It’s been a few years since liberals began rejecting the idea of transracialism.

Rachel Dolezal, a white woman, sparked controversy in 2015 when she claimed she was a black woman despite being born to white parents. Liberals then overwhelmingly — and confusingly — decided that while gender is a social construct, race most certainly is not.

Therefore, it did seem to be an act of futility when Dolezal changed her name to Nkechi Diallo in 2024; she still wasn’t going to be accepted as black.

While this conversation has since evaded the public eye, the idea of transracialism has quietly progressed past simple changes of makeup and clothing and, much like transgenderism, has advanced through surgeries and community in distinct corners of social media.

‘Cosmetic surgeons are profiting off mental illness.’

An alarming report from outlet Pirate Wires focused on the alleged plight of two women who have allegedly gone to great lengths to change their ethnicity.

The first woman is Lisa Yo, a beauty influencer who was assumed to be Korean, but after being accused of faking her ethnicity, she claimed to be Mongolian. According to the report, however, Yo is a white Austrian woman who has appeared in previous videos speaking German.

Yo also allegedly claimed her brother looks more European than she does because she has a Mongolian father and he has an Austrian father. Eventually, the report goes on, Yo admitted to have undergone rhinoplasty, ear pinning, double-eyelid surgery, and even a procedure called aegyo sal, which refers to the injection of fat underneath the eyes. The term translates roughly to “charming or cute tissue.”

RELATED: White influencer under fire for identifying as Korean: ‘If you can be transsexual you can also be TRANSRACIAL’

Donna Briggs, meanwhile, has hundreds of thousands of social media followers and has been accused of having “lightened” her skin to appear more white.

A former radio host, Briggs has a long history of appearing as her normal self, so it’s really not a secret that she has gone through at least some effort to change her appearance.

It was only when a TikTok creator named Tea with Ladii contacted Briggs’ family members that the truth came out. Not only did Briggs’ relatives confirm she is black, but they also claimed there is a trauma-related issue behind the former host’s identity crisis.

Given that liberal media has fully embraced other illogical identity disorders, it should come as no surprise that the rejection of transracialists under the leftist banner means these seemingly severe issues are being ignored.

Pirate Wires found several examples of the racially confused youth on messaging and forum apps like Discord.

“Hey, question, how did you guys discover your specific ethnicity?” one server user asked. “Maybe I should have explored more Asian cultures before I went with [Japanese].”

“The vibes,” a user replied. “I feel like I just licked different lollipops until I found the right one.”

Another user told the outlet, “I just feel so out of place in my body and in general.”

The self-identified East Asian is actually a 24-year-old white person who believes he or she is “primarily Chinese and some Japanese” since 15 years old. Luckily, in this case, surgeons have rejected the user’s requests for ethnic-based procedures.

RELATED: Transracial hustler Rachel Dolezal fired from teaching job after reportedly posting explicit content to her risqué OnlyFans page

Activist Rachel Dolezal leaves the ‘Today Show’ taping at the NBC Rockefeller Center Studios on March 27, 2017, in New York City. (Photo by Ray Tamarra/GC Images)

Writer Natasha Biase told Blaze News that “while there is a high probability these individuals are only doing this for TikTok views, it raises a larger question about why so many people from the ‘love yourself’ generation are determined to change absolutely everything about themselves — from their gender to now, apparently, even their race.”

This need to change can reach absurd lengths, from ethnic-based makeup tutorials to the aforementioned Discord users even allegedly sharing hypnosis videos to “manifest perfect Korean DNA.”

Parsing through trolling and actual cases of mental illness is difficult, but those boasting about their surgeries are as real as it gets.

“I don’t know what’s worse,” Biase added. “The fact that this is a real phenomenon or the fact that cosmetic surgeons are profiting off mental illness.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Align, Transracialism, Korean, Transgender, Rachel dolezal, Lifestyle 

When you think about buying a car, you probably picture the final step — walking into a dealership, shaking hands, and driving off in something new.

But what you might not think about is the incredibly complex process that got that vehicle into your hands. And even more overlooked? The vital role that middlemen like car dealerships play in making that possible.

Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle?

We live in an era obsessed with “cutting out the middleman.” The phrase gets thrown around like it’s inherently virtuous. Tech companies promise lower costs and better service by eliminating dealers and distributors.

In defense of the middleman

Some automakers, especially those in the electric vehicle space, push hard for direct-to-consumer sales, arguing that it’s the modern way to sell cars.

But that narrative skips over something critical. Without middlemen — like your local car dealer and the shipping company that brought the car to your part of the world — the entire automotive experience would be slower, more expensive, and far less accountable.

Let’s admit it: Americans use middlemen every day. Whether it’s Amazon getting packages to your door or your grocery store stocking fresh produce, these companies act as connectors. They’re the ones that bring products from point A to point B — efficiently, reliably, and at scale. Amazon may be seen as a tech giant, but it’s really a supply chain company, built on logistics and distribution.

Adding value

It’s the same with the auto industry. Cars don’t go straight from the factory to your driveway, nor do you have to drive to Detroit to buy from the manufacturing plant. They move through a massive network — raw materials, parts suppliers, assembly plants, transportation hubs, and finally, your local dealer. Each step adds expertise, accountability, and value to the customer.

This stands in sharp contrast to direct-to-consumer brands like Tesla, which operate without traditional dealerships. Instead, customers place orders online or in company-owned showrooms, often without ever driving the vehicle first.

The company controls everything — from pricing to delivery to service — which might sound efficient, but it removes the local relationship and accountability that dealerships offer. When problems arise, buyers are often left waiting for corporate to respond on its own timeline, without any local recourse or advocacy.

Local connection

And here’s where it matters most to you: the dealership.

Dealers aren’t just there to hand you the keys. They’re your local connection to a global system. When you walk into a showroom, you’re gaining access to a support system. Dealers offer real-time comparisons between different trims and models. You can see the options, test drive them, ask questions, and get answers from someone who knows the product and knows your local driving needs.

You’re not left clicking through an app or talking to a call center on the other side of the country. You’re dealing with someone who wants your repeat business — which is why they also help you navigate the often-complicated world of financing and paperwork.

You’re not navigating the labyrinth of paperwork and regulations for loans, titles, warranties, and insurance on your own. From the time you walk in the door to the time you leave the lot, dealers are making sure your investment is protected. And you’re supporting local businesses, which means jobs and improving the economy around you.

Help desk blues

That’s something direct-to-consumer models can’t replicate. Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle? What if you need help when the battery range underperforms in winter driving?

Without a local dealer, you’re often stuck dealing with a corporate help desk, hoping for a response, with no one nearby to step in. Or you’re waiting for weeks to get your vehicle serviced if it can’t be repaired remotely.

There’s also a bigger issue here — consumer choice. Dealers create competition. When you can walk into several dealerships in your area, compare prices, and negotiate, that gives you leverage. When everything is sold directly through the manufacturer, there’s no competition — only a fixed price and a one-size-fits-all approach.

RELATED: Looking to save big on a car? Dealerships have never been more desperate to sell

David Goddard/Getty Images

Good jobs

Let’s not forget the economic role dealerships play. They employ over a million Americans, often in communities where good jobs are hard to come by. Many are family-owned, multigenerational businesses that reinvest in their towns through local sponsorships, community events, and charitable giving. When you remove them from the equation, you’re not just changing how cars are sold — you’re pulling economic activity away from local communities and concentrating it in corporate headquarters and tech platforms.

At a time when so much of life is becoming impersonal and centralized, local dealerships remain one of the last industries where consumers can actually engage face-to-face, get personalized service, and make informed decisions. This contrasts sharply with Tesla, where a car that doesn’t run gets the “we’ll repair it when we can” treatment.

So the next time you hear someone say we should “cut out the middleman,” stop and think about what that really means. Because in the auto industry, the middleman — your local dealer — isn’t just a convenience. He’s your advocate, your partner, and your safety net.

Eliminating dealers may streamline the process, but in doing so, it strips away the layers of protection and personal service that American car buyers have come to rely on for over a century.

Let’s not make that mistake.

​Car dealerships, Direct-to-consumer, Tesla, Auto industry, Lifestyle, Made in america, Align cars 

“The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart recently attempted to dunk on Blaze media co-founder Glenn Beck by claiming he flip-flopped his position on the Epstein files in unwavering support of President Donald Trump.

Of course, the talk-show host seemed to forget that taking things out of context is disingenuous — but Glenn is unfazed.

“Jon Stewart has been mocking me for years, and that’s fine,” Glenn says.

“The only reason why I want to play this,” he explains before beginning Stewart’s montage, “’cause it’s really not worth it other than for anybody who doesn’t know how the left works. What they do is they take everything out of context, and they twist it to make it look as though I’m saying something that I’m not,” he adds.

“I honestly think my favorite thing about this is watching conspiracy theorists have to unravel the red string that they themselves originally strung out. Here’s the OG conspiracy theorist, Glenn Beck, at his excitement for Trump’s beginning of the second term,” Stewart said, before playing a clip of Glenn saying he believed the Epstein files would be released immediately.

However, Stewart made it seem like Glenn was saying Trump would release the files, when it was really Kash Patel who he thought would release the files.

“I had that on very, very good authority. Trust me, very good authority on that,” Glenn says. “I can’t help that that person that told me that was wrong. It was hard to be wrong, but they were wrong. And so I look like I was just out there on a limb. I don’t really care.”

Stewart then jumps to another clip of Glenn at a chalkboard, about six months later, where he’s explaining why he doesn’t believe Trump is on the Epstein list.

The entire time, Glenn is not stating facts, but rather saying what he believes.

“I asked, ‘Do you believe that?’ Leaving it open for you to say, ‘Yes, I do believe that,’” Glenn says.

“But remember, this whole chalkboard was, ‘What do I feel is most likely,’ not ‘What happened.’ What do I feel is most likely to have happened? Why? I wasn’t excusing no release. I was saying, ‘Why wasn’t there a release? Why didn’t it happen?’ But again, you’ll notice he doesn’t cover that,” he continues.

“This is exactly the way the left works,” he says, adding, “And especially with people like Jon Stewart, who are doing comedy, you take it out of context, and you take it out of context so you can make it funny.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Jon stewart, Late night, The late show, The daily show, Conspiracy theorist, Leftists, Liberals, Epstein files, President trump, Trump administration 

Nowadays, it seems we can be addicted to anything — not just alcohol and drugs, but pornography, random internet browsing, video games, and smartphones. Academic research papers have investigated a wide range of other behaviors including gambling, but also “dance addiction,” “fishing addiction,” “milk tea addiction,” and “cat addiction.” One cheeky paper used the standard medical criteria to show that young people are “addicted” to their real-life friends.

While this trend involves many factors, perhaps the single most important claim that has transformed what might be devoted or enthusiastic behavior into a presumed medical case of addiction is the presence of the neurotransmitter dopamine.

Parents and others are at risk of missing more fundamental mental health issues that could be at the root of the obsessive behavior, potentially harming the very children they seek to help.

Health experts and the popular press tell us that fun activities can give us “dopamine hits” and that overindulging can result in “dopamine blowout.” Indulging too much in naughty activities (somehow, it’s always naughty activities) may create a “dopamine deficit.”

To cite a few of many examples: A Washington Post podcast declared that “dopamine surges” explain why “you can’t stop scrolling, even though you know you should.” The Guardian reported that Silicon Valley is “keen to exploit the brain chemical” to keep us hooked on tech. Earlier this month, CNN told readers that “an addiction expert says it might be time for a ‘dopamine fast.’”

The problem with this scientific-sounding explanation for an alleged explosion in addictive behaviors is that it’s not supported by science. Solid research connecting dopamine spikes to drugs and alcohol — that is, the capacity of one chemical to ignite another — has not been shown to occur in similar ways with other behaviors. Drug use is fundamentally and physiologically different from behaviors that do not rely on pharmaceutical effects. This has been confirmed in humans: Technology, such as video games or social media, simply doesn’t influence dopamine receptors the way illicit substances do.

Experts say what we are seeing instead is pseudoscience that appears to legitimize a moral panic about behaviors that trouble certain segments of society. By falling for this pseudoscience, parents and others are at risk of missing more fundamental mental health issues that could be at the root of the obsessive behavior, potentially harming the very children they seek to help.

“Addiction is an important clinical term with a troubled and weighty history,” said Dean Burnett, a neuroscientist and co-author of a brief explainer of what dopamine does and doesn’t do. “People enduring genuine addiction struggle to be taken seriously or viewed sympathetically at the best of times, so to apply their very serious condition to much more benign actions like scrolling TikTok makes this worse.”

Burnett likens current narratives about dopamine and technology to “science garnish,” effectively adding a dash of scientific language to nonsense beliefs. “It’s the informational equivalent of sprinkling parsley on a lasagna that’s 90% horse offal,” he said. “It may look nicer, but it isn’t.”

The pseudoscience, however, does play a useful role for parents and others who seek to restrict the behaviors they find disturbing. After all, “don’t do X because it will dangerously rewire the reward circuits of your brain and cause addiction” is more compelling than “don’t do X because I don’t like it and think you are wasting your time.”

Growing mistrust of experts

At a time when science has been riven by a series of scandals involving unreliable and falsified research at universities, including Stanford and Harvard, the public is having a harder time distinguishing scientific truth from pseudoscience. As growing numbers of Americans question the veracity of many well-established findings, such as the safety of vaccines, the popularity of the dopamine myth amounts to another misreading of science to serve other purposes in a culture desperate for simplistic moral answers.

Such answers can be found in bookshelves full of titles like “Dopamine Detox” and “Dopamine Reset.” These experts warn us that activities we think make us happy are actually making us unhappy in the long term because we’re doing dopamine wrong.

Advice sites are quite explicit about this: “You can get dopamine either from rich sources like meditating, exercising, or doing something that is meaningful to you and that serves you in the long run. Or you can get dopamine from self-sabotaging activities like eating junk food, scrolling social media mindlessly, or anything that provides pleasure instantly or in the short term. The choice is yours.” At the extreme, people may go on “dopamine detoxes,” avoiding fun activities for some length of time in hopes of resetting their dopamine.

It’s time to put the pseudoscience on dopamine in the dumpster and let kids be kids.

It is not surprising that dopamine has been seized on as a ready explanation for human behavior. Dopamine is a naturally occurring neurotransmitter in the brain. It is involved in a number of behaviors and functions, ranging from movement to memory to executive functioning. It’s also involved in pleasure centers of the brain, particularly anticipatory pleasure. Think of it like the feeling of a child awaiting Christmas, the giddy excitement. That’s often different from Christmas Day itself, which feels less exciting, even if it’s pleasant.

The role played by dopamine in the brain, however, is complicated. Brain functions rarely work out to one-to-one relationships between a single chemical and some horrible outcome. And certainly not in ways that happen to coincidentally flatter people’s pre-existing moral conceits.

Much of what we know about dopamine comes not from humans, but from experiments on rats — which cannot, of course, peruse the internet or use smartphones. In a series of graphs produced by the National Institute on Drug Addiction back in the early 2000s, the difference in activation of dopamine for addictive drugs versus pleasant and normal activities is well documented.

They show that administering stimulant drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine causes massive elevations in dopamine after the drug is introduced. These levels spike to over 300% of baseline for cocaine and a whopping 1,000% for amphetamine.

By contrast, the increase in dopamine levels from routine activities such as food or sex is much lower, about 150% of baseline for food and 200% for sex. And this increase occurs in anticipation of the activity, not afterward.

So yes, there is a kernel of truth in the dopamine/addiction story. Some drugs, as well as routine pleasurable activities, definitely involve dopamine systems. But the key difference is the timing of when and how much of the dopamine is released — before versus after the activity — and this distinction is almost always ignored in scaremongering stories about rampant addiction.

“Addictive drugs are different from natural rewards (e.g. food, water, sex) in that [dopamine] will not stop firing after repeated consumption of the drug, the drive to consume is not satiated because they continue increasing dopamine levels, resulting in likelihood of compulsive behaviors from using drugs and not as likely when using natural rewards,” according to an article in the Journal of Biomedical Research.

Pete Etchells, a professor of psychology at Bath Spa University in England and the author of “Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time,” says research doesn’t support the claim that dopamine drives addiction in other pleasurable behaviors that don’t rely on pharmaceutical effects.

“The role that it plays is really complex, to the point that neuroscientists no longer really consider it the sole or universal factor to consider,” he said. “So when we try to say dopamine ‘surge’ = pleasure surge = addiction, that doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny.”

Is everything addictive?

Part of the confusion over the science comes from the widespread way the term “addiction” is used. Long-standing debates are still ongoing about whether the criteria used to identify substance dependencies still work when applied to everyday hobbies and behaviors such as work, exercise, shopping, sex, video games, or social media.

The problem is apparent when looking at the basic criteria the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual uses for addictive disorders. A person needs to answer “yes” to five of the nine questions below to be diagnosed. In this example, X is the sport or hobby you happen to be passionate about and spend some money on.

Do you think about X (i.e., your passionate hobby) when not doing X?Do you feel bad (sad, anxious) when unable to do X?Do you find yourself spending more time/money on X?Do you notice you’ve kept doing X even when you meant to stop or cut back?Have you given up other hobbies/activities to do X?Have you continued to do X despite it causing obvious problems (i.e., health, work, family commitments)? Have you deceived others about the time you’ve spent doing X?Do you find yourself doing X to relieve negative moods or stress?Have you experienced the loss of a job/school/relationship because of X?

If X is heroin, a yes answer to all of these questions leads to bad results. But it’s not clear that this is true for all the questions when X is eating pizza, reading a book, working out, or playing a video game. If the answer is yes to the question about reading books to relieve negative moods or stress, that’s good. People should do something to relieve negative moods.

The question is whether things like video games or social media are more like heroin or more like books. At present, the best evidence suggests the latter. Older adults may not like these activities, but there’s little evidence that they’re addictive in any analogy to substance abuse. There’s no tolerance and withdrawal from technology. They don’t interact with dopamine systems the same way.

Parents may believe that taking a smartphone or game console away will ‘fix’ their kids’ problems, leaving the real underlying issues unaddressed.

Making matters more complicated is the psychology of why some people overdo some pleasant behaviors. It’s widely believed that behavioral addictions are a feature of the thing that users are using. To be sure, smartphones, for example, are designed with elements like push notifications to hold the attention of users. However, users can easily adjust these settings, and they are hardly an innovation of modern technology. Books often end chapters mid-scene for the same reason.

But such addiction mainly appears to be a feature of the person exhibiting the problems, research shows. Cases of technology overuse can be a symptom of other underlying mental health problems like anxiety and depression, which tend to predate the specific technology addiction. Constant texting is not something done to teenagers by machines via dopamine. By contrast, time spent on technology is a poor predictor of mental health issues.

History of moral panics

As it purports to provide a simple explanation for complex issues, dopamine pseudoscience can be linked to previous moral panics, particularly regarding the new habits of youth. Fear sells, as Frederic Wertham showed in the 1950s when his book “Seduction of the Innocent” gained wide traction for its spurious claim that connected comic books to delinquency and homosexuality.

Today, many schools are enthusiastically attempting to shift blame for their own failures onto technology. At present, evidence suggests that cellphone bans in schools don’t work as well as expected, for instance. Public records requests have revealed that even as some teachers and administrators promote these policies, data from their own schools indicates that some student outcomes worsen after cellphone bans, rather than improve.

RELATED: How Baby Boomers became unlikely digital addicts

Photo by IsiMS via Getty IMages

The false narratives on addiction may end up hurting children in more profound ways, too. They can distract families from the real psychological issues youth face. Parents may believe that taking a smartphone or game console away will “fix” their kids’ problems, leaving the real underlying issues unaddressed. These efforts may even backfire, removing stress reduction and socialization outlets that youth rely on.

It’s time to put the pseudoscience on dopamine in the dumpster and let kids be kids. Some may have mental health issues that need to be addressed, and others, well, mostly need some freedom to explore the world on their own terms.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Dopamine, Addiction, Dopamine addiction, Tiktok, Smartphone, Smartphone addiction, Smartphone ban, Mental health, Children, Psychology 

Gentle parenting — or as BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey calls it, “permissive parenting” — was all the rage for a while. It encouraged parents to replace authority and traditional discipline with empathy, compassion, and positive reinforcement, promising flourishing children who were confident, autonomous, and respectful.

What it really did was birth entire generations of undisciplined kids ruled by their emotions, who loathe authority and don’t understand the first thing about natural consequences. You’ve seen the videos of parents futilely attempting to reason with their screaming 3-year-old who wants to eat dirt or permitting their 6-year-old to smear paint on the walls because she’s just “expressing herself.”

We’ve seen the fruits of gentle parenting. They’re poisoned.

The pendulum, however, is now swinging back. Authoritative parenting — modernly called FAFO, or “f**k around and find out,” parenting — is back in style. Even the Wall Street Journal says so. In a recent article titled “Goodbye Gentle Parenting, Hello ‘F— Around and Find Out,” author Ellen Gamerman defines FAFO parenting as an approach that “[teaches] children accountability through tangible repercussions.”

Allie is relieved that people are finally returning to common sense. “Yes, we should all be authoritative parents,” she says, noting that it’s possible to be an authority while still being gentle in the way the Bible instructs.

“If you’re not the authority in your home, your 3-year-old’s going to be the authority in your home. That is disordered, and you are setting them up for failure,” Allie warns.

“[Children] don’t have the emotional regulation, the maturity, to be able to do that.”

According to the WSJ article, FAFO parenting depends on letting children suffer the natural consequences of their actions. “FAFO is based on the idea that parents can ask and warn, but if a child breaks the rules, mom and dad aren’t standing in the way of the repercussions. Won’t bring your raincoat? Walk home in the downpour. Didn’t feel like having lasagna for dinner? Survive until breakfast. Left your toy on the floor again? Go find it in the trash under the lasagna you didn’t eat,” Gamerman writes.

She also stated that “critics blame the [gentle parenting] approach for some of Gen Z’s problems in adulthood.”

Allie agrees, “Yes! Like not being able to look in people’s eyes … and just, like, the overemphasis on, ‘I’m sorry, like, that’s outside of my realm of comfort. I’m not comfortable doing that. I don’t want to do that. That’s outside of my boundary.’”

The difference between the thriving Gen Zers and the stereotypical ones who get roasted for their laziness and entitlement, Allie says, is that the first group “had good parents … who told them no.”

“They had parents who said, … ‘You’re not going to get a phone when you’re 11. You’re not going to have social media when you’re 13,” she says.

“The parents who knew that their role was to steward and to be an authority and to love their children … while still being as kind and as gentle and as supportive as possible — those are the kids I’ve seen that can look you in the eye, that can sit through dinner and they’re not looking at their phone. They’re not obsessed with social media; they’re not obsessed with themselves; they’re willing to work hard even when it’s not fun.”

To hear more of Allie’s commentary, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Blaze media, Gentle parenting, Fafo, Fafo parenting, Gen z