Tiny letter #6, Fall 2020
Share this post, if you like.
LET’S START WITH SOMETHING POSITIVE
The World’s Largest Chocolate Museum Debuts in Switzerland
“Launched by Lindt, the attraction features a 30-foot-tall chocolate fountain and a tour of the sweet treat’s history”
Someday, when travel is viable, I hope to visit this museum. For the record, at least in the United States, I don't think that Lindt makes the best dark chocolate bars, that award goes to Endangered Species brand, but I love to spend half a day at this museum, and especially to take a class on chocolate making.
Seek out the best, not the newest
Fellow substack writer Kartick Vaddadi says:
Seek out the best, not the newest. Ignore marketing noise, which is basically someone paying for you to notice something, whether an ad or a promotion like certain books displayed prominently when you enter a bookshop. Those who pay the piper control the tune. They’re promoting what they want, not what’s best for you. In fact, that’s the whole point of marketing. So, ignore marketing spam.
I think this is especially relevant in an era where there is an unprecedented volume of material being developed and marketed. Of course, cable TV has been a wasteland for decades. One of my guilty pleasures when I'm traveling is to lie in the most slovenly position on the bed of a mid-tier hotel room, and just flip through channels, over and over. It doesn't matter what I watch, it's almost all garbage. This could lead to a tangent about how, sometime ago, channels actually reflected their name. Like The “Learning Channel” (one of the funniest bits ever). Eventually, every sentence will start with “back in my day…”
But I digress. There’s so much great art from 10, 30, 70 years ago. Why not explore? The latest is not necessarily the greatest.
WHAT TO WATCH
Lovecraft Country
Named for the inventive, influential horror writer (and virulent racist) HP Lovecraft, this show features a mainly Black cast, set in Jim Crow-era United States, but with the special addition of magic.
One character in particular suffers many indignities for nothing more than being a Black woman. As I watch her mistreatment, I reflect on how things that seem obviously wrong today were quite acceptable for a majority in the recent past. I also think about how often appeals to reason, to facts, must have failed (just as they do today). I wonder if people making indefensible arguments know that their arguments are indefensible, or if they truly believe in them, despite all evidence to the contrary. See, flat earth, QAnon, Covid deniers, etc.
Watching a show set in the 1950s is kind of like Monday morning quarterbacking, criticizing all the plays while watching a recording of the game.
"Awwww, how could you treat her that way? Can't you see she's just trying to make a living, and is going above and beyond everyone around her?"
Pick a race, sexual or gender identity, lather, rinse, repeat.
The music direction for this series is phenomenal. It's a mix of music from the era in which it is set, a few modern hip-hop tracks, and some unusual selections that reinforce moods. I especially enjoyed this odd, vocal-driven tune by Moses Sumney.
What happens when we go beyond disagreement?
In some respects, I consider myself very fortunate, as I don't have any close friends or family who support the president, or espouse bat-shit crazy beliefs. Now I do think that everyone alive believes something that isn't true. That includes me, of course. But it's important to distinguish between beliefs which only harm the belief holder, “I'm going to play for the NBA,” versus those that harm others, “I don't need to put seatbelts on my kids, I'm a safe driver.”
My friend Paul and I (shout out to Paul) have been in an ongoing debate about how we should engage, or not engage, with people who believe crazy stuff. Paul is a huge fan of the Socratic method, and we have a shorthand between us called the Daryl Davis Method. Davis is a Black musician who has spent a good part of his life forming friendships with KKK members. Playing the long game, Davis remains curious, asks a lot of questions, and gradually points out the folly of his friends' beliefs. Or perhaps better said, allows them to come to their own conclusions about their beliefs. (This is the most Socratic way.) It works. Davis has a closet full of Klan robes to prove it.
There's something truly remarkable about de-radicalizing people who represent such a strain of hate in this country. If you are looking for something uplifting to watch, I recommend the movie linked above. It really can provide hope during dark times.
I fully support the use of the Socratic method, and Paul has related that he has used it successfully, over the long term, to bring someone around to a more, shall we say, nuanced and insightful view of how the world works, and of their own privilege. The problem is, this takes time. And, importantly, a huge reserve of patience.
I am no longer sure that I have any. When I read for the 1000th time about anti-mask nimrods, recently launching my state of Wisconsin near the Top of The Pops for coronavirus spread, as people with poor grammar say, I can't even.
Last week, I had an outdoor date that I felt was going well. Our senses of humor matched, we had good conversation, shared interests. Anticipating a second date, I thought it smart to share the general rules I follow to protect my health and that of others. I walked through my practices, addressed risks, and then I asked her to do the same. She related that she has “some Republican girlfriends who are anti-mask,” and don't wear them at small gatherings which she attends. She also mentioned “I'm sure if one of them were sick, they wouldn't join us.” (WTF! This ignores asymptomatic spread, the primary reason this virus is so dangerous.)
Initially, I wasn't sure at whom I was more pissed off—her friends, for behaving so irresponsibly, or her, for continuing to count them as friends, and putting herself, her family, and her community at risk. I would add myself to that list, but I felt I had no choice but to disengage. After some thought, I realize that I was most pissed off at her. I later texted that I felt her friends were very irresponsible, and I could not shoulder the risk she would be passing on to me. My father is 75, I would not want to bear the guilt of getting him sick because I kissed a virtual stranger. This mainly occurs to me because, among the people I interact with regularly, he is probably the most vulnerable. However, do we each need a personal reason to behave responsibly at this time? Are we unable to see that our behavior affects others, that this is a community-wide, in fact, worldwide problem? The “I don’t give a shit until it directly affects me” is classic Republican behavior.
I’m anti-gay until my kid comes out.
I’m anti-mask until I get infected.
I’m anti-marijuana (to the point of slapping people with jail sentences for smoking up) until my mother needs it for chemo-induced nausea.
Getting back to the original idea, I'm fortunate that I am not required to engage with people who hold bat-shit crazy ideas. In the long-term, I agree with Paul, we need to employ the Socratic method. In the short term, we just need to vote out as many reality-deniers as possible, and attempt to triage our situation.
If you want to take this further, you can do as this design blogger has done, and shun and ostracize Trump voters and supporters.
Why be so protective of them? They are abusing my fellow citizens. They are abusing me. People are dying. Families are separated — at the border, and with travel bans. Huge amounts of jobs have been lost. The courts have been stuffed with unqualified right wing judges. The already weak safety nets in our country have been weakened further. Their actions hurt themselves too and they don’t care. Their primary goal seems to be to cause any non-Trump supporter pain.
I have no such audience to contend with, so for me it's kind of a moot point. But I can't say I disagree with her approach. She says, essentially, if you support the president at this point, you are supporting all kinds of evil, and I want nothing to do with you. I think the key question here is, at what point do we go from disagreement to excommunication? Because, this is not just about what people believe, but how they act on it—how they vote, for example. What you think?
SPEAKING OF BELIEVING NONSENSE
Losing the plot on disinformation
I think we’ve lost the plot on disinformation. It’s not the attacks that are the problem. It’s the fact that too many Americans are willing to believe almost anything.
Ideally we’d reduce both the attacks and the vulnerability.
Of course it would be nice to have fewer attacks. Of course it would be nice to keep attacks from being used against higher numbers of vulnerable people. But ultimately the problem is the vulnerability itself.
In the long term, once again, Socratic method, plus a return to Civics education, National Service, critical thinking, media literacy, logic. In the short term, outvote them.
Horror film made entirely over web conference
I'm curious if anyone has watched The Host. It was shot entirely via Zoom, a novel concept when it's not viable to assemble actors together in the usual way. Actors operated their own cameras, helped pull off their own practical effects, and lit their own scenes. Due to social distancing precautions, the filmmaker never set foot in the same room as his actors at any point during production and instead directed them remotely.
Favorite album
Let's close with something that's not so depressing. Let me give a pitch for the late, lamented Christian Mistress, a female-fronted, Olympia, Washington band with strong echoes of early heavy-metal—Black Sabbath comes to mind immediately. The production matches as well, so you might think you’re back in the late 70s. Dual guitar riffing, driving drums, hard rock at its finest. Like all great bands, they are broken up, but they leave three great albums.
What are you listening to, reading, enjoying? Drop me a line.