Now See This

While the general point of news (or "news") stories online is to read them, a number of them come with photographs, often licensed from outlets such as Getty Images and the like, designed to add more context.

In "File Under: It was only a matter of time," we have the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine being linked to the Biblical "Mark of the Beast." Because why wouldn't it be? As was noted in an article I read in Slate several years ago (2005, to be exact): "There's something in the bloodstream of American Christianity that looks for, and reacts to, signs of the apocalypse." And since the supposed mark is one such sign, I suspect that a lot more people than might be admitted to see it as a hopeful sign that a world they view as hostile, and are hostile to in turn, is coming to an end.

I'm always unclear on the rationale for selecting photos like this to accompany a news story. The people in them tend to come across as appearing to be something between disingenuous and actively mentally unbalanced, and since there was no-one involved in the production of the news story involved in the photography, there's no context. It's just seems to reinforce this idea that conspiracy theories are running amok and being used by shady people who somehow have something against public health. The story, which ran on the National Public Radio website, was about people choosing to leave jobs that required vaccination rather than have a vaccine, and photos like this simply don't speak to that.

In other news, the shooting of two people on the set of the new Alec Baldwin movie "Rust" has generated a renewed flurry of interest in how firearms are simulated (and used) in motion picture production. This is, to be sure, something that most people really don't pay attention to. There's the common idea that it's all special effects or something like the starting gun at a track and field meet; and, of course, the reality is much more complicated. As The Atlantic's entry into the fray noted: "A variety of different guns are used in film productions. Those include rubber guns that don’t function at all, airsoft guns with simulated blowback, blank-firing props, and even real functioning firearms." And while this covers a variety of the sorts of not-actually-real-firearms out there, it doesn't cover all of them.

This photograph, also sourced from Getty Images, is a simple, spring-loaded airsoft gun. The bright orange tip and the thin magazine are dead giveaways for anyone familiar with the type. I could see using one of these in moviemaking (mainly by poorly-resourced enthusiast filmmakers), but it would require a decent amount of clean-up if the "weapon" were ever removed from a holster. After all, the orange muzzles are designed to be highly visible specifically so people seeing the object understand that it isn't a real firearm. (Not that this always works, but still...) Honestly, if one were making a movie where a gun simply needed to be visible, there are much better choices. And while one should wear eye protection when using these things, they're not particularly dangerous; this isn't the sort of prop that winds up somehow having live ammunition loaded into it.

This, to me anyway, speaks to the lack of familiarity that many people, even the media have with firearms, real or simulated. A photo editor who knew what they were looking at would likely have selected a different image, one more appropriate to the story being told.

I am left with the feeling that for a lot of news outlets, pictures are simply a requirement. As long as it seems close to the topic at hand, run with it. And I understand that. There's also the fact that sometimes, people don't know what they don't know. And, of course, the fact that I'm just nit-picking. This sort of thing is the result of there not being much concern with it, in the end. I'm looking closely, but I don't think that I'm just one of many.

Unmeaning

Articles on “the meaning of life” tend to avoid defining their terms clearly, and this tends to make them less than useful. Professor Brooks’ “The Meaning of Life Is Surprisingly Simple” falls into this trap, although not in the way one might think. About midway through the piece Professor Brooks notes that psychologists Frank Martela and Michael F. Steger defined meaning as being made up of Coherence, Purpose and Significance. Fair enough. But in their paper, they are quite clear on the fact that they were looking at meaning in life, as opposed to the more philosophical question about the meaning of life.

And so when Professor Brooks exhorts readers to “Go find the meaning of life!” and then says “People who believe that they know their life’s meaning enjoy greater well-being than those who don’t,” as far as Professors Martela and Steger are concerned, he’s referring to two different endeavors, the first philosophical, and the second psychological. And I think that this is something of an important distinction, because one can be an existential nihilist, and believe that there is no meaning of life, and this is the very reason why one should look for meaning in life. And so the statement “All of this advice relies on one very strong assumption—that life actually has meaning,” isn’t necessarily so. Life, and an individual’s life, are not synonyms.

The other reason why I think that the distinction between the meaning of life and meaning in life (or the meaning of one’s own life) is important is that the psychological question allows for individual answers. According to Professor Brooks:

For example, Christians believe that life is significant because God loves us; that our purpose is to love and serve God and other people; and that God has a coherent plan for our lives, whether it is clear to us or not.

But a follower of Shinto, or a Hindu, would have been taught a completely different outlook on things. Their answers to the questions of Coherence, Purpose and Significance would (if not should) likely be completely different. On the scale of a meaning of life, to the degree that their answers are mutually exclusive with those of Professor Brooks’ hypothetical Christian, then one or another party (if not both) must be mistaken. But if those answers are personal, then everyone is free to find whatever ones best suit them. The Christian and the Hindu may find different meaning in life, and understand the facets of that meaning differently. And I note the phrasing that Professor Brooks used; it’s much more universal than finding meaning in life would lead one to. I suspect that this comes from attempting to make the facets that Professors Martela and Steger identified fit the broader philosophical question that they had declined to engage with.

Professors Martela and Steger note: “In order to live in the world as reflective beings, humans seem to need three things: they need to comprehend the world around them, they need to find direction for their actions, and they need to find worth in their lives.” I will confess that I don’t understand what they mean by “reflective beings.” As I understand it, I am perfectly capable of reflection, despite not feeling (or presumably, having satisfied) their three needs. I’m unclear on why living in the world as a reflective being and having found meaning in one’s life should be synonymous. But their broader point is one that I find tends to pop up a lot in discussion of meaning – the idea that there is a certain, better, way to live, and that meaning will come out of that. A “meaningful life” and “a life without meaning,” aren’t just different, they exist on a value hierarchy. And I think that sometimes, attempting to support those value judgements becomes the point. Maybe that’s why clear definitions are sometimes scarce, because objective language and subjective valuations don’t always work well together.

All For One

It's legitimate to say that once an emergency has started, there is no time to worry about building trust. But that, more than anything else, is the reason to worry about building trust when there isn't an emergency going on.

The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic exemplifies this. Because of the increased transmissibility of the Delta variant (which may still be the one that's currently ascendant in the United States) the level of immunity, natural or vaccine-induced, that's needed to impede infections from easily moving to new hosts is pretty high; therefore, interventions designed to slow disease spread (whether pharmaceutical or social) have a high sensitivity to defections. And it's not difficult to find columnists from a number of different backgrounds calling for measures to mandate, if not compel, greater cooperation.

Somewhat harder is finding people willing to comment about the overall lack of trust that drives the defections. It should not be taken as given that people understand that vaccination is safe, effective and low (or no) cost. It's a bit disingenuous to presume that, and from there label people as somehow anti-social for looking out for themselves. In the end, people take care of societies, because they expect that societies will take care of them. If people were willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater good that they themselves would never be able to participate in, the world would look much different than it does.
 

Camped

A small homeless encampment on a sidewalk in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood.

Everyone has an opinion about the fairly large population of homeless people who live in the greater Seattle area. Whether they're viewed as slackers, victims of corporate greed or threats to public safety and health, no one wants to do the one thing that would actually help the situation; increase the amount of local housing stock to the point that prices come down. The Puget Sound region, like a lot of urban areas populated by the well-educated and reasonably affluent, has significant regulatory restrictions on where housing can be built. In this case, the goal was preserve open spaces and rural communities. But the side effect was to keep the housing supply from growing with the demand. And that mismatch has made a number of people quite "house rich," as they like to say. Lowering home prices is a direct threat to their property values, and thus, home equity. And so people complain about tents in the street, secure in the knowledge that they won't be asked to lose a dime to remove them. And no lawmaker is going to create the circumstances that removes them at the cost of billions of dollars of paper wealth being erased. People would rather scowl all the way to the bank.
 

Playing Pretend

I encountered Eminem's "Stan" yesterday. (Although, to be sure, I don't make a career of living under rocks.) I'm not really into hip-hop and rap, and have always tended to pass on artists who built reputations as being intentionally transgressive, so I'd never really paid any attention to Mr. Mathers' work or the controversies he sparked. But when listening to "Stan," I found it really interesting, and so set out to learn more about it. And from there I learned that the video for it was pretty heavily... redacted for general consumption.

But the Internet being the Internet, it wasn't hard to find what I'm given to understand is an original release version, and watch it. And, as I'm sure you've guessed, I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about. Okay, I'm old enough to understand that one person's cautionary tale is often viewed as another's how-to video. When I worked with children, back in my twenties, one of the more senior staffers once told me that the problem with telling kids "don't do drugs" was that all they would hear was "do drugs." And it's a legitimate concern, to be honest. After all, there are people who use the word "stan" to proudly self-define themselves as superfans of something, despite the fact that Stanley Mitchell is clearly not intended to be a role-model for anyone.

But for all that the story of "Stan" is that of a obsessive fan whose anger at perceiving themselves to be ignored by a celebrity who they feel owes them something culminates in a tragic murder-suicide, the eight-minute video is more poignant than over-the-top. There are Lifetime movies that are more disturbing.

Watching Stan's disintegration over the course of the video (which is a really excellent exercise in short-form storytelling, both visually and lyrically), I started to wonder if a general sense that the rough edges of society must never see the light of day leads to people feeling alone in what are really common situations. While I'm sure that people driving themselves from bridges with their pregnant girlfriend locked in the trunk is far from an everyday occurrence, abusiveness that escalates to fatal violence isn't. And a general attitude that children need to be kept within a world that pretends that this doesn't exist renders them unprepared for the eventuality.

It was an debate that simmered constantly when I worked with children. While policy was to limit their exposure to things that adults deemed too distressing or unpleasant, for the population that we were working with, many of them had already experienced abuse of some form or another, and were likely to experience it again once they aged out into the world around them. And it's hard to prepare someone for something while maintaining that its entire existence is fictional.

There is something about American society, I think, that prevents it from looking itself in the mirror on a regular basis. I don't claim to be above being put out when the person who looks back at me in the mirror is the person who I am, rather than some person I might wish to be, but I understand that if I am to have any hope of reconciling the two, I have to know my starting point. This is simply how it works. I think. But maybe I'm incorrect about that. After all, humanity has made it this far and the pretense shows no sign of going away.