There are times when the national headlines require the use of reference tools. In May 2026, "clavicular became one of the biggest talking points online after clips of this Miami courtroom hearing." Of course, 'clavicular' refers to the clavicle, or collarbone. The innocent reader might be forgiven for wondering what court hearing could draw such attention to the collarbone.
Another headline read that "Clavicular gets brutally mogged by studly Florida judge." That one might draw attention. As much for the repeated clavicle reference, but more for the "mogged." Those in the older (my) generation might misread such a headline a smidge too quickly and see "mugged."
That comes from the simple fact that no one in our age cohort would recognize what being "mogged" means. Thank goodness for the Internet!
The story is actually about some guy named Braden Peters. He is an "influencer" and likes to be called Collar Bone for short. The New York Post labels him a "looksmaxxer," without defining the term (Internet).
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which admittedly has had its own credibility challenges, says that Looksmaxxing "present(s) a dangerous view of male beauty"; there is a focus on self-improvement and "becoming the most attractive one can possibly look." Who is not guilty of trying to be attractive? Certainly, I have never been successful.
The "mogging" term has been used to mean "when someone is outperformed." This definition is from National Public Radio (NPR). It is described as a "phrase born out of far-right internet forums." The NPR article coincidentally mentions Collar Bone and informs us that the origin of "mogging" is from "AMOG" or "alpha male of the group." Thus "mog" and the potential to be "shown up by another more masculine male" - that is "Mogged."
The inferences here are plentiful. Collar Bone was in court facing charges for "shooting at what appeared to be a dead alligator in the Florida Everglades." The Post noted that, while answering the charges, the "biggest threat in the room came in the form of a studly 'framemogging' judge."
The result was internet fame for the judge. Collar Bone's followers and critics alike apparently reacted on social media. Posts were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. The facts, circumstances, and law surrounding an alleged shooting in the Everglades took a backseat to discussion of who is most attractive, "alpha," or "mogged."
In a classic scene of Ferris Bueller's Day Off (Paramount, 1986), a restaurant employee sizes up Ferris and his friends with an interesting assessment: "I weep for the future." I cannot get that quote out of my head as I write this.
No, it is not Collar Bone. The challenge we face is a societal attraction to the unimportant, irrelevant, and distracting. Who out-mogged who? Davero?!?
Why shoot at an alligator? Particularly if it was a dead alligator? Why tell someone that you did? Is society really that interested? Would they be if an old, ugly guy like me did the same?
Is it the 15 minutes of fame promised us all by the great and prescient (not) Andy Warhol (speaking of irrelevance, a painting of a soup can? But I digress).
Coincidentally, here in Paradise, a young person is charged with "damaging thousands of dollars' worth of items in two separate Airbnb rentals." The allegation is that she did so by urinating on these items. The actions were allegedly recorded on video and posted "on an adult content website," according to NBC6.
This was described by the Paradise police as "a young lady ... making money in a very unusual way." Unusual? "Lady?" The folks here who rented the despoiled premises have "removed (her) ... from our platform." She is not welcome as a renter (well, at least using her own name; maybe she needs a new pseudonym like Collar Bone?).
The Guardian recently questioned Are we living in a golden age of stupidity? I am certain that there is room for discussion, but the author makes some valid arguments (without mentioning Collar Bone, "mogging," or the "pee for publicity" person).
The Guardian article suggests that computers are not making us smarter. It concludes that there are "psychological and cognitive costs" to our present and that we are all subject to their potential. This remains true whether we are the user who is influenced or the direct or indirect victim of some influencer's bravado and recklessness (imagine you are the next guest in the pee pee person's AirBNB).
The cost of the destroyed property will be borne by someone. The waste of time associated with deep discussions of who "mogged" who will be borne by someone. A court's time is being invested in criminal charges stemming from "influencing." The distraction that is astounding. Seemingly, the vast, deep wasteland of the Internet and social media will persist, evolve, and perhaps envelop us all.
Is that the fault of the Collar Bone, the pee-person, or those who idolize or follow them? Maybe this is "Don't hate the playa" (Rythm King, 1999). Can you really hate the influencer when their vacuity is so apparently appealing to the masses? Or are we "haters" just jealous we have not figured out how to leverage the half-wit masses ourselves?
It is a troubling time in which we live. And there is a good chance that we are polluting the next generation with all this so-called "content."
