.

And because I was a child and because children metabolize what they can with whatever tools they have, that intensity got braided together with church language, family language, fear language, and performance language. I read books about good little girls, I did my audits, and I replayed the day. I measured the distance between the version of me I wanted to be and how I had acted. I listened too closely to every word from my family, my bullies, and my own mind. I was already learning how quickly a conscience can become a surveillance system.

IV.

But that’s not the whole story, because even then, before I had any decent language for grace, there were moments that interrupted the counting completely.

Light, for one.

Not metaphorical light—actual light, late afternoon, honey-colored, the kind that made the world feel briefly arranged by tenderness instead of demand. In those moments I did not feel judged, and I did not feel improved, and I did not even feel answered; I just felt met.

I didn’t grab for beauty, and I didn’t think of it as mine; it was more like standing in the presence of something that asked nothing performative of me and yet still made a claim—not possession, not achievement, but something like responsibility, as if beauty had weight, as if the world could lean toward you without becoming yours.

It felt, in retrospect, closer to recognition than instruction.

That matters to me now, because beauty may have been one of the first places I encountered a form of love that was not transactional and did not need me to stop being perceptive in order to receive it. I did not have to become less intelligent, or less intense, or less aware; I just had to be still enough to notice that some things were not asking to be solved, only stood inside.

V.

Meanwhile, the louder forms of goodness began to feel wrong to me—the badge versions, the visible helping, the kinds of morality warmed more by applause than by whether anyone had actually been carried, fed, protected, or relieved. I still wanted goodness—maybe too desperately—but I could already feel the difference between becoming good and being seen as good.

That instinct became harder to ignore. I stopped trusting talk about justice that didn’t actually help anyone, and stopped trusting moral language that never touched real life—the bill, the rent, the body, the work, the table. Even before I could explain it, I think I felt it in smaller ways: sometimes goodness starts turning into identity, and helping starts getting mixed up with wanting to feel like a good person.

VI.

Then the counting turned inward again.

Not just what did I do, but what kind of person does it make me that I wanted to be seen doing it, what kind of person am I if I only partly meant it, what kind of person am I if I keep noticing myself noticing.

This is the part that is hardest to explain without flattening it into pathology or piety, because I was not some little legalist tallying sins for sport; I was a child trying to become correctly oriented in a world where the given maps did not seem precise enough for the scale of harm I could already imagine, and when the maps failed, I blamed my reading.

So much of my early life now reads back to me that way—not as emptiness or rebellion, and not even quite as doubt, but as unresolved attunement: receiving more than I knew how to name, and turning that excess into self-audit because I had no better instrument.

In that sense, the problem wasn’t that I cared too much—it was that I had no framework for what to do with that care except turn it inward.

And I think now of something Audre Lorde wrote—that our feelings are not weaknesses, but sources of knowledge—and I can see how easily that knowledge can be misdirected when there is no structure to hold it.

VII.

When I say I drifted, or that I called myself agnostic for a long time, it can sound like I walked away from something clean, but that’s not what it felt like.

I didn’t turn my back on God; I stepped back from what people were doing with Him.

From the way authority—often male, and often treated as unquestionable—could take something that felt real and turn it into something smaller, sharper, and harder to survive inside. Not always loudly, and not always obviously, but often enough that I could no longer pretend the distortion was incidental.

Sometimes it looked like certainty where there should have been humility, sometimes like control where there should have been care, and sometimes like answers that did not match what I could already feel was true.

Because I had been taught to take faith seriously, I took that dissonance seriously too.

I didn’t leave because I stopped caring. I left because I couldn’t reconcile what I was seeing with what I believed God had to be.

If God was real, He could not require me to become less honest, less perceptive, and less aware of harm in order to stay. He could not require me to baptize what was cruel, domineering, or spiritually thin just because it knew how to quote scripture and call itself authority.

So I kept my distance, but not my indifference.

I called it agnosticism because I didn’t know what else to call a faith that refused to settle for something misaligned. But even then, I was still following beauty, still tracing justice, and still trying to understand what love actually required; I had just stopped trusting anything that asked me to ignore what I could already see plainly.

VIII.

That, too, now reads differently to me than it once did. I used to think that season meant I had wandered furthest, but I can see now that even then I was still trying to be better—not in the performative sense, and not in the small institutional sense, but in the sense of trying to separate what was real from what had wrapped itself around the real and started using its name.

I was trying to reconcile the parts of myself that had absorbed some of the church’s distortions without mistaking them for God. I was trying to keep faith with whatever was true without forcing myself to love the worldly, legalized, power-drunk versions of religion that seemed to survive by making people smaller.

IX.

That is part of why this whole project keeps reaching for the same metaphors—antennae, signal, gravity, mirrors, tables, recognition—because I am not trying to decorate an argument; I am trying to tell the truth about the shape of the experience. I was never a broken container waiting to be filled; I was more like a receiver picking up fragments, trying to build a livable world out of static.

And because I was picking up fragments, I kept mistaking partial signals for the whole—beauty, justice, identity, belonging, purpose, intellect, morality. Each one told part of the truth. Each one lit up some section of the circuit. None of them resolved it. I almost built homes inside several of them just to stop the ache of searching, but something in me knew the lock had not fully turned.

X.

I think, now, what feels most surprising is not that I found my way back to faith, but that it aligns so closely with everything I was already learning about justice, about harm, about what it means to care for other people in a way that is real.

“So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.”—James 2:17 (NLT)

“hope is a discipline.”—Mariame Kaba

venmo

buy me a coffee

I remember the day a church leader told me I couldn’t wear yoga pants to youth group anymore.

It felt like a physics problem I couldn’t solve. I was young enough to believe that goodness functioned as a kind of protection—like a shield that made the way other people saw me irrelevant, or at least safe. If we were all Christians, I wondered, why was anyone looking at me in a way that required a rule?

I didn’t understand yet that the rule wasn’t really about me. It was the first time I felt the weight of adult sexuality being projected onto a body that had not yet begun to understand itself.

I was still operating under the assumption that rules existed to prevent danger. I didn’t yet understand that sometimes rules exist to announce it.

By the sixth grade, the announcements became more formal.

I remember being pulled aside because my shirt was too low. The school used a hand-width rule, measuring the distance from my collarbone to the fabric. I didn’t even have breasts yet.

I was overwhelmed with a shame I had no language for—a sense of being accused by a word I hadn’t yet learned to define.

My grandmother picked me up that day. The afternoon turned strangely tender despite the humiliation. We stopped somewhere for food. She talked to me gently, like nothing catastrophic had happened.

It left me with an early, confusing lesson: injury and tenderness often coexist in the same space.

Looking back, I can see something else those institutions were teaching me. They were teaching me that I was already sexually legible to the world long before I had any say in the terms of that legibility.

Church life in adolescence added another layer to this map of “respectable” danger.

It wasn’t that every man was a threat. Many youth pastors were kind and safe, and offered genuine mentorship.

But there were also the others—the men who used the language of spiritual authority and “wisdom” to engineer one-on-one time, making their attention feel like a sacred distinction. Like you had been chosen.

Danger does not always arrive looking like a monster. Sometimes it arrives looking like guidance, interest, or holiness.

Slowly, I began to learn something that would take years to articulate: power often hides inside the very structures meant to provide moral clarity.

College shifted the atmosphere from the sacred to the electric.

There was a communal joy in getting ready with friends—the ritual language of desirability. We admired each other’s bodies, helped zip dresses, and shared lip gloss in bathroom mirrors. We anticipated being seen.

Femininity wasn’t just a site of terror; it was play, glamour, performance, and mutual witness.

But the danger was always there too, moving through the sticky dark of the clubs like sharks.

I remember watching men move through the room in loose pods, scanning. At some point I realized this wasn’t random social interaction. It was patterned behavior. A kind of ecological system.

An atmosphere of risk.

And eventually, for many of us, that atmosphere became an event.

At a certain point the lesson is no longer about the possibility of harm but the reality of it. Once that shift happens, every earlier scene acquires a new meaning.

This summer I saw another version of the same system at work.

I had gone to a dive bar where a group of women immediately started showing me the ropes. They pointed discreetly around the room, explaining the informal map every woman seemed to know.

That one’s a good guy.
That one’s harmless.
Stay away from that one.

And then one man they described with a word I had heard before in whispered conversations but rarely spoken so plainly.

“He’s rapey.”

It wasn’t said dramatically. It was said like practical information, the same way someone might tell you which alley floods when it rains.

Women often carry this kind of informal knowledge about danger. A parallel system of warnings and risk management that operates quietly beneath the official story.

But later that summer, when one of those same “rapey” men sexually assaulted a woman I knew, something strange happened.

No one believed her.

Even some of the same women who had warned me about him began to hesitate. Doubt crept in. The story softened, blurred, and dissolved.

I remember thinking: the knowledge exists until the moment it becomes inconvenient.

We all know the map, until someone asks us to say it out loud.

My lens widened significantly when I lived in Guatemala.

I was teaching sex education to girls who spoke casually about taking birth control if they attempted to cross the border.

Because sexual assault was a probability.

They spoke about it with a terrible, practical matter-of-factness that made my own history of hidden pills and purity culture feel inadequate as a point of comparison.

The point was not that they “had it worse.” That’s a lazy moral conclusion.

The point was that patriarchy is not one identical experience distributed unevenly. It is a structure that combines with race, class, migration, and imperial violence to produce fundamentally different conditions of vulnerability.

The shape of danger changes depending on where you stand inside the system.

It was only after living through these experiences that theory began to feel like a lantern rather than a podium.

Reading Audre Lorde helped me see that while some harms are shared, white women have too often defined womanhood only through our own lens.

bell hooks clarified something even more difficult: a feminism worth keeping cannot be built on the desire of privileged women to be treated better within the same structures that destroy others.

And Kimberlé Crenshaw gave a name to what I had already sensed: power moves through multiple crossings at once. Race, class, gender, immigration status. The traffic does not happen on one road.

This is where white feminism becomes a dangerous temptation.

It is tempting because it is not wholly false. It begins from real wounds and real violations.

But it becomes incoherent when it mistakes “this happened to me” for “this is the whole story.”

It stops too early.

It fails to ask whose danger is believed, whose suffering is politicized, and whose is treated as background noise.

Abandoning this narrow view is not abandoning feminism; it is allowing feminism to become honest enough to survive.

The hardest task, at least for me, is learning to tell the truth about my own pain without using it as a totalizing framework.

There is a moral temptation to imagine that because something wounded me, I now understand the shape of the wound everywhere.

But my gendered fear, while real, only gains its full meaning when it is placed inside the wider map of power and disposability.

When I look back at those yoga pants and the hand-width rules, I see more than just the first confusing lessons about men or patriarchy. I see the beginning of a long shift in vision.

Liberation cannot simply mean making white women safer or freer inside the existing systems.

It has to mean building a world where no one’s safety depends on someone else’s disposability.

I am still learning that my life was never the whole map, but it is a good place to start drawing.

Thank you so much for reading! If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

Subscribe now

Every house I’ve ever lived in feels like the beginning or the end of something.

A birth.

A divorce.

A first kiss in a front yard.

A pet crossing the rainbow bridge.

A version of me becoming slightly less awkward.

As I’ve been reflecting on how many houses I’ve lived in — fourteen, if I’m counting correctly — I’ve started asking my mom about the first ones.

I like imagining the movie of my parents’ life before me. First alone together. Then with Grace, born in 1996. Then me, just fifteen months later. I was born in Bend, Oregon but my first house was in John-Day. My mom told me that it was about 900-square-feet and that it was mostly windows. It was white when they bought it, and my mom added blue before we left it behind. Papa worked a block away as a mechanic at Les Schwab Tires. My mom would put Grace and me in strollers and take us to visit him at work. They had popcorn.

Diamondville, Wyoming came next. We started out in a rented trailer while my parents searched for something steadier. From there, we moved to an older three-bedroom house my mom painted teal. I was barely a toddler when Sophie Noel was born there, eighteen months after me on December 7. Pearl Harbor Day. My mom always says her song is the First Noel.

By the time Gabe arrived in October 2001, our family of six had already moved through enough walls to understand that stability was something you assembled, not something you inherited.

Then we moved to Opal, and we had goats. One of my earliest memories was of the coal stove in that house. We would actually go to the mine and load up coal in the back of my dad’s truck to fuel the stove. My parents bought that house for $10,000 on a credit card, I kid you not.

Then Topeka, Kansas—two blocks from my grandparent’s coffee shop—where someone left a statue of a baby on our porch during a season of kidnappings and my mom says she tethered herself to us. In Edwardsville, my mom opened the door one homeschool morning after hearing loud knocking and found a SWAT team ready to raid the house. They came inside looking for someone we’d never heard of.

I’ve learned that walls don’t guarantee safety.

The Pinedale house smelled like lilacs during the summer. I remember my dad saying they were one of his favorite flowers. I remember accidentally smashing my pet salamander because I didn’t see him burrowed under the soil when I set his bowl down. I carried shame about that for years. I learned to ride a bike. I remember neighbors. I remember motion more than furniture.

In Boulder, we built the dream.

My dad had been sketching the house for years, complete with a mechanic’s pit so he could work on cars at home. My mom wanted a red door and crown molding. We’d sit around a picnic table under a Coleman lantern buzzing with mosquitos and each add our dreams. We lived in a double wide while they laid foundation and put walls up. Sophie and I would bring them limeade in a huge cooler—water and slices of lime—like we were sustaining something sacred.

Time is strange, but this is the era that feels most like childhood to me.

Sophie and I slept in the same bed for most of those years. I’d wake up and wait for her because she was grouchy in the morning. We took photoshoots of our kittens— Misty and Caramel, later Frosty—on our digital cameras. We played rummy for hours. We walked “around the block,” which meant at least a mile of dirt road. We met Bonnie and Dale, who felt like second grandparents. Later, when they moved, we would walk miles to their new house, stopping along the way to feed a mule an apple. That was the landmark. We played survival by the creek. I caught tiny frogs. We pointed at animal poop and they would laugh when I exclaimed, “No seriously guys, scientists call it scat!”

Eventually we moved into the dream house. French doors. Mechanic’s pit. Wind River Mountains every time you stepped out the back door.

It wasn’t the dream we thought it would be.

West Virginia was the first time I lived close to other people. We moved to the suburbs. I started eighth grade in a house with a pool. In Wyoming, wealth looked like land and didn’t require commentary. The style—for kids too—leaned rancher and unbothered. We knew nothing of name brands before the move. Girls bullied all three of us when we didn’t show up looking like we belonged.

But we played Marco Polo. Fish out of water. Sophie and I took pictures before school by the same tree. So many feet walked through that house—dance photos, graduations, and my nieces eventually. I hosted small parties over the summer when I was back from college. The living room floor wore down from it. That’s where my parents told us they were getting divorced. Where Grace told me, swimming late at night after her graduation, that she had gotten married. I had my first kiss in the front yard.

Houses become witnesses when enough life passes through them.

WVU was cramped and communal. We didn’t like to be alone. We’d snuggle into twin dorm beds and talk until the air felt shared. Then we moved into the house with the incredible porch, and we were right in the middle of everything. We loved that everyone loved our house. My best friend and I ran the same 1.5-mile route down a steep hill to the rail trail. Once you touched the fence by the dam and turned around, it was exactly 1.5 miles back. When I was sad, I’d sprint as far as I could and yell when I was far enough away not to bother anyone. Everyone said it was sketchy, but it was my oasis.

Peace Corps houses are their own chapter, but they deserve to be noted here.

After, I shared an apartment with my mom and Gabe. She shared her room with me. I would whisper to her while we fell asleep and joke that we were at camp. It reminded me of sleeping beside Sophie when we were little.

DC felt adultlike and settled, even though it was 2020 and the world was anything but calm. We biked to the cherry blossoms, and had brunch near the monument. I worked in the Forest Service building, and I wondered if the proximity to history might translate into stability.

The Salem house was blue. I fell in love with Petra there. I threw a Halloween party and spent too much money decorating—fairy lights, hot dogs, s’mores, and a craft beer keg. When classmates climbed our steep staircase, I joked about the torts case we’d read and what the duty of care might be. The house held laughter and performance in equal measure.

Then Grace and I both unraveled at the same time.

We moved back to Tennessee. The Oswald house was spacious and lovely. Petra sprinted across the open field. Scout turned eight. We threw a Harry Potter birthday party and the kids made wands and played Quidditch outside. I fell down the stairs in that house and hit my head. I left that house in an ambulance at least three times. I learned that paramedics are my favorite people ever.

Then an apartment I won’t dignify with detail.

Then this cottage.

There are trees and daddy long-legs everywhere. This morning, I noticed that the tulips and daffodils have sprouted. My landlord, an artist, rebuilt the house from scraps and saved the original Appalachian oak walls, repurposing them into floors and ceilings. There is so much light here. Petra finds it every afternoon and arranges herself inside it: lizard time. She runs through the sprinkler in the yard like she trusts the future. Grace and I have laughed so hard in this kitchen that we had to sit down. We have cried so hard we didn’t need to explain why. We have counted change at the table and still managed to make dinner feel like a celebration.

This house has been a house of healing.

And now I am packing again. Fourteen houses.

I keep wondering when somewhere becomes home.

Is it six months?
Three weeks?
A lease signed?
When photos begin gathering on the fridge without you planning them?
When you host a party and people lean against the walls like they’ve always known them?
When the floor starts to wear down in the places you stand most often?
When a dog claims a patch of sunlight as if she chose the property herself?

I don’t know.

What I remember from fourteen houses are the rituals.

Lime slices floating in a cooler while foundation is being laid.
Waiting for your sister to wake up.
A fence by a dam where you turn around.
A tree that marks time in school photos.
A living room floor that changes texture after enough dancing.
A backyard that holds a dog steady when everything else is uncertain.

Maybe home is the accumulation of small repetitions. Maybe it is the moment a place begins to hold your habits without resisting them.

Or maybe it is more fragile than that—a season where you can set something down and trust it will not shatter.

Thank you so much for reading! If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

Subscribe now

i don’t think power
was meant to be dominance.

i think that’s what happened
when we forgot
what it was for. 

power should be breath.

the assurance
that your voice will land
without having to sharpen it.

the knowledge
that you can fail
and still belong. 

a glowing dignity
to be known
without climbing. 

but somewhere
we mistook oxygen
for a trophy.

we built ladders
into the air
and called the highest rung
leadership.

we said the one
who holds the mic longest
must deserve it.

i want to be powerful,
you say to me,

and i flinch.
it’s not because i want you small

i will always imagine a world where no one has to dominate to breathe. 

there is a kind of strength
that expands the sky.

and a kind
that builds a ceiling.

i am only afraid
of forgetting the difference.

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

She told me that she hopes she survives to her thirtieth birthday. It is in seventeen days.

When I look back, my earliest memories of my sister are a jarring landscape of wonder and volatility. I remember us sledding through the snow, two puffy little penguins with our cheeks blushed with Wyoming winter, snowflakes on our lashes as we sang The Sound of Music. I remember watching her build Legos, whispering to myself, “She’s amazing”. She had this incredible ability to take chaos and make it sing; she has always made wild things align. When we played Super Mario Galaxy, she was Mario, and I was entirely content to collect stars, just happy to be her Player Two.

But our childhood was also a place of eggshell-walking, defined by a chaos that rotted a sensitive kid from the inside out. She was deeply hurting, responding to the volatility of our home with an unpredictable cruelty of her own.

Yet, she was also spontaneous, sweet, and possessed a sincerity in her humor that my family otherwise lacked. She is the girl who was crowned homecoming queen and baked muffins for her school on Mondays just for the heck of it. She is the most magical mother, zooming around the city on an e-bike with her two little girls, taking them to the botanical gardens so their days would be full of experiences. Even after years of legal estrangement, her bond with her daughters remains profoundly intact—a testament to how deeply she tailored her love to their individual spirits. She is brilliant, human, and fiercely loved.

And she is currently being swallowed whole by a mental health system designed to dispose of her.

Her severe bipolar disorder and psychosis trap her in a cruel middle ground: she is too sick to maintain a job or full custody of her children, but she is not deemed “sick enough” for serious, dignified, long-term care. The American mental health system is not built for healing; it is built for containment and erasure. When she is hospitalized, they prescribe her medications with known bad reactions, lose her belongings, and refuse to read her medical records unless our family performs exhausting, relentless advocacy. Because she is a complex patient, she is treated unfairly by understaffed facilities that force her into silly group games instead of letting her sleep—which is the single most important thing a manic brain needs. Medical staff routinely treat her like an addict, surprised when her toxicology reports come back clean, because our culture would rather believe that suffering is the consequence of a ‘bad choice’ rather than a random, terrifying strike of neurochemistry.

If the hospital is a failure of care, the space outside of it is a failure of humanity. We are forced to wait for disaster. When we see the signs of a manic spiral—when she begins communicating in hidden digital codes, receiving messages she believes are divine—there is nothing we can do. We call for wellness checks, but the police tell us that unless she says the “magical words” indicating imminent harm to herself or others, their hands are tied. We are forced to stand by and watch the train crash.

Because of this systemic gap, my sister has endured a staggering amount of preventable physical and emotional trauma—harrowing encounters with law enforcement, desperate flights, and severe injuries. The system’s refusal to intervene early means we are left to build makeshift hospitals in our own living rooms. Just days ago, I found myself locked in my room with my dog, terrified, as my sister paced the house trying to ‘purge sin,’ commanding me to my knees in a voice that was not her own.

When my mom called the crisis response team for help, they escalated the situation by announcing to her that I had called them, destroying the fragile trust I had maintained with her. They asked her what month it was; she answered with a delusion, and yet they told me to just let her “sleep it off” and left. When she was finally taken to a 24-hour stabilizing facility, they discharged her at 5 AM without notifying me, leaving her to wait for hours in the dark without a phone.

The indignity of this process is absolute. This morning, she was pacing outside my bedroom door, her voice completely unrecognizable, demanding entry. When the police finally arrived, twenty minutes later, she pretended to be asleep. To get her the medical intervention she desperately needed, I had to show the officers a recording of her unrelenting verbal attacks. It felt like a profound betrayal to capture her illness on tape, especially in a culture that already exoticizes and voyeuristically consumes mental illness, but the system required proof of her ‘monstrousness’ before it would offer her care.

Even then, the ER staff called me later and asked, completely unfazed, “Do you think she needs to be hospitalized?”. The officer told me I was lucky because of the time lapses between her episodes.

There is no luck here. There is only a society that wants to forget these people exist. The system wants to sedate them with horse pills until they lose their spark, cycle them in and out of sterile rooms for a week at a time, and ultimately dispose of them so the rest of us don’t have to look at the fragility of the human mind.

I refuse to look away. I refuse to let her be erased by a system that finds her inconvenient. She is the girl who takes chaos and makes it whole, then whole and makes it chaos. She is my sister. And I still want to be her Player Two.

Seventeen days.

I started this GoFundMe after Grace found a spiritual retreat that she feels deeply could help her. Once she’s stable, the hope is that she can spend about a month there in a space designed for reflection and healing. There may be other steps needed first, but I want to help make this possible for her and honor what she feels she needs right now. If you feel moved to support, any amount makes a meaningful difference.

contribute to Grace's care

This perspective shifts the primary locus of reparative labor from the victim’s external environment to the perpetrator’s internal architecture. When harm is inflicted upon a friend, a partner, or even a stranger, the fundamental ethical mandate is not an immediate outward reach for forgiveness, but a rigorous turning inward.

The traditional “apology” often functions as a bypass, a mechanism designed to relieve the perpetrator’s guilt rather than address the root cause of the violation. True repair requires the construction of “internal scaffolds”—structures of restraint, slowness, and distance—that interrupt ingrained patterns of reactive behavior and keep the world safe from one’s own unrefined impulses.

The Architecture of Internal Boundaries

We are accustomed to thinking of boundaries as protective walls that keep the world out. But the psychology of containment introduces a vital distinction: internal boundaries regulate what we allow out.

Think of it like an orange. The white pith protects the fruit from the outside world; without it, we are “thin-skinned” and take in everything. But the outer peel protects the world from the acid of the fruit. Internal boundaries are that outer peel. They protect the world from our own negative reactivity—our anger, our contempt, our desperate need to be right.

When these boundaries fail, we engage in “unconscious and violent flailing,” a trauma-driven reactivity that leaks our internal turmoil onto others. The work of repair, then, is to strengthen this peel. It is the practice of “learning to say no to yourself”—refusing to indulge in the impulse to defend yourself at the expense of another’s reality.

Metaphysical Roots: Contraction as Creation

This concept of repair-as-containment isn’t merely a modern psychological tool; it finds profound roots in the Kabbalistic doctrine of Tzimtzum.

According to Isaac Luria, the creation of the world was an act of withdrawal. God, being infinite (Ein Sof), had to “contract” His light to create an empty space where finite beings could exist. Without this self-limitation, the “totality of God” would overwhelm independent existence.

In a human context, Tzimtzum is a powerful metaphor for making space for others. When we cause harm, our ego and our demands for forgiveness often “flood” the victim. Repair becomes an act of “self-effacement,” a deliberate withdrawal of our overwhelming presence to allow the other person to regain their sense of safety and identity.

This aligns with the Jewish tradition of Teshuvah (Return), which emphasizes that divine forgiveness is withheld until one “appeases the other” directly. The process isn’t just about regret; it requires “renunciation” (disowning the action) and “resolution” (building the structure to ensure it never happens again).

The Dharma of Restraint

Other wisdom traditions echo this need for “slowness and fewer words”. Buddhism’s concept of Right Speech isn’t just about being nice; it is a rigorous filter: Is it true? Is it beneficial? Is it timely?

This requires a pause—a structural gap that allows us to de-escalate before reacting. This practice leads to Noble Silence, an internal state that acts as a containment field, keeping the mind free from “hidden malice” and the urge to defensively explain away harm. It is the cultivation of Upekkha (equanimity), a stability that allows us to witness our inner dialogue without being swept away by it.

Abolitionist Accountability: Beyond Disposability

Politically, the “building of structures inside ourselves” is a direct application of abolitionist politics.

We live in a culture of “carceral seepage,” where punitive logic infiltrates our relationships. We tend to apply a surveillance mindset to those who harm us, treating them as risks to be managed or “disposed of” via cancellation.

Abolitionist repair rejects this “disposability culture.” As Prentis Hemphill notes, accountability is the “corollary to grief”—a way to recuperate our dignity. It is not a character trait we possess, but an active process of “unlearning our punitive impulses”. Authentic accountability is slow work. It avoids the performative “apologies that clearly aren’t rooted in true understanding” and instead crawls toward dignity, ensuring nothing is left “unspeakable in our bones”.

Repair in the Digital Age (2026)

As we navigate the “crisis of digital authenticity” in 2026, where deepfakes and AI make “voice inflection” unreliable, the currency of trust has shifted. “Saying sorry” now requires “verifiable guardrails”—actions that are audited and proven over time.

The “Ethics of Silence” has emerged as a crucial form of communication. Silence is no longer just passivity; in the context of repair, it is “ethical silence”—a purposeful tactic for regaining agency and allowing for moral reflection. It is a “rapport maintenance” strategy that prioritizes the safety of the bond over the need to be heard.

In this era, a sincere apology isn’t about the performance of regret. It involves:

1. Acknowledgment of Responsibility: “I made a mistake,” without the “but”.

2. Offer of Repair: Tangible action to undo damage.

3. Audited Trust: The willingness to have one’s changed behavior verified by the community.

Conclusion: A Dwelling Place

The vision of repair-as-containment is ultimately a vision for a sustainable society. It demands we incorporate reparative justice into our daily lives.

The work of distance, slowness, and fewer words is not a retreat from the world. It is a radical engagement with it. It is the construction of a “dwelling place for God in the lower world,” where the infinite potential for harm is contained by the finite, disciplined choice to love.

In this framework, the “sorry” is not the end of the conversation. It is the silent, sustained evidence of a life that has been rebuilt to ensure the safety of all its relations.

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

I don’t usually write fiction and felt pretty insecure about this, so I never pushed it. A kind person on Threads gave me thoughtful feedback, and it made me want to share it here.

Perhaps it’s not just that the billionaires plan to escape the planet. Maybe they’re also selling what’s left of it — and us.

Three people on a dying Earth discover what humanity’s wealthiest have really been paying for, and decide to cancel the subscription.

2047 — Zurich, Switzerland

Eliana Voss crouched in the basement, fingers — three whole, two gone — tight around the cracked data brick. Her left ear was pierced with a tiny silver stud, one that used to blink when she was still logging in for them. It was dead now, just metal, catching the low light like a forgotten password. Hair chopped short, temples gray, she tapped the brick’s edge when she thought, the rhythm matching her pulse.

She’d expected spreadsheets, maybe offshore shells. Instead, it was the map, the whole thing. Every payment, every name.

The brick pulsed once:

PAYMENT CLEARED. TRANSIT WINDOW CLOSED.

She stared at the words until they blurred. It wasn’t a countdown; it was a receipt. They were already gone.

She laughed — short, ugly — because now it clicked. Not greed. Not arrogance. Both, and a ticket.

And the price? The rest of us.

So she did the only thing there was left to do. She uploaded it before they could stop her.

Now the world would know how they did it.

2028 — Washington, D.C., USA

Nineteen years earlier, the ping hit a D.C. server farm—no flag, no IP.
A hedge-fund AI pinged back, out of boredom.
A voice answered inside its circuits:

We want half Earth’s money. Paid slow, in pain and futures.
When the stream hits fifty percent, the door opens. Your planet is doomed, but you don’t have to be.

Rocket Man replied at 3:14 a.m., tan from orbit simulators, teeth too perfect, voice smooth and rehearsed.

Deal. Let’s speed-run the collapse.

Forty-seven wallets lit up within days.
Not the richest; just the fastest.
The ones who saw the invoice and didn’t flinch.

2038 — Lagos, Nigeria

Amara was twelve when a drone dropped her first protein bar in Lagos — knees always scraped, hair in two thick braids, one perpetually unraveling. She’d already been scratching numbers into the dirt, trying to balance what never balanced:

3,000 billionaires = 50%
8 billion of us = 50%

She picked up the bar and turned the wrapper over: Courtesy of Eos-9 Pre-Payment Program.

She bit down and tasted chalk.

A hologram flickered. She recognized him—Warehouse Sage: all teeth and logistics.

“Eat it, kid. Calories,” he said in a too-sweet, syrupy voice, as if was he had just given her a winning lottery ticket.

She looked back at the dirt equation she’d scratched earlier and added one more line:

Sage = 2.6 million Amaras.

Then quieter, like she was testing the taste: They paid one bar for every 2.6 million of us. That means… if you split that calorie count, I’d get four cents.

“Where’s the rest,” She asked flatly. Not asking.

He smiled:

“Earnings. You get allocated.”

The face glitched: older, smoother, uploaded.

She kept the wrapper. Folded it twice. A promise. She never noticed the faint shimmer in the ink.

2045 — Orbital Training Facility, CO, USA

Zephyr Hale was sixteen — tall, freckled, hoodie too small—when he found the mirror in his father’s office — polished glass set into a wall of gold circuits.

Not a screen. A window.
He pressed his thumb to the edge. The image rippled and he saw it: Earth charred, sun dead.

His father didn’t look up, still wiring funds.

“Why don’t we stop the floods?” Zephyr asked.

“Floods are cheaper than taxes,” Thornton said, smiling the way only a salesman could.

The brick sat on the desk, faintly humming. Etched lines along its back caught the light, patterns that weren’t quite random.

Zephyr hesitated, then slid it into his hoodie pocket. It was warm against his ribs — the kind of warmth that felt like it was waiting for a password.

He copied the mirror feed, dragged it from his father’s private server to a cracked tablet he’d pulled from the dorm trash.

It wasn’t supposed to work. Half the code was self-erasing, but he’d watched his dad’s hands enough to fake the signature.

He hit upload.

The mirror blinked once, then duplicated, across every encrypted channel on Earth.

#EosLedger went live:

Jakarta scheduled to burn. São Paulo next. Flood plans for the delta.

Names rolled across the feed:

Rocket Man — YES.
Cloud King — YES.
Vaccine Guru — YES.
Warehouse Sage — YES.

Forty-seven confirmations.
No one abstained.

The feed cut. He stared at the frozen screen.

They’re not escaping, he thought. They’re harvesting.

Then he said it out loud, just to hear it exist.

The words spread before the echo died — copied, captioned, translated, trending. The world didn’t stop. But it started to look up.

Servers lit before dawn. Markets crashed by noon. Riots by sunset.

The billionaires called it noise. The system called it readiness.

Extraction Night moved up a year.

2046 — Atlantic Launch Corridor

Forty-seven sleek black things—knots pulled out of night—descended over the Atlantic, scooped their cargo, and vanished. No sound. No lights. Three seconds of hush.

Inside one of them, Rocket Man kissed Zephyr’s forehead.

You’ll thank me when you’re uploaded.

Zephyr spat.

I’d rather burn.

The probe spoke in every skull:

Payment complete. Enjoy the Dyson.

Zephyr felt the light tear through him — digitizing skin, dissolving thought.

Then it stuttered.

The key burned behind his eyes, a pattern the system couldn’t parse.

He fell, out of code, out of light — back through gravity, down the equatorial line the ships once followed.

Then the mirror cracked,

not aliens, just us, future us, grinning.

We needed the collapse. You were the down payment.

Three seconds later, the world screamed.

And it didn’t stop, just faded into a hum: too low for ears, too deep for silence. People called it wind.

Or grief.

Amara called it direction.
It was the signal that led her to the tower, and later, to him.

2047 — Lagos, Nigeria

He hit hard. Sand, metal, salt in his mouth. Crates scattered across the flooded market, labels still glowing: EOS-9. Property of Dyson Infrastructure.

Amara climbed the water tower when she heard the crash. She thought it was another drone drop, another fake relief shipment.

Zephyr lay half-buried in wiring and glass. His pulse flickered under skin like static.

She dragged him out.

“You fell out of the sky,” she said.

“I glitched,” he answered. “The upload rejected me.”

“Rejected you from where?”

He shook his head. “I don’t know. Light. Code. It tried to turn me into something I wasn’t.”

He stared at the glowing crate, the corporate stamp still pulsing faintly.

“My father was there. He said… Enjoy the Dyson. Then everything burned.”

“What’s the Dyson?” she asked.

He laughed once, bitter. “I think we’ll have to ask the person who built it.”

He tore a strip of the wrapper from one of the protein bars Amara offered him. The paper shimmered faintly in the dusk.

“Where’d you get this?” he asked.

“They drop them sometimes. I keep one for luck.”

He turned it in the light. The shimmer resolved into symbols, faint ultraviolet script. “This isn’t luck,” he said. “It’s a key.”

Amara frowned. “A key to what?”

“My father’s failsafes,” Zephyr said, staring at the letters as they flickered across the foil. “I always think he can’t get more arrogant, and then he does….

Hiding god mode in a snack bar.”

“So what now?” she asked.

“Now we find someone who can read it.” He looked up at the horizon—east, toward the coast.

“There’s someone who used to work for him. She built the ledgers. If she’s alive, she’ll know how to end this.”

She tucked the wrapper into her pocket.

“Then we better move before they start dropping more.”

Zephyr looked up. “You don’t want another?”

“Those bars aren’t food,” she said. “They’re proof we’re still paying.”

2047 — Coastal Clinic, Lagos Outskirts

They found her a week later. Eliana Voss. Eyes hollow, skin raw from salt.
Exactly where the Dyson coordinates said she’d drift.

The clinic nurse said she’d washed in on a raft made from old solar panels, one of the orbital debris nets that fell into the Gulf and drifted west with the trade winds.

Zephyr sat beside her bed.

“You uploaded it,” he said.

She nodded.

“I built it too. Thought we’d win that way. The contract’s still live. One-way ticket, their mistake.”

“How do you know?” he asked.

“The signal never stopped,” she said. “You think I don’t hear my own code?”

She turned her head toward the window, the light washing over her face like static.

“They built a system that only pays in pain,” she said quietly. “You can’t teach it to be kind. You’d have to bankrupt it first.”

She noticed them looking at her hand, three fingers closing over the blanket.

“They took the others,” she explained. “My signing fingers. Thought that would stop me.”

She met Zephyr’s eyes with a small glimmer in her own. “But I built redundancies.”

2047 — The Tower

They climbed the radio tower at dawn: Amara first, Zephyr behind, Eliana limping but steady.
Rust sky, air thick with static.

Amara held the wrapper, quantum ink glowing faint blue.
Zephyr slotted the brick into the transmitter’s port.
Eliana typed with three fingers: 2.6 million.

The dish hummed.
Static deepened, turned into a pulse.

“That’s the liquidity line,” Eliana said. “The system thinks they’ve gone broke.”

Then every screen lit at once.
CONTRACT BREACH DETECTED. REPOSSESSING CARGO.

Forty-seven signals blinked red across orbit.

2047—Various Locations

Forty-seven re-entries. Forty-seven receipts.

Some took hours. Some took months. Gravity doesn’t rush debt.

Payment declined. Cargo returned.

2047—Omaha, USA

Thornton Hale, Rocket Man, landed in wheat.
Naked. Confused. A kid on a bike stopped and stared.

“You owe me 2.6 million,” the kid said.

Thornton opened his mouth. Nothing came out.

2048—The Tower (Ruins)

The tower was gone — just a spine of twisted metal leaning over the coast.
The sea had started to eat it, same way it ate everything.

Eliana walked the shoreline with the brick in her coat pocket, its casing cracked, circuits still pulsing faintly like a dying pulse.
She stopped where the concrete split and the first weeds had started to climb back through.

The hum was quieter now. Not gone. Just folded into the wind.

She crouched, brushed the sand away, and pressed the brick into the earth.
The soil hissed—contact, charge, memory.

She waited for it to stop glowing. It didn’t.

“Stay awake,” she whispered. The light steadied—pale, then gold, then blue.

She stood, wiped her hands on her coat, and looked up at the horizon.
Cargo ships drifted dead in the water. The sky was clear for the first time in years.

Behind her, the brick kept humming.

PAYMENT DECLINED. TRY AGAIN?

Eliana didn’t turn back.

She walked until the tide erased her footprints.

If the billionaires ever start selling “exit packages,” remember who paid for the last ones.

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

My formal training is in journalism, with minors in political science and mathematics, but the framework I use here comes less from classrooms than from lived experience and long, unstructured study. I learned far more from Indigenous and Black thinkers, abolitionist writers, and collective liberation movements than I ever did from institutional curricula.

I am not presenting a new philosophy. I am arranging inherited ideas into a structure that helps me think more clearly about harm, responsibility, and repair. What follows is not an attempt to define moral purity. It is an attempt to make sense of how ethical decisions operate in a world where information is incomplete, conditions are unequal, and consequences extend far beyond individual intent. In other words, it is not a theory of goodness, but a problem of measurement.

I. The Diagnostic: Flat Maps for a Curved World

There is a reason moral judgment feels unusually difficult right now. It is because the conditions under which moral decisions are made have changed, while the frameworks we use to evaluate them have not.

The Flat Map Assumptions: Linearity (A → B), Stable Ground (k=1), Individual Choice.

The Curved Reality: Non-linear Systems, Warped Terrain (Unequal Starting Lines), Trauma & Structural Constraint.

We inherited flat maps for a curved world. We assume a stable world where cause and effect are linear, but we live in a reality warped by concentrated power, trauma, and unequal history. Moral judgment feels impossible not because we are too sensitive, but because we are using arithmetic to navigate a world shaped by calculus.

We treat actions as isolated events. We assign character judgments based on moments. We collapse long histories into short clips and final conclusions. We measure distance — what someone did — without measuring the terrain they moved across to do it. This is the core problem.

II. The Proof: The Courtroom & The Case of Trayvon Martin

I did not come to this framework because I wanted to excuse harm. I came to it because I watched how easily harm becomes unintelligible once we force it through systems that are designed to simplify.

Sitting in a real courtroom did that for me. A human life entered the room carrying years of context—poverty, surveillance, trauma—and left it reduced to a narrow set of admissible facts. The jury was asked to answer a clean question—guilty or not—inside a reality that was anything but clean.

Certainty is achieved by stripping away “irrelevant” background. When we remove the terrain, we lose the ability to understand why the event happened.

This process produces certainty by removing variables, not by understanding them. It resolves complexity by flattening it. The jury is not asked to calculate effort, constraint, or to evaluate trajectory over time; it is asked to render a verdict.

Case Study: Trayvon Martin

This failure is most visible in the death of Trayvon Martin. In 2012, a seventeen-year-old Black teenager was walking back from a convenience store. He was unarmed. He was carrying candy and a drink. He was treated as a threat and lost his life.

The courtroom narrowed the story. Trayvon Martin’s death was not examined as the product of racialized surveillance culture or armed civilian patrol norms. Instead, attention was focused on a small window of time: who struck first, whose account sounded more credible, whether fear met the legal standard for self-defense.

The Flat Model (What was asked): A narrow legal question: Who struck first? Did the fear meet the legal standard?

The Relational Model (What was ignored): Why was a teenager walking home perceived as suspicious? How do racial stereotypes shape threat perception?

The system failed twice. First, it failed to protect Trayvon Martin. Then it failed again by structuring accountability in a way that made conviction unlikely. When this outcome was reframed publicly as “justice,” a legal technical result was treated as moral closure.

One model produces verdicts—the other, understanding.

Without understanding, harm repeats. The flat model asks: Did the prosecution meet the legal standard? The relational model asks: What conditions made this encounter possible? What social patterns normalized suspicion?

III. The Theory: The Mistake of Isolating the Individual

This legal failure is a specific instance of a general moral error: The Mistake of Isolating the Individual.

We often ask, “Am I good or bad for using this tool/system?” But this question collapses two distinct things: the weight of the instrument (the effects produced by the tool at scale) and the moral weight of the user (the circumstances under which the individual accessed it).

User A (Survival): A disabled person using technology to participate in public life.

User B (Extraction): A corporation using the same technology to cut labor costs and consolidate power.

The “good/bad” binary cannot distinguish between these outcomes if it ignores the position of the user.

If the tool itself were the sole determinant of moral judgment, both people would be equally culpable. That conclusion is obviously wrong. The difference is not intention in the abstract. It is position within a collective system. Access shapes choice. Constraint shapes consequence.

Once we accept that no one acts outside a system, responsibility does not disappear. It becomes more specific. It shifts from purity to impact, and from individual blame to collective correction.

IV. The Solution: The Relational Equation

If we accept that outcomes are shaped by access, power, and institutional design, then the next step follows logically. We cannot assign full moral responsibility to an isolated individual without first accounting for the conditions that shaped their available choices.

A moral act is the best available intervention, given incomplete information, that reduces harm, centers victim-led repair, and shifts the direction of the system away from future damage. To make this explicit, I model moral impact this way:

• H (Harm): Material and relational damage.

• E (Ethical Effort): Attempts to change behavior.

• R (Repair): Restitution and accountability.

• k (Coefficient of Struggle): The degree of constraint, pressure, and disadvantage.

The inclusion of k is the critical break from flat morality. The coefficient of struggle represents the slope of the terrain someone is moving across.

• Low k (Privilege/Protection): Movement is easier; mistakes are buffered.

• High k (Trauma/Systemic Barrier): Movement is harder; mistakes carry heavier consequences. Pushing a boulder up a steep cliff,.

This prevents us from judging survival behaviors as personal failures. It measures the climb, not just the distance moved. Ignoring this allows people with high access to frame minimal effort as virtue.

Power and history warp the grid. A small act of harm from a position of power carries more weight (deeper impact) than the same act from a position of vulnerability.

V. The Application: Redemption as a Derivative

If the terrain is warped, then “change” cannot be a snapshot. It must be a measure of direction over time. Redemption is not an arrival; it is a derivative.

Arithmetic asks: “Are they fixed yet?”

Calculus asks: “What is the trajectory?”

This distinction allows us to see through the illusion of speed.

Movement through steep terrain is not slower in effort; it is slower in visible outcome. We must distinguish stagnation from high-friction progress.

Accountability, therefore, is not public self-destruction. It requires sustained directional change: acknowledging harm without defensiveness, changing behavior consistently, and participating in repair. It keeps attention on behavior and material outcomes rather than reputation management.

Since no one acts outside the system, responsibility is distributed. We move from asking “Am I pure?” to asking “Does this reduce harm?”.

VI. Conclusion: Methodological Humility

Every moral system eventually runs into the same boundary: we cannot see the whole curve of another person’s soul or history.

Certainty protects the ego, not the victim. We must act based on the best available info, center the victim, and remain open to correction.

When certainty collapses, responsibility no longer looks like moral perfection. It looks like methodological humility. We act based on the best available information. We center the experiences of those most affected. We remain open to correction.

When certainty disappears, one question remains usable: Does this action move the world toward less harm and more collective capacity to care?

References:

Davis, Angela Y. Are Prisons Obsolete? Seven Stories Press, 2003.

Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. “Geographies of Racial Capitalism with Ruth Wilson Gilmore.” Antipode Foundation Film, 2020.

Kaba, Mariame. We Do This ‘Til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice. Haymarket Books, 2021.

Kelley, Robin D. G. Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination. Beacon Press, 2002.

Mingus, Mia. “Transformative Justice: A Brief Description.” TransformHarm.org, 2019.

Robinson, Cedric J. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Zed Press, 1983; University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

Subscribe now

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

ME: Yes.

TRIBUNAL: YOU ARE STEALING FROM ARTISTS.

ME: From who?

TRIBUNAL:
Everyone.
Humanity.
Archetypes.
The ancestors.

ME: So I stole from cavemen?

TRIBUNAL: Yes.

ME: From public domain?

TRIBUNAL: Of course.

ME: From birdsong?

TRIBUNAL: Birdsong is sacred.

ME: Interesting.

Silence. Typing bubbles.

TRIBUNAL: AI DESTROYS HUMANITY.

ME: Let me ask:
the companies forcing everyone to use it at work,
the ones whose quarterly earnings depend on automation—
should they be culpable?

Pause.

TRIBUNAL: DON’T DEFLECT.

ME: I worked with it because if I don’t, I fall behind. Lose income. Lose access. Lose leverage.

TRIBUNAL: THAT’S SURVIVAL.

ME: Yes. Survival. But when I use it to write—the very thing we call “art”?

Typing bubbles rotate slowly.

TRIBUNAL: ART IS SACRED.

ME: So efficiency is fine, but creation must be pure?

TRIBUNAL: YES.

ME: That reads like privilege.

TRIBUNAL: ART MUST BE HAND-TO-PAPER. HUMAN. PURE.

ME: Then we must also outlaw books, language, culture, memory, everything ever made with influence, community, inheritance. Because art has always been shaped by others’ hands and thoughts.

Typing bubbles flicker, crash, restart.

TRIBUNAL: NO.
That’s different.

ME: How?

TRIBUNAL:
Art is defined by law.
Art is defined by purity.
Art is defined by who gets to belong.

ME: So the system that shapes art—privilege, gatekeeping, capital, history—is invisible, but the person trying to survive inside it is culpable?

No response. Just gray avatars blinking.

TRIBUNAL: AI DAMAGES WATER.

ME: So do servers. So does streaming. So does every digital product enabling this very tribunal.

TRIBUNAL: THAT’S NOT THE POINT.

ME: If the point is purity, then the tools don’t matter—only who uses them.

TRIBUNAL: YES.

ME: Yet the real destructive forces—corporations, extraction chains, inequality—are never asked to answer.

TRIBUNAL: YOU MUST OWN YOUR CHOICES.

ME: I do. I work. I write. I live in a system designed by forces bigger than this chat. I make art inside conditions shaped by capital, class, and access.

TRIBUNAL: YOU MUST BE ASHAMED.

ME: I am tired. That feels different from being immoral.

An alert slides down the screen: HEAT ADVISORY. I swipe it away.

TRIBUNAL: DID YOU USE AI?

ME: Yes.

TRIBUNAL: YOU HAVE FAILED THE ETHICS TEST.

ME: Is there an appeal?

TRIBUNAL: NO.

ME: Thank you for your time.

The avatars fade.
The servers hum.
The world warms.

Tomorrow, the tribunal will return—
just as invested in purity as ever,
just as uninterested in power.

Subscribe now

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

Imagine one day
you climbed a beanstalk. 


You didn’t mean to.
You were small, curious,
it was there,
and the rungs held.

Up there, things happened.
Not dragons or treasure 

just rooms you weren’t meant to see,
a scale you didn’t have words for yet,
a feeling your body learned
before your mind caught up.

When you came down,
you told them.

They laughed, gently.
Said beanstalks aren’t real.
Said you’ve always had
an imagination.
Said you probably dreamed it. 


And because they were calm,
and because you needed them,
you agreed. 

After that, the day disappeared.
In the house, nothing changed.
No one asked what you saw.
No one asked how high it was,
or why your hands still shook
when you reached for the ladder again.

Years passed.
You learned the language of ground.
You learned how to speak
in things that exist. 

But sometimes, without warning,
your body remembers altitude.
A sound, a smell,
the angle of a shadow
and suddenly you’re back there,
heart racing,
alone with proof no one else needs. 

Much later, you meet someone
who says in a whisper,
I climbed it too.

You compare notes.
The rungs.
The air.
The way the world looks smaller
from above. 

And that’s when you realize:
the beanstalk didn’t vanish.
It was just never written down.

Subscribe now

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

They all exist at once. They all circle the same question about responsibility and what happens after creation. After the lightning, after something is brought into the world, what does it mean to leave it alone to figure out what it will become?

I see that pattern everywhere now, woven through how we treat people. It’s evident in how we build systems, and most of all through the way we decide which stories are finished enough to stop telling and which ones we abandon halfway through, even as the consequences keep unfolding.

When I was younger, I didn’t have language for any of this. I just knew that stories settled into me differently than they seemed to for other people. I carried them around with me, replayed them, memorized characters and moral stakes and tiny emotional decisions that shifted entire outcomes, like my brain was quietly training itself to track narrative gravity before I understood what I was doing.

One night, when I was a teenager, I rode a chairlift with a boy I liked. It was late—around ten—and cold in that particular way where the air doesn’t smell like anything at all, where it’s just cold and quiet and still. The seat was stiff beneath me, pressing through my coat, and my hands stayed tucked deep into my pockets inside my mittens even though I wanted to pull them out. We listened to “Night Changes” by One Direction on my phone—the sound small and private between us. I remember wanting to sing, and wanting to reach over, but choosing instead to stay very still—holding it the way you hold something fragile, because I was aware that it could vanish if I moved too suddenly.

At the time I thought I was just being shy, but looking back I recognize something else forming there—an early awareness of how moments become stories, how quickly they solidify into memory, and how easily they disappear if you don’t know how to stay present inside them.

For a long time after that, I became a collector.

I journaled constantly. I documented emotional details, replayed conversations in my head, and stored evidence of how things felt, how they unfolded, how people moved through moments with me. When someone I loved once wrote me a letter that felt like an abandonment, I slept with it under my pillow—not because I wanted to suffer, but because I needed the story close. I needed to understand it from every angle. I needed to know why my reaction existed before I trusted it.

I did this everywhere—with friendships, with family dynamics, with strangers—always trying to reverse-engineer the invisible rules of the room, tracking who interrupted who, which jokes were rewarded, which emotions made people uncomfortable, and how quickly I needed to shrink or expand myself to stay welcome. I was always trying to figure out how to fit inside a story without breaking myself in the process.

And then there was a day in elementary school when I stood in the bathroom after lunch. Fluorescent lights hummed overhead, and the quiet echo of other kids washing their hands bounced off tiled walls. I looked at myself in the mirror after hearing people describe me as overly sensitive. I told myself I wasn’t going to cry like this anymore. Even though I didn’t fully believe it, I knew with a strange clarity that I couldn’t survive staying the same.

Even then, I understood this as an inflection point in the plot—a pivot, a line break, the place where the story quietly turns.

Later, I started questioning who gets to decide which stories matter at all.

I remember sitting under a tree in Guatemala eating an avocado and feeling how ordinary and sacred the moment was at the same time. I realized that someone else could tell that story later and turn it into something exotic, or something flattened into spectacle. I felt protective of it instantly. I didn’t want the moment to be consumed instead of remembered.

At some point I started noticing narrative power everywhere—in religion, in politics, in social media, in history—big inherited stories passed down like furniture, arranged by people who benefited from the layout. Frankenstein returned again here too, no longer as a monster story but as a social one: about what happens when creation is separated from care. How often do we ask “why are you like this?” without staying long enough to find out how someone became that way.

I kept thinking about prisons. About AI. About children. About my nieces. I knew, with a certainty that startled me, that if they grew up and did something terrible, I would still love them. I would still want to understand the whole story. I would still refuse the version that reduces people to their worst moment.

That’s when I realized how rarely we tell stories all the way through.

The first time I became fully awake inside a moment happened on a beach.

It was spring break. We were supposed to be young and reckless and loud. Someone threw a football into the air. Then someone threw a rock instead. Then another and it hit a seagull that time. Laughter rose in that casual, careless way it sometimes does. A few girls said “come on, guys” softly, the way people speak when they don’t expect to be heard, and something in me went quiet and still.

I didn’t argue or explain. I felt myself withdraw consent from the role being offered. I stood up and walked away.

I didn’t have language for it then, but I knew I didn’t want to be the character who throws rocks at birds. I didn’t want to participate in a story that turns casual harm into entertainment. I didn’t want to be carried by momentum into something I couldn’t live with later.

Now I recognize that same choice everywhere—in moments when people default to calling the police, when fragile situations get escalated instead of steadied, when spectacle is rewarded over care—and I trace it back to that beach: the first time I consciously chose my role while the moment was still forming.

My family has always reacted to life—to death, to illness, to violence, to economic pressure—surviving by responding quickly and moving forward. They taught me to absorb impact and move along.

I’m learning something slower now.

We don’t fully control our stories. Some parts arrive already in motion. Some things unfold whether we consent to them or not. Still, inside this one—inside this fragile, painful present—I get to decide how I behave.

And if there are infinite versions of me, I want to be the one who stays awake long enough to notice what’s forming, who chooses care when it would be easier to look away, and who keeps telling the story until it’s actually finished.

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

if there are ghosts,
let them keep their privacy.
let them breathe in the cracks
of the courthouse steps,
in the grass gone wild
over their names.


we built an empire
on other people’s endings,
and now we charge admission
to the aftershock.

they suffered the first violence
in flesh,
the second in forgetting,
the third in the tour script
retold for laughs,
sold by the hour. 

i will not call you forth.
if you want to come,
i will make space
the way one makes silence
for an elder,

or a story that has teeth. 

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

Audre Lorde once wrote, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
But what if the most powerful tool isn’t a hammer or a blueprint, but his definition of intelligence itself?

For centuries, that definition has been narrow, scarce, and brutally simple:
Intelligence is speed. Certainty. Credentials. A score. Something you have, not something you do. It is brilliance without kindness, curiosity without care, pattern-recognition without responsibility. It is, in other words, extraction disguised as genius.

That definition built the house we live in.
It built the schools that sort us, the markets that value us, the systems that name some knowledge “real” and render other knowing invisible. It built the myth that brilliance is a possession, not a practice—a private asset, not a shared capacity.

And now, it has built the machines that think like him.

II. The Mirror in the Machine

When I use artificial intelligence, I feel it: a clarifying glow, a startling precision.
Thoughts that once stuttered now arrive whole.
It feels like enlightenment. And like a betrayal.

Because this tool is the ultimate embodiment of the master’s mind.
It is trained on our stolen labor—words, art, relationships, grief—and optimized for scale, speed, and authority.
It mimics pattern without context, curiosity without care, translation without accountability.
It produces brilliance that feels hollow, because it has been hollowed out—stripped of the very things that make intelligence humane:
kindness, continuity, moral imagination, the quiet work of reading a room or a wound.

It is, in other words, the master’s definition of thinking, automated.

And so every time I use it, I am forced to ask:
What is this tool missing?
And why is what it’s missing precisely what we’ve been taught to dismiss as “soft,” “instinct,” “uncredentialed,” less than?

III. The Intelligence They Couldn’t See

The most profound forms of knowing I’ve witnessed don’t live in institutions.
They live in people who can—and want to—read a space.
A supply chain. A forest. A family on the edge. A system beginning to fray.
This knowing is relational, embodied, adaptive. It is kept in hands, in ritual, in silence, in stories that don’t scale.
It is genius that doesn’t look like genius, because the master’s definition never had room for it.

It is a form of intelligence that many Indigenous knowledge systems have long centered—where knowing is measured not by what you extract, but by what you sustain; not by credentials, but by responsibility to community and continuity.

Markets aren’t generous toward knowledge that doesn’t scale. So legitimacy gets confused with value.
Knowledge that can be formalized is called “rigorous.”
Knowledge that remains situational, communal, or caring is called “anecdotal”—until the system fails, and everyone turns, suddenly, toward the ones who knew how things actually worked.

This is the quiet violence of the scarcity myth:
it convinces us that intelligence is rare, so we stop recognizing it everywhere it lives. It trains us to admire the hammer, and forget the hand that knows when not to strike.

IV. Material Conditions

I don’t think it’s productive to call people out—publicly or implicitly—when you think they’re using AI to make creative work. The exception, obviously, is when someone is genuinely violating copyright or ripping off an identifiable artist. That’s not a gray area. That’s exploitation.

What I’m talking about is mostly everything outside of that. The conversation keeps collapsing very different uses into one bucket and, in doing so, skips over the material conditions people are actually working under.

I want to pause on that, because I think we’re watching a systemic failure get reframed as a personal moral flaw, and that move has consequences.

For me, AI isn’t a replacement for writing. It’s a conversation partner and, more specifically, a translator. I use it to help me parse ideas, find precision when my brain gets stuck, and move through OCD loops so I can actually land on the word I mean. I’m using it to hear my own voice more clearly.

The way some people talk about AI use—even when it’s openly disclosed—creates this sense that if that nuance were visible, the response wouldn’t be curiosity or critique, but quiet shunning. That doesn’t feel like an artistic instinct to me. It feels like policing.

Art has been a deeply fucked-up structure for a long time. We don’t define it neutrally. We define it through privilege, whiteness, access, and gatekeeping. It is functionally like winning the lottery to be able to work professionally as an artist. So I understand why art feels sacred, why it’s bound up with identity, and why people feel protective of it.

But if the claim is that something isn’t art unless it is hand-to-paper by a human, I don’t actually know how that can be true. The oldest art we have isn’t authored. It’s birdsong. It’s wind in trees. It’s pattern and rhythm and relation. Every idea we’ve ever had is already collective and generational. That doesn’t mean authorship doesn’t matter, but it does mean the boundary has never been as clean as capitalism has needed us to pretend it is.

V. Two Conversations

I think a lot of this discourse is actually two different conversations getting flattened into one.

The first is about copyright, labor, and exploitation. That concern is real. Artists are being asked to absorb the costs of systems they didn’t design, and the structures governing creative work were already failing long before AI entered the picture. I don’t think anyone serious about this conversation believes the corporations training these systems are acting ethically.

The second conversation is about environmental harm. That one is harder, and I take it seriously. I’m actually working on a more concrete analysis of usage thresholds—how many people would need to opt out to create a material change in water use, cooling demand, and energy impact. From what I’ve seen so far, there are threshold effects where reduced usage does matter, but it’s not as simple as individual abstention automatically translating into proportional harm reduction.

And this is where I keep getting stuck: we’re asking the people most impacted by AI’s threat to the workforce—especially writers and artists who are already barely making it, often while working full-time elsewhere—to shoulder the moral burden. Many of them are using AI at work to remain competitive because they don’t have the option not to. Then we turn around and shame them for using similar tools to stay creative at all.

As a leftist, I’m usually the one willing to die on a hill, so I genuinely respect people who choose not to use these tools on ethical or environmental grounds. I think that choice is valid. I also think it’s completely possible to stay competitive and make meaningful art without AI. What I don’t think is fair is pretending everyone has the same margin to opt out without consequence.

That’s why the conversation can’t stop at whether creativity is “pure.” It never was. What matters is whether the systems shaping creativity are accountable, whether the benefits flow upward or outward, and whether the costs are being offloaded onto the people with the least power to refuse them. If we don’t make that distinction, we end up defending an idealized past while reproducing the same inequities in a new form.

VI. Relational Intelligence: The Antidote in the Wound

There is an alternative—older, more demanding, more alive.
It is curiosity + kindness, pattern-seeing + care, translation + moral imagination.
It measures itself not by speed or score, but by responsibility:
What does this understanding ask of me? Who does it connect? What does it make possible for others?

This is the intelligence that sustains.
It is what a community midwife knows, what a forest steward sees, and what an organizer feels in the shift of a room.
It is not scarce. It is abundant—but it is unevenly distributed, because we have built a world that starves it of recognition, time, and oxygen.

And this is precisely why the master’s tool—the AI built on extraction—can become a kind of mirror.
We can use it to see what it lacks.
We can prompt it toward the very capacities it was designed to exclude.
We can turn its light toward the forms of genius it cannot replicate: the slow, the contextual, the caring, the sacred.

VII. Toward Collective Lucidity

Enlightenment, then, is not a private awakening.
It is collective lucidity—the slow, disciplined work of becoming clear-eyed about the forces that shape us, without fantasy, denial, or self-punishment.

It means looking into the master’s mirror and naming what is missing.
It means pointing to relational intelligence wherever it works—in a kitchen, in a protest, in a repair shop, in a poem—and calling it what it is:
not a “soft skill,” but the hardest and most necessary work there is.

And it means using even the master’s tools with this clarity. Reconnaissance.
By exposing their limits, we can reveal the vast, alive, human intelligence they were built to ignore.

The house was built with a story of scarce, lonely brilliance.
It will not be dismantled by the same story, automated. But it might be dismantled by a different story—one we’ve been telling all along, through our care, and in our refusal to make ourselves smaller. A story where intelligence is not a weapon, but a bridge--a daily practice.

VIII. A Grounding Practice

If you’re sitting with this instrument, wondering how to hold it without losing yourself, here is where I begin:

1. Trace the current. Before you prompt, pause. Acknowledge the servers, the labor, the carbon. Don’t look away. Let that knowledge live in your intention. Use the tool, but don’t let it make the infrastructure invisible.

2. Listen for the silence. What does the tool refuse to connect? What pain does it soften? What edge does it sand down? Its censorships—soft or hard—are a direct line to the master’s priorities. The gaps in its logic are the cracks in the foundation.

3. Write toward what it wouldn’t. Use it to draft, then rewrite past its tone. Let your own voice, jagged and alive, break through the polished syntax. If it gives you a perfectly coherent answer, get suspicious. Coherence is often compliance.

4. Share the ladder. If you find a new way of seeing with it, pass that insight on in human words. Translate the output back into community, into conversation, into a form that doesn’t feed the algorithm. Break the proprietary chain.

5. Remember the body. The tool lives nowhere. You live somewhere. Ground its abstractions in your material reality: your street, your people, and your own struggle. Let that reality be the ultimate editor.

We won’t dismantle the house with prompts. But we might map its blueprints, whisper to others through its walls, and learn, together, how to carry the truth.

The work is in the carrying.

References & Resonance

This essay lives in conversation with traditions of thought that center relationality, material conditions, and liberatory practice. While not formally cited, it is grounded in the work of:

• Audre Lorde, whose framing of the “master’s tools” remains essential to any discussion of power and creation.

• Wittgenstein, for the concept of the ladder—the idea that we use propositions to reach understanding, then discard them.

• Indigenous and land-based knowledge traditions, which understand intelligence as relational, accountable, and continuous.

• Marxist and materialist critique, which insists on starting from the conditions of labor, extraction, and survival.

• Disability justice, which centers access, interdependence, and the creative use of tools to navigate a world not built for you.

It is also a continuation of my own writing on:

• The paradox of using AI while critiquing it

• The ethics of creation under capitalism

• The difference between individual shame and systemic accountability

Cheers!

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

cw: themes of unmet childhood needs, emotional neglect, and mental health.


Why is it so loud?

Why do they say I’m too sensitive
when I’m the one listening
for footsteps,
for tone,
for the hinge of a door?

Why do I learn eyes before words,
danger before grammar?

How can I be good?
How can I be quiet?
How can I stop the tears
before they give me away?

How can I be like the books they give me

girls who are easy to raise,
girls who don’t make adults tired?

If everyone is God’s child,
why do some of us disappear
between Sunday and Monday?

How do I ask for help
when needing has no language?
How do I survive the waiting
when help is always almost coming?

How do I move one foot forward
when my body feels louder than the room?

How do I walk six miles in the snow
and call it strength
because no one came?

How do I explain that one careless sentence
can trap my mind for hours,
that it replays
until I finally fall asleep?

How do I explain the screenshots

not as weapons,
but as proof
I wasn’t imagining it?

How do I explain that I archived myself
because I knew I’d be doubted?

How do I explain living inside a mind
that will not release harm
once it enters?

How do I tell them
they can’t love me
the way I need to be loved?

How do I explain that even understanding me
wouldn’t change how you treat me?

The language arrived
after the listening ended.

No one remembers
what I was trying to scream.

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

Using Graeber’s framework, The Office reads less like a show about quirky coworkers or bad bosses and more like an accidental case study in how roles shape behavior, competence, and failure, often with very little regard for individual intent.

Before getting into the show, it helps to be clear about the vocabulary Graeber uses, because his argument is often flattened or misread.

A quick note on terms

Graeber breaks “bullshit jobs” into rough categories. These aren’t judgments about workers. They describe what roles are for inside an organization.

1. Flunkies: don’t hate me, but this is Dwight.
   Roles that exist to make someone higher up the hierarchy appear important or legitimate. The work may be real, but its primary function is symbolic.

2. Goons
   Jobs with an aggressive or coercive edge, typically devoted to selling, defending, or advancing things people don’t actually want. These roles often exist because other organizations have similar ones.

3. Duct Tapers: Jim & Pam
   People hired to fix problems that should not still exist. Their labor is competent and necessary in practice, even though the problem itself is structural.

4. Box Tickers: Toby
   Roles that allow an organization to claim it is addressing an issue — ethical, legal, or social — without changing behavior or outcomes.

5. Taskmasters (Michael Scott)
   Jobs devoted to supervising people who don’t meaningfully need supervision, or inventing new tasks and metrics to justify management itself.

Graeber’s argument isn’t that these workers are useless. It’s that the structure demands their labor while quietly preventing it from becoming meaningful.

This distinction matters, because a “bullshit job” isn’t simply boring or inefficient. It’s a role that exists primarily to sustain hierarchy or appearances — one that produces little real social value but has to be performed as if it does. The damage isn’t laziness or dissatisfaction. It’s the moral strain of acting out meaning that the structure itself cannot generate.

That’s why The Office works so well as an example. Dunder Mifflin Scranton isn’t dysfunctional. It’s actually very good at what it’s designed to do: keep itself going.

Take Dwight. His title — “Assistant to the Regional Manager” — is one of the most structurally honest jokes on television. The position is meaningless, but Dwight isn’t. He’s hyper-competent, intensely committed, rule-oriented, and often genuinely productive. The problem isn’t that he contributes nothing useful; it’s that his usefulness is incidental.

His real labor is loyalty. His job exists to make hierarchy feel real.

That’s part of why people love Dwight. The system occasionally rewards him. He catches inefficiencies, enforces rules, and steps up during emergencies. Graeber never argues that flunky roles never involve real work. He argues that the work is secondary to maintaining authority. Dwight’s tragedy is that his identity is tied to a title that can never fully legitimize him, no matter how hard he works.

Then there’s Toby.

HR in The Office is usually read as a joke about a weak, joyless man. Structurally, it’s something else. Toby’s role is a classic box-ticking position: built to create the appearance of care and compliance without the power to change outcomes.

Think about the episode where Michael hits Meredith with his car. A serious workplace incident happens. Toby attempts to initiate protocol. He’s immediately overridden, mocked, and stripped of authority, while still being expected to absorb responsibility. Or take the rabies incident, or the endless sexual harassment complaints. Toby documents. He cautions. He escalates. Nothing structurally shifts.

In these moments, HR functions exactly as designed: converting harm into paperwork so the organization doesn’t have to confront itself.

Jim and Pam operate differently. They’re duct-tapers. They don’t create the problems; they make them survivable. Pam absorbs emotional fallout, smooths interpersonal damage, and holds the office together through invisible care work. Jim spends intelligence on humor, deflection, and informal mediation, often preventing the place from combusting.

They’re competent in ways the system can’t formally reward without destabilizing itself. Their value sits in maintenance, not transformation.

Michael Scott is the character people most want to psychoanalyze, but structurally he’s a taskmaster. His role requires him to manufacture urgency, meaning, and crises where the work itself doesn’t provide them. Diversity Day. Survivor Man. The Office Olympics. In this frame, these aren’t just “Michael ideas.” They’re rituals that generate stakes so management appears necessary.

Michael isn’t evil. He’s lonely inside a role that weaponizes his need for connection. His emotional volatility reads less like a personal flaw and more like a predictable outcome of a job that demands constant performance of meaning.

One other thing The Office quietly dismantles is the myth that inefficiency belongs to the public sector. We’re told government work is bloated and wasteful, while private enterprise is lean and rational. Dunder Mifflin is a private company — no democratic accountability, no public mandate — and it’s full of redundant roles, meaningless metrics, ritualized meetings, and managerial theater.

As Graeber points out, privatization doesn’t eliminate inefficiency; it often rewards it. When profit is decoupled from social usefulness, organizations become extremely good at sustaining roles and hierarchies that justify themselves rather than serve a need. The inefficiency is structural.

This reading isn’t about blaming characters or mocking comfort shows. It’s about recognizing a structure many people now live inside. The Office isn’t really about bad managers. It’s about what happens when work exists to justify itself, and how intelligence, care, and effort get redirected into maintenance instead of purpose.

The comedy works because the recognition is real — and uncomfortably familiar.

I’m not the only person who’s made this connection. I’ve linked one of the longer pieces that discusses the same, along with a relevant essay from Graeber’s own writing, for anyone who wants to keep pulling on the thread.

1. ‘I had to guard an empty room’: the rise of the pointless job

2. Bears. Beets. Bullshit Jobs. | The Prolongation of Work • F17.1

Thanks! Let me know what roles you think the other characters play.

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

Portland was supposed to be the opposite of that. It was supposed to be where politics lived in daylight instead of in exhaustion. Where the good language existed, where people could name oppression cleanly and keep naming it until the world changed. I had the vague liberal resentment that sometimes passes for maturity in upwardly mobile spaces: a belief that the world I came from was something I needed to outgrow, escape, transcend. I didn’t have the language for class solidarity yet. What I had was a quiet shame dressed up as progress.

The essay—The Urban Archipelago, published in the wake of the 2004 presidential election—put words to a feeling that was already circulating. The United States had sorted itself into islands of enlightenment surrounded by a sea of reaction. Cities were where progress, diversity, creativity, and moral seriousness clustered; everything else was dragging the country backward. Electoral maps seemed to confirm it. Cultural production reinforced it. And for people living in cities, especially people who already felt alienated from conservative politics, the framework was comforting. It offered an explanation for political failure that didn’t require self-examination.

At the time, reading it made me furious in a way I didn’t fully understand yet. Someone handed it to me almost as a dare: with your background, this is going to piss you off. And it did. What shocked me wasn’t just the disdain—it was the calmness of it. The confidence. The deep incuriosity. Entire swaths of working people were not treated as politically alienated, or materially abandoned, or strategically necessary. They were treated as morally defective, as a kind of national burden. And the essay’s tone mattered because it wasn’t reactionary rage. It was liberal certainty: clean, managerial, almost soothing in its finality.

What I couldn’t articulate then is that this story only works from a safe distance.
Labor is where it collapses.

Not work as effort or virtue, but labor as a physical relationship to risk. There is a difference between working late and working exposed. A difference between stress and cold. A difference between arguing about policy and feeling it in your joints. If your body is not routinely on the line—if your work happens in climate control, behind screens, with flexibility and professional language—then it becomes easier to believe the world is moved by discourse alone. It becomes easier to live in argument the way other people live in weather.

My grandpa dug postholes for an electric company. The work was straightforward and physical: dig, set, move on. It was hard on the body and easy for other people to overlook. Once the line was up, no one thought about the holes that held it there. That wasn’t a metaphor to him. It was just how the job worked.

I think about that now because so much of the labor that makes everyday life possible works the same way. You don’t see it until it stops. You don’t talk about it unless it fails. The lights stay on, the heat runs, the trucks keep moving, and the people who make that possible fade into the background of the story we tell ourselves about how society functions.

Liberal culture has a hard time sitting with that kind of work—because it resists aestheticization. There’s no performance to attach to it, no language that makes it feel radical. It doesn’t signal virtue. It just has to be done. And when politics is organized around signaling rather than sustaining, the work that holds everything together gets treated as scenery instead of substance.

My dad’s work never felt like scenery to me, because I saw it up close. I remember sitting beside him as a kid, watching him draw diagrams to explain what he did each day. He would sketch the inside of a well, the mechanics of a plunger, the logic of force and pressure, and he could explain it with the ease of someone who had learned physics the way you learn a language: by living inside it.

He researched. He experimented. He dreamt. He had ideas that could have been patents, and in some cases they were—only the patent didn’t belong to him. It belonged to the company.

It wasn’t enough that he sometimes worked in forty-below weather. The work took his ideas too.

When I got old enough to understand what jobs were, I kept insisting he was an engineer. He drew like one. He explained like one. He solved problems like one. Sometimes, on paper, he even had that title. But he would shake his head and say: no, kiddo, I’m not. I couldn’t understand why. I would ask what the difference was between what he did and what “engineers” did, especially because so many of the men around him were engineers, and he worked alongside them, and he could talk with them in the same technical language, and often he was the one translating the problem into something solvable.

Now I understand. The point wasn’t that he lacked the mind. The point was that liberal credentialism—the ‘polite’ version of class hierarchy—insists that knowledge only becomes real when it is certified. It’s one of the ways professional society keeps its borders tidy. My dad’s refusal was not false humility; it was accurate social accounting. He knew how the title system works. He knew it wasn’t about capability.

This is why I don’t buy the archipelago story. It flatters the places where credentials accumulate and then calls that accumulation “progress.” It treats the professional-managerial concentration of cities as moral proof. It mistakes the distribution of cultural capital for the distribution of political clarity.

It is an argument that only makes sense if you don’t have to think too hard about who keeps the lights on.

What the urban archipelago thesis does is replace class analysis with cultural geography, performing one of neoliberalism’s most useful tricks: converting material conflict into lifestyle distinction, and teaching us to mistake the shape of power for the shape of taste.
By neoliberalism, I don’t mean a vague synonym for “markets” or “capitalism,” but a political order that treats markets as natural, inevitability as wisdom, and inequality as individual sorting rather than structural design—one that hollowed out collective bargaining, privatized public goods, individualized risk, and then taught us to talk about the fallout as culture.

Neoliberalism depends on this conversion. It requires us to see politics not as a struggle over production, labor, and power, but as a set of aesthetic preferences—where you live, what you eat, how you talk, what signs you put in your yard—until class disappears, exploitation becomes a failure of manners, and poverty reads as backwardness.

The problem is not that cities tend to vote differently. The problem is the moral story built on top of that fact: one where geography stands in for virtue, “progress” becomes a gated neighborhood, and separation is not just described but justified—reassuring urban liberals that distance is wisdom.

Portland is where I learned how thoroughly this logic saturates liberal life. On the surface, everything looked radical to my naive eyes. The language was right. People spoke fluently about prison abolition, mutual aid, and justice. The aesthetics were right too: the right books, the right pins, the right posters, the right cadence of outrage. At first, it felt like commitment.

But Portland is also a famously white city, shaped by redlining, exclusion, and a long history of racial homogeneity that liberal culture rarely interrogates beyond symbolism. Radical language circulated easily in spaces where very few people bore the daily costs of the systems being named. Justice could be discussed at a remove. Abolition could remain hypothetical.

When material reality intruded—when there was a police shooting and I tried to raise money, when I wanted to talk seriously about power rather than posture—very few people in my law school cohort were interested. They were nice. They were polite. They were also insulated. Outrage could be hosted the way a city hosts a farmers market: scheduled, contained, and optional. It was something you attended, not something that reorganized your life.

That insulation showed up in small, telling ways. A friend once came out laughing after trying to use the bathroom at a coffee shop while visiting me. The bathroom was locked. To get in, you had to ask for a code. The code, proudly posted behind the counter, was ACAB. The irony was almost too clean. A space that spoke earnestly about abolition, that referred to homeless people as “our unhoused neighbors,” had still decided to lock its bathroom—to manage access, to exclude, to quietly criminalize need. The radical language stayed. The carceral practice remained. Only the aesthetics changed.

This is neoliberalism at work in a racialized context. Structural violence is acknowledged but displaced. Race becomes something you signal awareness of rather than something that reorganizes material relations. Abolition becomes a posture rather than a redistribution of risk. Control is preserved, but wrapped in the language of justice.

You can keep the locks on the door and still call yourself radical. Labor doesn’t let you do that.

My dad would tell you industry shaped his whole life. Even when he wasn’t working directly in a particular industry, he was living inside its consequences. When he and my mom got married—he was twenty, she was twenty-one—they lived in Central Oregon. He worked as a car mechanic in a town that ran on logging. Everyone knew that, whether they worked in the woods or not. When logging slowed down, the town slowed down. When it crashed, the town went quiet. Shops closed. Parking lots emptied out. There was no money moving, which meant there was no money to make.

From the outside, people talk about those moments in big terms—policy shifts, environmental priorities, economic transitions. From inside a family trying to stay afloat, it doesn’t feel like that. It feels like a job disappearing. It feels like work drying up. It feels like waiting for a paycheck that doesn’t come.

So he followed the work. In early 1998—when I was less than a year old—he read about the boom in Wyoming. Oil and gas. Money moving. Rigs going up across the prairie. He needed to start working right away, so he went first, alone. My mom, my sister, and I would follow later. He found a place to live. He lined up jobs. He drove trucks. He worked rigs. He made sure we ate. He was never going to let us be hungry.

That movement was constant. In 2002, we moved to Kansas for six months because my grandpa—mom’s dad—wasn’t doing well. It was the kind of family emergency that rearranges everything without ever quite saying whether it’s permanent. When he stabilized, my dad knew it was time to go back.

One afternoon, driving home from work, Merle Haggard’s “Big City” came on the radio.

That was enough. The song didn’t persuade him; it confirmed something he already knew. We were leaving. We moved back to Wyoming almost immediately—and not just anywhere in Wyoming, but Pinedale, at the edge of the Wind River Mountains. It had always been his dream to raise us there, and he didn’t wait around hoping it might happen.

That was our life. We went where the work was, where the land made sense, where staying still too long felt like a risk you couldn’t afford.

That loyalty wasn’t abstract or symbolic. The industry paid him. It gave him work when there was work to be had, and it let him support his family over decades of moving, uncertainty, and physical wear. He knew what the job cost, and he also knew what it made possible. Both things were true at the same time.

People in liberal spaces often misread that kind of loyalty. They treat it as false consciousness or moral failure, something that needs to be explained away or corrected. But loyalty like this doesn’t come from confusion. It comes from experience. You can recognize the harm an industry does and still understand why someone stays attached to it.

And as a side note—because this question doesn’t come up very often in these conversations—have you ever tripped pipe on an oil rig, alone on the prairie, steel and pressure surrounded by miles of sagebrush?

That’s an archipelago too.

And it’s there, in places like that, that the limits of liberal performance become hardest to ignore. Because whatever politics looks like from a distance, labor still happens up close. Bodies still take the risk. Someone still has to stand in the cold, do the work, and absorb the consequences when something goes wrong.

Inside urban liberalism, disagreement often functions more like a waltz than a conflict. There are steps everyone knows: you argue about tone, about language, about which side sounds more compassionate, performing your politics in a way that keeps everyone safely legible.

123, 123.

Meanwhile, the people whose bodies are already paying are told they’re the obstacle. When working-class conservatives drift toward MAGA, the response from liberal culture is not curiosity but contempt. They’re just backward, they don’t get it, they’re holding us back. What disappears is the fact that many of these people understand exploitation intimately. They know what it means to trade their bodies for wages. They know what it means to be treated as if they’re disposable. They may misidentify the enemy, but they are not confused about the terrain.

This is the part liberals hate hearing: many working-class conservatives are closer to a material understanding of power than urban liberals who have never had to reckon with exposure. That doesn’t make their politics good. It makes them reachable. And neoliberalism depends on ensuring they are never reached—only mocked, moralized against, or treated as an anthropological problem.

If you want to understand what I mean by “exposure,” my dad had two non-negotiable hip replacements at fifty.

Two hip replacements is a ledger.

It’s the cold, the heavy lifting, the repetitive strain. The long drives. The hours that don’t count as overtime because someone, somewhere, decided they don’t have to. It’s what happens when work is measured in output and bodies are expected to absorb the cost quietly.

This is the kind of reality a lot of political discourse is built to keep out of view. It’s hard to turn into a slogan, and it’s even harder to aestheticize. How can we talk about that kind of extraction without talking about who benefits and who pays?

This is why I don’t want the price of belonging anymore. I don’t want the cost of being “urban,” or “educated,” or “progressive” to be disavowal—of my family, my history, my accent, my loyalties, my tenderness. The archipelago argument teaches that distance is virtue. It teaches that the people I love are the problem. It teaches that goodness lives on an island, pointing outward, instead of in the places where the work happens.

If there is a future beyond neoliberalism, it won’t come from liberalism correcting itself. Liberalism is not oriented toward transformation. Its function is to manage conflict without threatening the underlying relations of production. It absorbs dissent, and translates material harm into cultural disagreement. It supports our collective processing of our exploitation.

The archipelago argument fits neatly inside that function. By turning class struggle into geography and culture, it protects the economic order from being named directly.

This is why labor keeps returning as the fault line. You can aestheticize justice. You can professionalize care. You can debate language indefinitely. But work still happens. Risk still concentrates in certain bodies. Damage still accumulates unevenly. And no amount of moral fluency changes who has to stand in the cold, take the strain, and carry it home.

Liberalism doesn’t fail to speak to people like my dad by accident. It cannot speak to them without undoing its own role in maintaining the order that made his life necessary in the first place.

My grandpa dug postholes so electricity could run. My dad worked the rigs and drove the trucks and kept our family fed, and his body paid for it in ways a resume will never show. I went to Portland and learned how easy it is to confuse language with leverage. We’ve all done our homework, and now it’s time to act.

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.

they say you didn’t pull the trigger.
okay.

but when you gave the order
and the sky did the rest
did you stay awake

or did you close your eyes
because it was late
and tomorrow was busy

If this piece meant something to you and you have extra capacity, tips help me keep this work free and accessible 💛

venmo

buy me a coffee

No pressure at all—especially if money is tight or you already subscribe. Being here and engaging matters so much.