LOL Culture as the Modern Cry for Fatherhood: From Controversial TikTok Creations to Deserved Knockouts and Epistolary Heroism to Sad Cries of 'I'm a Liar'
Social media comments, TikTok videos, messages, emails, and other spontaneous expressions of thought—especially those marked by criticism and ad hominem attacks—serve as fertile ground for the unfiltered flow of consciousness. These unrestrained expressions often resemble the literary streams of thought exemplified by Leopold Bloom in Joyce's Ulysses and Prince Hamlet in Shakespeare's Hamlet. In both cases, the protagonists' fragmented, self-reflective musings mirror the chaotic inner worlds of individuals in the digital age—whether mourning the loss of a son and grappling with their own insufficiency as a father, mourning the loss of a father as a symbol of order, dealing with the infidelity of a spouse, or experiencing all of the above.
The tendency to lash out from a safe distance, using online platforms as a battleground for venting frustrations, can often be traced back to a deep-seated yearning for structure and authority. The content of these rants frequently echoes the unresolved need for cultural norms, boundaries, and rules that were absent during formative years—a void often attributed to the absence or failure of the father figure. In this sense, the pervasive chaos of online discourse—with its disjointed arguments and emotional outbursts—resembles Hamlet’s existential crisis and Bloom’s wandering thoughts, both reflecting a search for stability and meaning.
In essence, the modern LOL culture—characterized by sarcasm, irony, and impulsive commentary—is not merely a product of technological innovation but a cultural manifestation of a profound psychological void. Much of what appears "rotten in Denmark" today may be interpreted as a collective and tragic cry for the father—a cry for the structure, order, and moral boundaries that were never firmly established.
The Psychological Realism of LOL Culture
In the realm of LOL culture, the traditional value of precision in speech and writing has been overshadowed by a pervasive tendency to frame expressions as merely "my truth," "a reaction," or "just humor." This approach grants individuals the freedom to say practically anything without bearing the burden of accountability or logical consistency. Social media posts, reactionary comments, spontaneous messages, and even lengthy emails often take on a stream-of-consciousness style that, upon closer examination, reveals profound insights into both individual psychology and broader societal trends.
If one were to take the unfiltered expressions from social media—whether comments, messages, or reaction videos—and transcribe them into a cohesive format resembling a novel or a well-formatted manuscript, the result would often be jarring. Surprisingly, the shock does not arise from grammatical errors—autocorrect typically addresses those. Rather, the discomfort stems from the sheer absurdity and the deeper psychological or even pathological undercurrents of the speech itself when presented in a structured, printed form.
When confronted with their own words in print, many individuals experience a sense of disbelief and confusion. This reaction occurs not because the text is incomprehensible or poorly written, but because the content itself appears irrational, narcissistic, or incoherent. In many cases, people perceive the author of their own words as being "pathologically narcissistic," "childish and unintelligent," "angry and irritable," or even "brutally dishonest."
This phenomenon is not purely theoretical. In controlled settings, we have tested this effect by presenting individuals with verbatim transcripts of their own social media interactions, sometimes from just six months prior, formatted neatly and mixed with similar texts from others. The responses were remarkably consistent—people often failed to recognize their own wordsand described the unidentified author as mentally unstable or socially dysfunctional. This reaction underscores a crucial insight: the spontaneity and emotional charge of online interactions create a distorted self-perception, only revealed when those fleeting moments are captured and formalized.
The psychological realism of LOL culture lies in its ability to expose the unrestrained, unfiltered nature of human expression as mediated through digital platforms. The disparity between how individuals perceive themselves in the moment and how they view their own words in retrospect highlights a profound cognitive dissonance—a disconnect between real-time expression and reflective self-awareness. However, therein lies the rub (as Hamlet said)—the very nature of this distancing allows one to “peek into” the minds of the authors, sometimes even more accurately than they can themselves.
Realism of Digital Expression
Online discourse—particularly within the LOL culture—is not merely a reflection of rational thought but rather a manifestation of emotionally driven cognition. The fast-paced nature of digital interactions, sometimes combined with the fragmented presentation of comments, fosters a mindset where authorship and accountability are blurred. The tendency to cluster similar content without recognizing individual contribution demonstrates how emotional priming and contextual biases shape online behavior.
Ultimately, these effects reveal a core irony of digital expression: individuals who vent emotionally online may later view their own statements with detachment or disdain, unable to recognize the personality behind the words when presented in a new context. This dissonance underscores the psychological gap between impulsive self-expression and reflective self-awareness.
Strong Effects of Attribution Bias
The results of our analysis reconfirm a well-established psychological principle: attribution bias significantly influences how individuals judge speech or written content. When people assume that a statement or text was created by someone else, they tend to criticize it more harshly compared to when they know it is their own. This phenomenon is widely recognized in psychology and has been demonstrated in numerous studies.
Some Studies Demonstrating Attribution Bias
Greenwald & Banaji (1995):
This study explored implicit self-esteem and revealed that people unconsciously value their own opinions and expressions more than those of others. However, this effect diminishes significantly when ownership is not explicit. Participants tended to judge more favorably when they knew the content was their own.
Mandler et al. (2014):
In a study on music composition, participants rated anonymous pieces significantly lower compared to compositions they believed they had created. A similar experiment with poetry found that individuals failed to recognize their own verses and critiqued them more harshly when they thought the poems belonged to others.
Epley & Dunning (2000):
In this experiment, participants were asked to evaluate speeches they believed were delivered by others. When later informed that they themselves were the speakers, the ratings improved significantly. This study highlights how perceived ownership alters critical evaluation, demonstrating that people tend to harshly criticize speeches when assuming the speaker is someone else, while showing leniency when they know it is their own.
Attribution Bias in Evaluating Online Comments
When individuals were presented with their own comments in a neutral, anonymous context, they displayed no mercy in evaluating the content. They often labeled the thoughts they had previously expressed as unintelligent, biased, reactionary, uninformed, gossiping, irresponsible, and even malicious. Remarkably, even when the only alteration was replacing names within the comments, the reactions remained equally harsh.
One particularly telling case involved a calm and collected middle-aged man who judged the supposed author of his own comment as a "psychopathic and sick individual." He expressed these judgments despite the fact that the comment was his own, written less than a year prior. This phenomenon exemplifies the power of attribution bias: when ownership is obscured, even the originator of the content may disavow it and project negative traits onto the perceived author.
This stark contrast between self-perception and external judgment reveals how attribution bias can lead to self-alienation when the ownership of thoughts is obscured. People may find themselves detached from their own previous expressions, especially when these are framed neutrally or critically. The tendency to label one’s own past statements as irrational or even pathological when separated from personal identity underscores a broader psychological mechanism: the mind’s reluctance to associate negative traits with one’s self-image.
In this way, attribution bias not only distorts the judgment of others but can also skew self-assessment when context and authorship are manipulated. As we will later demonstrate, this often represents an encounter with the unintegrated “shadow side” or the internal evil of the author themselves.
Mechanics of LOL Culture as a Lack of Responsibility and Ownership of the Message
What we observe in the comments, posts, and messages characteristic of LOL Culture are fragmented expressions of an unfiltered stream of consciousness. These fragments—often presented as humor, sarcasm, mockery, or insults—serve as coping mechanisms, reflecting the chaotic inner states of individuals. The rise of the internet, social media, and messaging platforms has significantly lowered the barrier between individuals, creating an ideal environment for the darker aspects of personality to manifest, particularly the Dark Tetrad traits: psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism.
The core mechanism of LOL Culture is detachment—specifically, a lack of responsibility regarding ownership of the message. Writing from a distance generates a psychological phenomenon where the author owns the message only at the moment of composition and sending. Once the message is released into the digital space, responsibility for it is often disowned—either completely (especially with anonymous comments) or partially (with messages and emails).
This dissociative mechanism of persona (but not the unconscious) allows individuals to separate themselves from the content they produced. This phenomenon, which we have empirically tested and which previous studies have also confirmed, vividly reveals internal desires and psychological currents that the individual often does not consciously recognize.
Safety Behind the Screen
This cognitive blind spot becomes especially pronounced in LOL Culture, where reactionary commentary has largely replaced thoughtful discourse. The rapid detachment from personal responsibility fosters a societal trend of reactionary madness, characterized by emotionally charged interactions that lack critical reflection. The result is a cultural shift where mockery overtakes respect.
In traditional contexts, respectability involved honoring one’s opponent and taking ownership of one’s words. In contrast, LOL Culture often mocks perceived weakness without engaging directly, allowing individuals to say practically anything behind the safety of a screen. The risk of direct confrontation is absent, so provocative and irresponsible statements flourish.
Another critical aspect is the phenomenon of "wicked collaboration": individuals participate in social contexts (such as groups or comment threads) where mockery becomes a collective act. In this setting, a reference to someone else’s statement becomes accepted as a fact, especially when comments rhyme with each other or amplify the same speculation. Peer validation substitutes for personal accountability or fact-checking.
A Sad Reflection of Self-Deception
LOL Culture, at its core, reflects a cultural pathology where the unwillingness to accept responsibility for one’s expressions leads to a distorted sense of self. Individuals engage in self-serving biases that preserve an idealized identity while simultaneously disowning their own problematic behaviors when those behaviors appear detached from personal authorship. This disconnect highlights a fundamental failure of self-awareness—a modern phenomenon in which social validation replaces moral integrity.
Ultimately, LOL Culture exemplifies a crisis of accountability, where the lack of ownership of one’s words fosters a culture of irresponsibility, eroding the depth and sincerity that once characterized human interaction. Next, we will examine where this phenomenon stems from.
Leopold Bloom and the Typical Father-Son Dynamics
When we analyze the deeper layers behind the messages, comments, and emails characteristic of LOL Culture, we often find a more profound phenomenon: a via regia to the open and hidden aspects of consciousness. Despite the seemingly superficial and detached nature of these expressions—often disowned by their authors upon reflection—they offer a direct insight into the fragmented psyche of the individual.
This dynamic echoes what James Joyce masterfully portrayed in Ulysses. His characters, especially Leopold Bloom, embody fragmented, wandering thoughts that blend memories, sensory perceptions, and immediate experiences. This meandering consciousness mirrors the cognitive noise inherent in human thought, where rational deliberation intermingles with impulsive, scattered ideas.
Bloom’s internal monologue often unveils repressed guilt and sexual desire, most notably in his ruminations about the loss of his son and his wife Molly’s infidelity. These suppressed feelings seep through the darker recesses of his consciousness, hinting at the unresolved inner turmoil that characterizes human introspection.
Bloom’s Fragmented Consciousness as Psychological Richness
Bloom’s daydreams and erratic reflections highlight the ego’s struggle to balance desire and social norms, a central theme in Freudian theory. His grief over his deceased son, Rudy, embodies paternal guilt and feelings of inadequacy, aligning with Freud’s concept of Thanatos (the death drive). In contrast, his sexual thoughts reflect Eros (the life drive), emphasizing the duality of human nature. The psychological richness of this stream of consciousness lies in how it reveals the self through fragmented inner dialogue, exposing the tension between sexuality and mortality.
Bloom’s internal conflicts mirror the father-son dynamic central to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Just as Hamlet struggles with the legacy of his father, Bloom grapples with his identity as a father and the loss of his son. In both narratives, the themes of guilt, inadequacy, and unresolved mourning converge into a psychological quest for meaning. This dynamic is not just about biological fatherhood but about the symbolic search for guidance and validation—a quest for paternal mentorship that transcends mere biological ties.
The Father-Son Tension in Ulysses
Ulysses presents a complex father-son dynamic that revolves around the tension between dependence and autonomy. Bloom’s self-reflective musings blur the line between reality and imagination, illustrating the fluidity between internal experience and external reality. In this sense, Bloom becomes a modern-day Odysseus—not fighting epic battles, but navigating the mundane challenges of fidelity, fatherhood, and identity. He realizes the impossibility of fully embodying the role of the father, acknowledging the chaos within himself. Rather than presenting a clear solution or aim, the novel vividly portrays the fragmented nature of his inner world and its multiple facets.
This dynamic also reflects Jung’s concept of individuation, where ordinary experiences become catalysts for personal growth. The relationship between Stephen Dedalus (who can be seen as Bloom’s alter ego and his symbolic younger self) and Leopold Bloom symbolizes a modern reimagining of the father-son bond—one where intellectual mentorship replaces paternal dominance. Stephen’s ultimate desire is not just for a biological father but for a mentor who can validate his intellectual and personal aspirations without overshadowing his sense of self.
In this way, Ulysses does more than just depict paternal dynamics; it questions the nature of guidance and independence in the modern world. Bloom’s mundane struggles become a metaphor for the epic journey of self-discovery, illustrating how everyday challenges form the building blocks of identity. Just as Hamlet’s cry for a father resonates as a yearning for moral and existential direction, Bloom’s fragmented thoughts reflect the human quest for meaning amid routine and loss.
LOL Culture as a Modern Odyssey
Drawing a parallel with LOL Culture, the detached and fragmented nature of online expressions similarly reveals a crisis of identity and responsibility. Just as Bloom’s thoughts meander between past traumas and present uncertainties, social media posts often oscillate between humor, bitterness, and unresolved inner conflicts. The lack of ownership prevalent in online discourse mirrors Bloom’s struggle to confront his own truths. In both cases, the tension between self-perception and external reality remains unresolved, leading to detachment and self-alienation.
The LOL Culture thus emerges as a modern cry for the father—a symbolic yearning for structure, guidance, and coherent identity. Just as Bloom and Hamlet navigate the void left by absent father figures, modern individuals grapple with identity fragmentation in a digitally mediated world. The lack of accountability and ephemeral nature of online interactions only amplify this struggle, leaving individuals trapped in a perpetual quest for validation without the solid foundation that paternal authority traditionally provided.
Longing for the Guidance of the Father - Hamlet’s Desire
In both Leopold Bloom’s introspective monologues and Hamlet’s existential soliloquies, we witness a profound longing for paternal guidance. Bloom’s reflections on the void left by his deceased son parallel Hamlet’s internal conflict, where the underlying tension is driven by the desire for a strong father-son relationship. Joyce’s portrayal of the role of the father as a central axis of moral and existential orientation resonates with Shakespeare’s depiction of King Hamlet in Hamlet.
The Father as the Moral Anchor
King Hamlet is portrayed as a heroic and honorable figure, embodying the archetype of the strong, just, and noble king—an image that young Hamlet venerates and considers his iconic absolute. In essence, King Hamlet is not merely a biological father but a symbol of moral order and righteous rule. After his death, he becomes both a heavenly father and an earthly father combined. He represents a normative moral structure that provides clear absolutes, grounded in a logical, fair, and reasonable foundation. His death not only leaves Hamlet grief-stricken but also morally unanchored, as his father was the guiding moral force in his life.
Without his father’s steady hand, Hamlet finds himself adrift—both in terms of monotheistic moral direction (knowing where to go and how to lead) and in understanding boundaries (knowing what is allowed and where the moral limits lie). The sudden absence of guidance leaves Hamlet floating aimlessly, unable to reconcile his internal turmoil with the external reality.
Claudius as the Corruption of Fatherhood
In stark contrast, Claudius—the usurping uncle and stepfather—embodies a perverted form of fatherhood: deceitful, manipulative, and power-hungry. Hamlet’s intense repulsion towards Claudius is rooted not only in the murder of King Hamlet but also in the way Claudius profanes the ideal of kingship and fatherhood. By killing his brother and seizing the throne, Claudius disrupts the moral order, corrupting the very principles of leadership and paternal authority that King Hamlet once embodied.
This corruption amplifies Hamlet’s existential crisis, as Claudius represents the antithesis of paternal virtue—the very opposite of what Hamlet yearns for. He is a stepfather who can never replace the real father. Claudius does not guide or nurture; instead, he exploits, manipulates, and deceives. The presence of such a morally corrupt figure is far worse than simply losing one’s father, as it leaves Hamlet struggling to navigate a world where truth and justice seem irreparably compromised.
The Longing for the Father’s Strong Hand
At the core of Hamlet’s quest for revenge is his desire to honor his father’s legacy—to restore the moral order and reclaim the lost culture of responsibility and honor. Hamlet’s pursuit of vengeance is not merely personal but symbolic—a fight to reestablish his father’s rule and the ethical structure it represented. His internal conflict intensifies with the Ghost’s presence, which serves as a manifestation of his unresolved duty. The Ghost amplifies Hamlet’s struggle between filial piety and moral integrity, underscoring the absence of clear paternal guidance.
Hamlet’s identity crisis is fundamentally rooted in the disappearance of his father’s stabilizing influence. In a world where his father’s principles have been violently overturned, Hamlet’s famous soliloquies reveal his desperate search for meaning. The "To be, or not to be" soliloquy, for instance, is not just a reflection on life and death but a lament for the loss of moral clarity. The absence of his father leaves Hamlet questioning the very essence of existence, as the moral compass he once relied upon has been shattered.
The mind will inevitably suffer when there is no aim or boundaries—fathers give sons meaning in life over time, just as much as sons do the same for their fathers. This reciprocal relationship between father and son is crucial, as it grounds both in a shared sense of purpose and moral direction.
Father-Son Dynamics as a Search for Moral Order
Both Leopold Bloom and Hamlet exemplify the psychological devastation that arises from the loss of paternal guidance. In Ulysses, Bloom’s fragmented consciousness reflects a longing for coherence and direction that parallels Hamlet’s quest for justice and order. In both cases, the absence of the father figure results in a disorienting quest for purpose, where self-reflection becomes burdened by unresolved guilt and unfulfilled expectations. There is a constant cry, reminiscent of Yalom’s recurrent dream that echoed in Momma and the Meaning of Life: Tales of Psychotherapy: "Momma, how'd I do?"Here, it transforms into “Father, how should I do?”, “Where are the borders?”, “Have I gone too far, or am I not far enough?”, “What is right?”
Bloom’s internal musings and Hamlet’s soliloquies both demonstrate that the craving for a strong paternal presence is more than a personal desire; it is a symbolic yearning for a stable moral framework. Hamlet’s drive to avenge his father’s death becomes a metaphor for reclaiming moral integrity, while Bloom’s wandering thoughts reflect the search for identity and redemption in the face of existential fragmentation.
LOL Culture and the Longing for Moral Structure
In a modern context, LOL Culture represents a similar longing for structure and moral direction. Just as Hamlet’s moral confusion stems from the lack of a guiding father figure, the chaotic and reactionary nature of online interactions often reflects a lack of grounded values and moral limitations. The detachment from accountability in digital spaces can be seen as a symbolic rejection of paternal authority, where individuals express fragmented thoughts without the responsibility of ownership. Thus, the quest for the father’s strong hand is not merely a literary theme but a perennial human struggle—a search for moral clarity and guidance in an increasingly disoriented world.
The fundamental message of Hamlet is that without moral and social order, chaos inevitably prevails. At its core, this theme highlights a crucial truth: the father is an integral part of our identity, and we need paternal guidance to maintain internal order. The loss of King Hamlet symbolizes the collapse of moral structure, while Claudius’ rise to power represents the corruption and decay that follow when legitimate authority is undermined. If the father leaves (either dies mentally or physically) without passing on moral clarity to the next generation, the failure becomes inherent and inevitable.
Leopold Bloom articulates this realization, while Hamlet profoundly feels its gravity, leading to a yearning for moral direction. Much like Nietzsche’s skepticism about humanity's ability to define values in a world where God is dead, this theme resonates with the modern sense of disorientation—a child feels lost if there is no moral guidance from the father. In The Gay Science, Nietzsche expresses this existential crisis through the figure of the madman:
"'Whither is God?' he cried; 'I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually?"
This profound sense of emptiness that Nietzsche describes is precisely the void that both Hamlet and Bloom recognize—a pervasive lack of guidance and moral structure. It is also one of the driving forces behind modern LOL Culture, where the absence of a clear moral anchor fosters chaotic and often irresponsible expressions.
Fatherlessness: Descent into Madness
Hamlet’s descent into madness can be seen as a direct consequence of losing a guiding moral framework, a void left by the murder of his father. At the story’s end, Hamlet’s death symbolizes his final submission to the chaos that has enveloped his world—a tragic acceptance of the void left by his father’s absence. Without King Hamlet’s guiding hand, his path leads to destruction, emphasizing that Hamlet’s inability to replace his father figure with a worthy substitute ultimately seals his fate.
The tragedy lies in the absence of the father’s strong hand—a figure essential not just to Hamlet’s personal growth but to societal stability. This is a universal truth: both men and women require the moral clarity that a father figuretraditionally provides. More than merely seeking revenge, Hamlet longs to reestablish a moral world where fathers are wise, just protectors. The father’s role is not merely to set rules but to exemplify moral integrity through personal example.
Revenge as a Quest for Lost Masculinity
Hamlet’s act of revenge is not just a response to his father’s murder but a symbolic attempt to reclaim his own masculinity and dignity. However, without his father’s moral guidance, the act itself becomes chaotic and tragic. Hamlet’s struggle is not purely about vengeance; it is about reclaiming his father’s moral clarity in a world now dominated by deceit and moral compromise.
Thus, in Hamlet, the need for a father figure transcends personal longing—it is a structural and moral necessity. The loss of King Hamlet leaves a moral vacuum that Claudius’ illegitimate authority cannot fill. Hamlet’s quest for vengeance is more than a personal mission; it is an attempt to restore the ideal of paternal integrity in a world that has betrayed it.
The tragedy of Hamlet lies not only in the loss of his life but in the irrecoverable loss of the guiding moral force that his father once represented. Without that anchor, Hamlet’s journey becomes one of inevitable chaos, highlighting a core existential truth: when the father’s moral authority is lost, order collapses, and chaos prevails.
Modern Reflection: The Loss of Moral Anchors
In contemporary society, this fatherlessness can be observed in LOL Culture, where the lack of moral guidance leads to reactionary outbursts and disjointed thinking. Just as Hamlet struggles without his father’s stabilizing presence, modern individuals—detached from traditional moral frameworks—find themselves adrift, expressing fragmented ideas without moral coherence. The crisis of identity and responsibility that Hamlet experiences mirrors the modern cultural malaise, where the loss of paternal authority results in moral ambiguity and emotional instability.
Ultimately, Hamlet’s story is a timeless cautionary tale about the necessity of paternal guidance. Without the father’s hand to set boundaries and uphold moral values, both the individual psyche and society at large risk descending into disorder, chaos, and entropy. This loss of order is not just a theatrical motif but a fundamental human experience, reminding us of the critical role that moral fathers play in shaping meaningful, balanced lives.
Pseudo-Hamlets of LOL Culture
Who are the modern-day versions of Hamlet and Leopold Bloom—those who struggle with the void left by fractured father-son dynamics? To answer this, we need only look around at the madness that surrounds us in contemporary society, especially as reflected in LOL Culture.
Imagine a son who has grown up with an insufficient relationship with his father. Ironically, his father may hold a respectable position—perhaps as a state official, a manager at a public company, or an employee at a reputable state-owned enterprise. Yet, despite this external respectability, the moral guidance and rule-setting that the son craves are notably absent.
The son, now in his thirties, attempts to establish a family, perhaps even having one child or several of his own. Yet, despite his efforts at maturity and responsibility, he remains haunted by a longing for the strong, guiding hand that his own father failed to provide. In the absence of this moral structure, he may resort to broadcasting his life through short videos on social media—ranting about his domestic struggles, conflicts with his wife, and frustrations with family life, often openly blaming and criticizing his wife’s shortcomings.
Perhaps the wife has developed a drinking problem or exhibits socially destructive behavior, further adding to his sense of chaos and disorder. In his vulnerable state, the man’s public outbursts and social media rants reveal not just his personal struggles but a deeper societal issue: the absence of a strong paternal figure leads to unresolved identity conflicts, perpetuating the cycle of chaos and unanchored masculinity.
A Cry for Help Disguised as LOL Culture
What is this behavior, at its core? It is not simply attention-seeking or performance—it is a cry for help. The mocking tone, the ironic detachment, and the broadcasting of personal failures are all symptomatic of a deep-seated yearning for order and paternal guidance. The man, in essence, is lamenting the absence of his “King Hamlet”—the father figure who should have set clear moral boundaries and provided a solid foundation for responsible adult behavior.
This epistolary romanticism, wrapped in the LOL Culture format—mocking his wife, his circumstances, or even society at large from a safe distance—is the modern equivalent of Hamlet’s soliloquies. It is the self-narration of inner chaos, an attempt to make sense of the disorder when paternal authority has failed.
The Crisis of Confrontation: From Virtual to Real
Now imagine that this “Pseudo-Hamlet,” in a moment of heightened emotional tension, discovers that his girlfriend is spending time with another man. Driven by a desire to "set things right," he grabs his smartphone and rushes to broadcast his confrontation—hoping that the act of capturing his response will somehow reclaim his masculinity and reassert his lost authority.
But the unexpected happens: the new companion of his girlfriend—a stronger and more assertive figure—knocks him down, leaving him unconscious. The camera captures not a victory but a humiliating defeat. At first glance, it may seem tragic or even pathetic, but in the endgame, this moment of physical reality colliding with his virtual performance becomes a wake-up call.
In an ironic twist, this physical reprimand—a brutal encounter with the Real—is precisely what the man subconsciously craved and desired. It serves as a form of guidance from a “father figure” that his own father never provided—albeit in a painful and humiliating form. This collision of fantasy and reality forces the man to confront his own immaturity and lack of masculine direction.
The Real vs. the Virtual
This moment of defeat is not just humiliation; it is a healthy contact with the Real—a rude awakening from his virtualized existence to the concrete reality of his inadequacy. Just as Hamlet’s madness represents his struggle to reconcile ideals with a corrupted reality, the Pseudo-Hamlet of the modern age grapples with the same void—but through the detached and performative lens of social media.
Žižek would interpret this incident as an intrusion of the Real into an ideological fantasy. The fantasy here is the illusion that words equate to actions—that mocking people online grants real dominance. The Real disrupts this fantasy, reminding both the TikToker and his audience that symbolic provocation does not guarantee safety in the real world.
In essence, the knockout can be seen as an encounter with the Real because it punctures the constructed reality of the TikToker, confronting him and his audience with the harsh, unavoidable truth: Words have real-world consequences. It becomes a moment of jouissance—a collision of pain, humiliation, and harsh reality that defies his prior online persona. Followers who were used to seeing him as the provocateur now witness him as the victim of unmediated reality. His carefully crafted symbolic position is obliterated, revealing the bare truth of his physical vulnerability.
The Tragic Cycle of LOL Culture
LOL Culture, with its mocking detachment, ultimately fails to provide the structure that a father’s moral hand should have set. Without strong paternal guidance, these men attempt to recreate order through chaotic performances that inadvertently expose their deep-seated vulnerabilities.
The real tragedy lies not just in the humiliation itself but in the perpetuation of this cycle: men raised without firm moral guidance struggle to navigate adulthood, often repeating the same patterns in their own family dynamics. In the absence of a moral framework, they oscillate between virtual bravado and real-world impotence, perpetuating a cycle of chaos and fragmented identity.
Leopolds, Hamlets, and Borders
In the previous example, we saw a man in his thirties attempting to break free from the realm of LOL Culture by confronting the Real—only to be knocked out during his attempt to reclaim his masculinity. This incident highlights a crucial phenomenon: the transition from virtual performance to harsh reality. However, this dynamic is not exclusive to younger men. Similar patterns emerge among older "Hamlets" and "Leopolds"—men in their 50s and 60s—who, despite their age, still struggle with the void left by paternal absence.
Instead of producing TikTok videos or short reaction clips, these older pseudo-Hamlets resort to long, insulting emails or lengthy written rants. The mechanism remains the same: they exaggerate, distort the truth, and mock others with the same detached irony characteristic of LOL Culture. However, these older iterations are often more pathological, as they craft elaborate narratives where they position themselves as heroes fighting against villains, or as saviors rescuing perceived victims.
The Pathological Epistolary Style
These long, verbose messages resemble a kind of epistolary madness, where delusional narratives unfold through lengthy, self-justifying monologues. The tone is often grandiose and accusatory, weaving personal myths in which the author is either the heroic protagonist or the sole voice of reason in a world plagued by deceit and incompetence. Unlike the TikTok generation, these men do not seek public validation through quick, flashy clips; instead, they construct extensive justifications to rationalize their frustrations and perceived injustices.
One striking observation is that in real-life interactions, these men rarely manage to uphold the ad hominem insults they so confidently include in their emails or messages. Why is that? Because in face-to-face encounters, they would likely be called out on their lies, confronted with direct opposition, and forced to deal with symmetrical responses. When caught off guard in public, they often collapse, confessing in a trembling voice, “Yes, I’m a liar. I’m a liar.” It is the epitaph of collapsed manliness—a moment where bravado dissipates into vulnerability.
Real-life confrontations do not tolerate such one-sided, unchecked storytelling. When faced with the possibility of escalation, rather than standing their ground as men, they often resort to passivity—accepting humiliation, name-calling, and insults—while desperately seeking witnesses instead of holding their own. Yet, behind a computer screen, these fantastical narratives can flourish unchallenged. This is the essence of LOL Culture, and it is nothing to celebrate. It is, at its core, profoundly sad, as it perpetuates a cycle that produces the next generation following the same passive, feminine pattern.
The Screen as a Safe Haven for Delusion
The computer screen acts as a protective barrier, allowing them to project their fantasies without the immediate risk of being contradicted. This safe distance encourages the same stream-of-consciousness style seen in Leopold Bloom’s wandering thoughts or Hamlet’s monologues—a meandering flow that mixes personal pain, perceived betrayal, and grandiose self-justification. These epistolary rants reveal a deep-seated fear of approaching death without meaning, a lingering void from inadequate fatherhood, and a gnawing sense of betrayal, particularly by cheating or disloyal partners.
Just as Leopold Bloom mourns his wife Molly’s infidelity and Hamlet struggles with the loss of King Hamlet and the moral decay of Denmark, these modern pseudo-Hamlets grapple with existential despair. Their endless storytelling becomes an attempt to create meaning where none exists—a literary outpouring of unresolved trauma and unfulfilled paternal longing.
Denial and Resistance to Self-Reflection
Interestingly, a 60-year-old man would rarely admit to such voids or longings for paternal guidance. Instead, he might deny any resemblance to LOL Culture, claiming to be rational, mature, centered, and composed. Yet, when their written rants are analyzed objectively, the similarities with the younger pseudo-Hamlets and TikTokers become unmistakable. The pattern remains: a craving for validation, a rejection of perceived betrayal, and a longing for moral certainty—all masked as self-righteous indignation. The language may be more sophisticated to a degree, but as they say—pathologies don’t lie—those patterns match.
These men would put up a fierce verbal fight to deny their participation in LOL Culture, insisting that their long-winded messages are rational critiques rather than cries for help. Yet, the cognitive patterns—the frustrated monologues, the anger at betrayal, the struggle with aging and lost masculinity—mirror the same themes found in younger men, only expressed in a more epistolary and self-aggrandizing form.
The Real-Life Confrontation Avoided
While the younger pseudo-Hamlets might rush to confront their perceived rivals, capturing the scene on social media, the older counterparts rarely engage directly. Instead, they prefer to craft written condemnations where emotional intensity replaces logical consistency. This difference is not due to a lack of desire for confrontation but rather a deeper fear of being exposed—a fear that the fantasy of control might collapse under real-world scrutiny.
In the end, these older Leopolds and Hamlets remain trapped in their narratives, unable to step out from behind the screen and face the Real. Their virtual rants reveal a deep-seated yearning for guidance and moral order, echoing Hamlet’s longing for King Hamlet’s firm hand and Bloom’s fragmented search for meaning. Yet, unlike the younger generation, they mask their vulnerability with grandiose storytelling, further alienating themselves from the truth of their own predicament.
At the bottom of that lies deep hurt and unresolved pain—a silent cry for help to a father who is gone. The uncertainty that the unanswered questions from the father will remain unanswered is a heavy burden. It is difficult to complete a life with meaning if the fundamental rules are not in place.
There is a profound duty of the father—by far the most important one—to instill a normative framework so strong that it cannot be broken. Yet, this is no easy task. When this responsibility has been neglected or carried out improperly, there is little hope that the son or daughter will be able to establish it on their own. Achieving this independently requires a quantum leap—a near-miraculous transformation akin to what Nietzsche envisioned with the concept of the Übermensch.
The Cycle of Unresolved Fatherhood
Both the younger and older pseudo-Hamlets reflect a modern tragedy: the inability to reconcile the loss of paternal authority with mature self-ownership. Instead of acknowledging their vulnerabilities, they project their struggles onto mockery, storytelling, or long monologues. The essential cry for guidance remains, but it is camouflaged behind performative anger and detached irony.
Just as Hamlet’s quest for revenge is ultimately a quest for his father’s moral clarity, these modern pseudo-Hamlets unconsciously seek guidance that was never adequately given. Without confronting their own need for paternal direction, they remain trapped in narratives of grievance, projecting their unresolved conflicts through the LOL Culture format—whether in short clips or long emails.
In the absence of a real, guiding hand, they continue to perform their masculinity, unaware that the louder the proclamation, the more apparent the void. The true tragedy lies not in their occasional moments of humiliation but in their inability to transform fragmented narratives into coherent self-ownership.
The Root Cause of LOL Culture
At the heart of LOL Culture lies a fundamental crisis: the demonization and toxification of manhood. This cultural shift manifests in behaviors that might seem immature or irrational, such as a 60-year-old man fabricating easily disprovable lies or name-calling in the tone of a teenager. The root cause is often the absence of clearly defined boundaries set by a father figure. It reflects a failure of Generation X to learn from their fathers, who themselves may have been emotionally distant or unable to model responsible masculinity.
On the other hand, the 30-year-old TikToker who livestreams himself getting knocked out also embodies this crisis. His actions reflect not just personal recklessness but a broader societal issue: the demand for softness, empathy, and love as core elements of modern masculinity. This feminization of manhood, while valuable in certain contexts, does not replace the essential need for moral order and authority—a role traditionally fulfilled by fatherhood.
Softness and Order: The Cultural Dissonance
Values such as softness, empathy, mindfulness, and presence are increasingly emphasized as ideal masculine traits. However, these qualities, while important in interpersonal relationships, do not establish the order and moral structure that fatherhood historically provided. The lack of firm moral guidance pushes men to seek validation through performative acts, often resulting in LOL Culture—a public expression of internal chaos disguised as humor or sarcasm.
LOL Culture itself is a symptom of a deeper problem: the societal obsession with perfect order. There is a prevalent fantasy of absolute certainty, where life resembles a pristine Garden of Eden—floors not only mopped but also disinfected, every object meticulously placed, and chaos seemingly banished. Yet, this illusion of external orderis fundamentally flawed. It reflects an externalization of internal disorder—the more someone obsessively orders their surroundings, the more it often correlates with a lack of internal moral order.
The symbolic epitaph of this phenomenon is an elderly gentleman living in impeccably maintained surroundings, while simultaneously pouring out his internal chaos through LOL Culture methods—whether through lengthy ranting emails, social media posts, or pointless online arguments. This cry for help is not just a reflection of personal dissatisfaction but an expression of the void left by failed fatherhood.
The reality is far harsher than the fantasy of order. Encounters with the Real are sudden, shocking, and often traumatic. These moments, which Nassim Taleb would describe as "black swan events", appear unexpected at firstbut seem logical in retrospect. The tragic, final video of the unfortunate TikToker serves as a stark reminder: performative masculinity collapses when confronted with concrete reality.
The inherent evil interwoven into the fabric of life—what we may call Natural Evil—is unavoidable. But there is also Moral Evil that resides within individuals, often unchecked when moral boundaries are not instilled early on. This is precisely where fathers play a crucial role: they are not merely providers of softness or support, but architects of moral order, setting boundaries that contain and frame the latent evil within their sons.
Restricting the internal Evil
Even when men deny that evil exists within them, this denial does not negate its presence. When a person realizes that evil exists within—a universal human truth—they begin to crave the role of the father and yearn for the boundaries that protect them from themselves. Until that self-awareness emerges, however, the latent evil manifests in unstructured, chaotic expressions: comments, videos, messages, or lengthy rants typical of LOL Culture. In this state, individuals maintain an idealized self-image—believing themselves to be kind, considerate, and good—all while acting out irrationally and projecting their internal conflicts onto others. They are trapped in a virtual world, falsely believing that their online identity accurately represents their real-world character. The encounter with the Real, however, is inevitable—and when it comes, it shatters the illusion, often with painful consequences.
Fathers must instill a sense of moral order that acknowledges the potential for evil within every person. Even if the son denies the existence of this darkness, the father’s guidance should preemptively address it—creating boundariesthat contain chaotic impulses. The role of the father is not to eliminate chaos entirely but to frame it, allowing for self-control and meaningful responsibility.
By recognizing that evil exists within, men can break free from the cycle of detached irony and virtual posturing. This realization fosters a desire for real moral guidance, urging them to seek the structure that their fathers should have provided. Until then, they remain caught in the loop—performing masculinity through LOL Culture, while secretly longing for the father’s strong, guiding hand to restore order and purpose.
The Impossible Role of the Father
When it comes to instilling solid moral frameworks and unbreakable rules in a child—whether a son or a daughter—that task borders on the impossible. It might be achievable at the limits of human capability if it were merely a matter of “delivering” values from father to child. However, when the father himself has failed—or failed to a significant degree—the task is not just difficult; it is absurd.
The moral framework that a father instills in the next generation cannot be stronger or firmer than the one he lives out through his own actions and principles. This sets the standard at a level bordering on absurdity. A father must be able to rely on something—a set of guiding principles so strong that they are, in a sense, inexplicable.
A good example of the paradoxical nature of such a principle is Abraham. When Isaac asked, "My father... Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Abraham was able to reply, "My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering." Most of us are not capable of contemplating, analyzing, or even comprehending the act of being prepared to sacrifice a child. That act is unthinkable, and it can only be based on an unreal, utterly absurd certainty—a value structure structure so rigid and deep that, even when gripped by fear and trembling, the father takes the right action. Paradoxically, by being willing to kill his son, the father might actually save him and the generations that follow.
We do not have fathers like Abraham, and that is why we must acknowledge that falling short of the ideal is inherent in our nature. However, maybe—just maybe—we can find a way not to pass on our inherited inadequacies to the next generation. Perhaps there are some “Send” buttons that are better left unpressed. Instead of mocking, attacking, and justifying ourselves, we might choose to practice love and work on our own value structures and moral absolutes. Even if we cannot drastically change our trajectory, small adjustments may set the next generation on a path that leads a little less away from LOL Culture and unnecessary suffering, and a little closer to meaning—an impossible and absurd task, but certainly one worth the sacrifice.
Genesis 22:5 (KJV) And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
