Today, I want to discuss the normalisation of the objectification of the fetishization of the romanticisation of the problems with

No, I’m kidding. But the initial reading of that opener was plausible…and all too common in the current content landscape. Opening my YouTube recommendations page feels like a minefield of buzzwords on the same topics that have not only been covered, discussed, analysed at length throughout the 20th century (second wave feminist criticism is extensive, and a firm favourite of the video essay YouTuber, from my own observation), but endlessly regurgitated in specifically video content of the last five or so years, with the exponential popularity of the ‘video essay’ genre. As a former fan of such content, I understand wholly the appeal of the format- and seeing such scale of critical sociopolitical thought is not a negative. However, where the issue stems from is the bastardisation of intellectualism, as a cultural community, for purposes of one-upmanship and self-superiority. This seems to be a phenomenon more and more commonplace, and it’s no surprise why, considering the ease of information in our 21st-century ‘information age’, and of consuming and creating content. This is written self-consciously- as an article written independently, using online content as a launchpad for my meaning- though I more so want to gather together empirical evidence and thoughts on the culture of ‘intellectualism’ as it is now, in 2026. What better way to begin the year?

‘Intellectualism’ as a cultural movement inheres pretentiousness. It is, perhaps, natural to the contemporary mind to find gratification in knowing more than someone else; the competitiveness of scholarship is not a recent phenomenon. The attitudes of superiority in receiving superior education have deep historical roots in systems of class, which is still often a barrier to the extensiveness of traditional education. However, as aforementioned, access to information and educational sources through the Internet is becoming significantly easier. The problem here lies in that these sources are not necessarily credible: AI slop, the threat to extensive and reliable resources such as Internet Archive and Wikipedia, TikTok being taken as educational gospel by more and more people… the list continues. TikTok, undeniably, is becoming the on-and-offline cultural hub for Generations Z and Alpha; and, unlike traditional educational resources, is a conglomerate of independent and un-factchecked contributions. 

Something that seems to have arisen from this vast online meeting point is a stringent moral policing that has become a social behavioural norm. This policing is chiefly of sociopolitical nature, and is topical and current: the Israel-Palestine conflict, ICE raids across the U.S, Trump (yes, very U.S.A-centric). What is significant to the bastardisation of ‘intellectualism’, here, is that content on these topics is heavily saturated in discourse, but it is regurgitated, repetitive; it must follow a script, or the comments will be teeming with policing of wording, of tone, of purpose. So many people know and follow the correct script, but to what degree is it followed up and evidenced with action? It’s well and good to know the correct script, but what are all of these people policing doing about these issues they rally about behind a keyboard? This script occupies a nebulous position on the political spectrum- somewhere, typically, around liberalism; but it seems the political knowledge of these people is lacking. They are simply following a norm.

The counterculture to this is a growth in anti-intellectualism, which (self-consciously, again) has been analysed frequently in the last few months. However, in light of this epidemic of moral policing, it almost seems that anti-intellectualism is a reaction of exhaustion to this. I am not a proponent of anti-intellectualism, and believe that discernment and critical thinking are crucial skills, to be employed life-long; however, a sense of exhaustion with this ‘script’ seems almost reasonable. 
The role of the above type of ‘intellectualism’ in the sphere of romance, as per this article’s title, is something that has received notable discourse recently. Performativity is a feature of much romantic pursuit in the contemporary dating sphere- as it is part of the online policing script- and the two often come hand in hand- and it raises the question, how far does the joke extend? Is true and unspoilt intellect an impossible occurrence from now? (Maybe not, as long as you don’t brag about it. We don’t care that you’ve read Andrea Dworkin as a man.)