March 28: Lazy Hockey Stories

Three weeks in a row. Don't call it a comeback! It may be a day late (or two if you go to bed at a reasonable hour), but it's here.

Shoot, I definitely had something in mind to write about but can't remember..........

Oh. Wow. I got it. That doesn't happen often.

This past week marked the NHL's trade deadline. That means teams will head into the upcoming playoffs with the players currently on the roster. That means everyone is releasing their projections and writing the storylines of what is to come

And their arrogance is unbearable.

It's a writer's job to write—I get that. They have to have AN opinion on how a team is going to perform. They have to act as though they're opinion is valid. Beyond valid: it's grounded in fact and surely must be true.

"The Leafs aren't built for the playoffs. Their team is too soft. They crumple under pressure. They don't have the will to push through adversity. When the going get's tough, they go golfing."

Everyone conveniently forgets that hockey is one of the world's most random sports; the NHL has more parity than any other league in North America. The best odds any one team has of winning a playoff matchup is around 65%. Most are coin flips.

Look at the Leafs—the league's biggest chokers: in three of the last five years, they were the underdogs; in four of those five, they went to a final tie-breaking game; and along the way, over a dozen of their games went to overtime where one goal was the difference between them moving on and continuing this "cursed" story. One shot that--had it been one inch to the left--would have gone post-and-in. One good bounce off the end-boards; one fewer mental lapses from a rookie; one save on a nothing shot.

Just change one teeny tiny thing, and this entire storyline dies.

But randomness and bad luck are boring stories. We need to make sense of the chaos. We need a through line. We need one explanation that accounts for everything that happened.

So people cherry pick. It's couldn't be a combination of bad line-matching, debilitating injuries, brain farts, clutch opponent performances, bad officiating, and underperforming superstars. It's gotta just be the last one. That story's way more grabby:

The fashion-forward twenty-three year old who hangs out with Justin Bieber doesn't have the "old school hockey mentality" that it takes to win. It's his fault. (Him and the other kid, at least.

If you bring up allllll the other things that happened, the opinionated writer (and the ten-thousand fans who follow them) will say, "it doesn't matter that X, Y, Z, and W all happened; winner's overcome it."

That's a fun and transparent way to stick your head in the sand and maintain your over-simplified storyline.

Did you know: more than one thing can be true! There can be multiple, compounding factors that lead to a result

We want to wrap the world up into nice, tidy stories tied off with bows--line up a series of events and draw one clear line. Find a pattern, breathe easy. When things make sense, we sleep better.

We do it with these silly sports stories. We do it with conspiracy theories. We do it in politics. We're doing it with COVID.

We do it when asking "what's wrong with that guy." We do it when we look back at our own choices.

I do it. And I wish it were that easy. To have only one thing standing between me and the book I'm writing? To find one lonely reason I'm single? To figure out one cure for my sore back?

It'd be a lot easier to fix problems if they only had one cause.

But they don't, and trying to pin them down on an over-simplified "A creates B" narrative doesn't solve anything. It's natural and understandable, but it's lazy.

I get more frustrated by the Leaf talk than I should. But I see it as a microcosm for all the other things. Letting that type of thinking percolate in one area of our lives normalizes it. Cognitive biases and logical failures are contagious

So this is a hill I'm dying on. It's dumb--and yet I do think it's strangely important. Practice better thinking when the stakes are low and it's all nonsense, and you're more likely to think better when it counts.

That's the moral of the day.

…that and #Leafs2022Champs

Church + Killing Kids

Happy Sunday, everyone! I am reporting to you again with an Arche strewn across my lap—not snoring yet but I sense it coming. We'll see if I can stay on track given this highly-distracting situation.

Where to start today...

Let's start here: I am currently listening to a Zoom church service in the background here. Should I be giving it more of my focus? Probably—that would be nice and respectful of me. But it's hard.

---

---

Okay I'm back. I did tune into the service for forty minutes or so. I realized I struggle with the structural parts—when someone is reading from a prayer book or singing hymns and all that. To me, it doesn't feel very...godly.

I've written in previous posts that I can't buy into a deity-based idea of God. So, any church-stuff that reinforces a "god is somewhere out there listening" storyline just...doesn't do it for me. It doesn't feel right.

BUT—the service got to the good stuff eventually: community stuff, where people basically came together to say, "yeah, we're all actively trying to be better (holier) people;" and then...philosophical stuff, meant to change your view on some aspect of life.

That's when I tuned in and set this post aside. I liked it. I'm a big advocate for making time for mindfulness/meditation/prayer/whatever—committing a chunk of your day to the pursuit of a "better" mentality. You could watch one forty-minute YouTube video from a philosher every Sunday if you don't like "church." Same effect. This is just like...guided; you don't even need to search for the right content, you just show up.

NOT UNLIKE the group gym classes I've come to love: just show up—same time, same place—and let someone else guide the experience. Though...next week I might just tune in for the sermon.

What was the sermon about?

Nah, I'm going to avoid butchering it. Sunday Pages will not be my opportunity to paraphrase someone else's teaching.

Instead I wanted to touch briefly on the instanity that is three black children: Adam Toledo, Duante Wright, and Ma’Khia Bryant (I think Duante was twenty but that’s still young as hell) getting shot by US police in under a month (among countless other horrific incidents that doubtlessly occured in the same period).

I'm not going to say much. I'm not the right person to say much. The one thing I wanted to put out there is my belief that it does us a disservice when we paint with broad brushes. Everything that happens in the world is its own event; we learn the most from them if treated as such.

It's tempting to simplify things. It's part of human nature to find patterns and categorize things. (I've written about that before.) But I believe it's less...productive—is that the right word? Not perfect. I'll go on.

If we simply say, "cops are racist" or "cops are violent," we don't reveal the true nature of the problems. If that's all we take from the three horrific shootings, we didn't learn much, and we can't create any actionable solutions from it.

What really happened?

Black men get pulled over without cause all the time which opens the door to conflict?

Police recruiting isn't good enough and gives too much responsibility to people unprepared to handle it?

Police response times in black neighbourhoods is too slow?

Police (et all) are so afraid of black men they feel compelled to use deadly force to defend against kids?

Police training leads to deadly use of force in far too many situations?

Police respond to calls when other professionals are much better suited?

Those are things you can discuss—especially with those who don't want to. Whereas if you just say, "cops are bastards," and "defund the police," people on the right can just dismiss it.

I watch/listen to too many right-wing reactions. I do it to know what's going on on the other side of the world. (Also, morbid curiosity.) For them, it's so easy to dismiss the reality of these shootings and pander to their base when the arguments presented are so broadly stated. They get to spin things and make it seem like their facts and logic are perfectly sound (and not at all racist themselves).

"Defund the police? Criminals would love that!" says Ben Shapiro while everyone laughs and claps.

"We need MORE police funding to get them better trained," says Joe Rogan.

"What the hell does systemic racism even mean?" says Tucker Carlson as he slowly ramps up his white-supremicist rhetoric and fear-mongering.

It shouldn't be anyone's responsibility to explain to guys like them why exactly killing black children is wrong. But here we are, and millions of people eat up the shit they peddle.

So if anything, I just think we shouldn't make their jobs easy. I know, "abolish racial profiling and implement better de-escelation procedures" isn't as catchy as "stop racist cops," but it's harder to argue against. In the very least: the bullshit-peddlers (assuming they continue to peddle bullshit) will have a harder time hiding their own racist ideologies.

OH, I'll also add: I feel like a lot of people who do want to support the call for change don't even know what we're asking for. (Guilty over here.) Put on the spot, how many people could list action items that would address the inequalities we face?

Even here in Toronto when it comes to COVID's impact on low-income communities: I don't really know what's going on or what to do. I definitely know Doug Ford sucks. Don't exactly know why. Provide paid sick leave? That's about all I got, because as much as people share headlines and spread "awareness," I really just know a problem exists; I don't actually know what it is.

That's it for today. Arche's stirring and the sun is coming our so I'm going to let them drain whatever bad ju-ju I cultivated while thinking about Tucker Carlson...

Love each and every one of you,
J

Lockdowns + Slogans

And we're back! I would apologize for skipping these past two weeks, but this blog is largely for myself—more a practice of discipline and experimentation than a "gift" to my readers. That said: still love you—whoever you are anonymously reading this. And I can apologize for the lack of communication! Two Sundays simply came and went and I either was extremely busy or very far from a writing mood (I had one more hangover—aiming to make it my last of 2021).

With all that out of the way—we're back. Let's talk.

--

I just got back to Toronto having spent three months in B.C. When I left, I didn't have much to say about the lockdowns here. They sucked, but they were what they were—necessary evil and all that. Now, having spent time in a place where the rules aren't as strict, I'm less forgiving.

My current take is: I can fully accept rules and regulations put in place to protect people. I said it in a previous post (was it here—or on medium?) that the government has to step in; we (the people) lack the collective responsibility to make our own decisions about what risks we should take right now. Without the rules, thousands more people would die in Ontario—I get that.

What I DON'T appreciate, is the government deciding what constitutes an essential product or service. Decide what is and isn't safe—sure, all you. Decide what's important in our lives—nah, that's not your job.

Who gave a small group of people in city hall the authority to say that dental cleanings are crucial, while haircuts are frivelous? When did they get the power to say all the small shops on Queen St are unimportant, while letting people pour in and out of McDonalds?

I don't like that part. When their mandates switched from "what is and isn't safe," to "what is and isn't essential," they overstepped. I get why they did it, but I don't like it. They're also doing a real shit job of it, which does not help their case at all.

As we enter a strange and confusing "modified lockdown" phase of the pandemic, government officials have more power than ever. When it's a sweeping lockdown and everything is shuttered, that's one thing. This is different. Now that we CAN sit on patios, but we can't go inside a boutique art shop, things are weird. The nuanced control these officials are flexing is...it shouldn't be their juristiction.

Either sitting in a chair—dental or salon—is safe enough or it isn't. When and old dude in public office decides for me which one is "worth the risk," I start to bristle. I don't like it.

And hell—let me stop making it about myself. I don't think the government should decide whether a business owners' livelihood is worthwhile. I can't begin to imagine the frustration of someone who dedicates their life to creating a product or service of value for the world—only to be told it's not important enough for people to risk visiting you. Meanwhile, McDonalds is important enough—despite being a WAY more dangerous place than say, a bookstore? Who gets to decide that? John Tory and Doug Ford?

I don't like it.

--

OK, part two: here we go.

(I'm stalling because I don't know what I want to write about. I have two things on my mind and likely won't explore both today. OK I decided.)

I'm going to poke around with the idea of "nuance" in today's big issues. I first rolled it around my head when I heard the phrase, "defund the police," and it recently resurfaced with citations of the gender pay gap on International Womens' Day.

I don't know where I stand on over-simplifying things.

My first reaction to Defund The Police was, "this is going to backfire." I thought it was too provocative, and not an accurate enough depiction of what the ask really was. Opponents would form all over the place, simply as a reaction to the word "defund." Sure enough, people who I'm sure would support the ideas behind defunding the police (training alternate responders for situations like mental health crisis'; preventing encounters from turning into these militarized engagements). But they heard, "defund," and they thought, "no no, if anything, they need MORE funding for better training." Just like that, the conversation broke down, and because people rarely talk to each other (instead talking in their own echo chambers), people didn't realize they were on the same side.

But it does catch attention, doesn't it? And it should have started conversations. I'm sure it did. Some people did take the time to break down what the phrase really meant, exploring the nuances. But a LOT didn't. They said, "defunded police means easier time for criminals," and that was the end of that. They didn't even have to talk about half-crazed guys in body armour wielding semi-automatic rifles barging in on someone having a mental health breakdown. They only had to deal with the phrase, "defund the police," instead of all the complicated baggage behind it.

Part of me thinks we ought to be more nuanced in that first communication—the cathphrase part—just to make it harder to opponents to dismiss it.

That's the thought that popped up again last week when I saw pay-gap posts on social media, because I've heard that stat get dismantled and dismissed in much the same way.

I can't remember who it was—maybe Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris or Joe Rogan; someone passing themselves off as being clear-headed and rational about the issue (you know, I'm sure it was all three and a thousand more guys like them)—anyway, they would pick apart the disparity and show it to be perfectly non-sexist.

"It's about the jobs we skew towards; the risks we're willing to take; the time off for raising families; a genetic pre-disposition to aggression! Sexism doesn't actuallty exist in the workplace—the pay gap is mainly due to choices we make!"

It's really easy to make that argument in a compelling and objective-sounding way. It's easy for guys (like me) to eat that up, then scoff when the stat is brought up, and ignore allllll the issues that do exist.

So, part of me thinks it wise to make those simple arguments more difficult to throw together. Part of me thinks it best to do away with the sweeping, high-level messaging that opens the door for easy-outs.

But part of me also recognizes that it's a hella-bright red flag—blindingly-blight when looking at pay disparity for women in minority groups. When a Latina woman earns 55% of a white man, it says something. If nothing else, it says, "come look at this."

And this is where I'm torn on this figure: it says "something is going on," but it doesn't say it's an issue, and it lets the apathetic among us create (flawed) arguments saying, "it's not an issue." All they have to do is pull one study from Sweden that says, "women are more likely to choose caregiver jobs," and act like that explains everything. Nevermind the societal influences that push them towards certain roles and away from others; nevermind the harrassment and mysoginy that is way more prevalent that we admit; nevermind the allocation of funds to different jobs, as set by white men decades ago (I could write another thousand words on how insanely underpaid teachers and nurses are).

Nevermind all of that. It's easy to simply say, "the pay gap is caused by the choices men and women make," and the guys listening (who wanted to believe that from the start) nod and walk away satisfied.

So, should people stop using that stat? I'm still struggling.

How about this: try not to use them in isolation? Provide enough support that makes it harder to dismiss figure outright?

I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't even be focused on this side of the argument. Maybe I should just scold the lazy responses from those "let's-just-look-at-the-facts" guys.

I mean, it shouldn't be anyone's job to convince a misogynist that he's wrong. It should be on him to get his shit together. But that's not how this works. Everyone has their own problems; they're better served thinking yours are overblown; they'll ignore them if they can. If you want someone to change, you have to hold their hand.

Is that fair? Nope. Should you have to spoon-feed people and coddle them into becoming allies? Nope. But here we are.

Do I know what I'm talking about? Nope.

But if a year or two ago you'd asked me what I thought about defunding the police, or about the gender pay gap, I'd have waved them away. I had my talking points. I had it on good authority that I was rational and right. I wasn't being an ass; I was just being objective.

So, I guess I know a bit about being on that side. I know how easy it is to buy into comfortable stories about how there's nothing wrong with the world. And I know how to win me over. It's not terribly hard. It just takes a bit more nuance than a slogan.