Happy Sunday, everyone! Or happy whatever day you're reading this! I'm not sure how many of you actually get to this the day it's released. I could check—maybe I will later.

For now, welcome! Thanks for coming!

What are we talking about today? Right, I actually have a bit of a plan this time. (I have a vague plan every time, who am I kidding?)

I'm going to start with some commentary on the world's favourite show right now: Queens Gambit. No comment on the show itself—outside of: good show—but there were two very small scenes that had me nodding, and I'd like to share.

I don't think this is much of a spoiler: Beth has addiction issues. I'm not going to talk about those scenes where she's off the rails though. These two other things were more familiar for me.

First (and forgive me for getting some of the details wrong, I did not go back and rewatch for the sake of this post): when preparing for a chess match, someone (her mom?) tells her she needs to relax or do "her thing" or "be herself."

So what does she do? Starts drinking. I think this is the first time booze is seen as a bergeoning...burgeoning(?) issue. Just like that, booze is synonymous with relaxation—it becomes part of what she needs to be her true, loose, creative self.

Now she needs to drink. Not necessarily in the dedicated-addict way—she didn't have any signs of alcoholism—but she needs it nonetheless. She needs it to get through things. She needs it to be a better version of herself.

From that point, the question, "should I drink," is always answered for her—and she can trick herself into thinking that's the rational choice. If you drink because drinking makes you better, why would you ever think to give it up? You can't really imagine a life without it at that point. It's more than a crutch—it's a prosthesis—it's part of you.

I personally never evolved much past that point with my drinking—but that might have been luck, more than anything. I happened to avoid the right life-events that might have driven me to full-blown abuse. But I felt that first part. I had that, "drinking is what I do," belief. Obviously I'm going to drink at this event. Obviously I'm going to drink while I write. It just makes sense.

I think it stopped being a concious choice at some point as well. Adding booze to things is just automatic—reflexive. I'm not a doctore, but I think that's a sign that you're in some precarious territory. Taking drugs should always be a concious choice.

Which brings us to the second scene (somewhat smoothly). Beth is sitting alone in a restaurant after (I think) being clean for a few weeks/months. She orders a coke, and then as the waiter walks away, she changes her order to a cocktail. It was so quick—maybe two seconds—I don't think she even knew what happened. You know what, I'm going to rewatch that really quickly.

OK. Rewatched. Can confirm: it happens so fast. She changes her order, and then she sits there thinking, "what just happened," for a second, and then she shakes her head as if to reset her brain.

I feel like that moment has been called, "a moment of weakness," before. "All it takes is one moment of weakness and boom! I'm off the wagon." It's not weakness, though. It's...I don't even want to call it a lapse. It happens so fast—it's like...the "well-behaved" part of you just shuts off for two seconds and the default, "why wouldn't I drink?" slips in and orders a drink for itself. Then you sit there thinking, "shit, should I cancel that?" but by then it's too late: the rationalizing starts. "I've been so good, I can have a reward." "I've never gone nuts in this type of setting before." "It's just one."

Reminds me of a line from Eminem that struck me over a decade ago:

Maybe if I just drink half, I'll be half-buzzed
For half of the time. Who's the mastermind behind that little line?
With that kind of rationale, man, I got half a mind
To have another half a glass of wine.

(Deja Vu, for those interested.)

This scene leads us right into a massssssive bender, but it didn't have to—it doesn't always. Sometimes you do stop short, but the moment still illustrates the insidious nature of the drug.

To be clear: it's not that ordering a drink, "because you deserve it" is bad. It's when you order it without really deciding you want it—when you fall asleep for a second and wake up with a drink on its way—that's the interesting bit.

And that—among other things—is what I got from Queens Gambit. Good show; hope I didn't spoil it.

-----

Part two! Social commentary! (Had to do it.)

Today I'm sticking with "how we talk about things." I think that's all I'm qualified to talk about...OK maybe I'm not qualified even then. But I'm definitely not qualified to weigh in on actual events or policies (even though I've also done that before.)

I was prompted to write about this when I saw a post last week about new COVID regulations being "racist and classist," and I wondered if that was a fair thing to say.

After some thought, I have my definitive answer: maybe.

See, it depends on what ethical philosophy you adhere to. And this is where I bring us back to one of the first things I wrote about: The Trolley Problem! Is pushing someone on the tracks worse than neglecting to save them?

Consequentialism or deontology?

If you believe that regulations put in place to stop the spread of COVID-19 are classist because they also adversely affect those in lower-income neighborhoods, you're adopting a consequentialist view of the situation.

If you believe those same regulations are NOT classist since they weren't created specifically to harm those in lower-income neighborhoods, you're adopting a deontological view of the situation.

It's a matter of outcome vs intent.

If you think outcomes are all that matter, you can label an action based on the outcomes it creates. A law against drug possession that results in more black arrests is a racist law.

If you think intent is all that matters, you can ignore all consequences. A law that inadvertently targets the poor is...neutral (would that be the world?) as long as the intent wasn't to target the poor.

PAUSE: neither is to say whether an action is good or bad. I think most of us can agree that, regardless of intent, an action that either neglects or further punishes a marginalized group is a bad action. Those COVID regulations targeting lower-income neighbourhoods are bad. But are they classist? I don't think this is semantics because a lot of conversations break down based on these distinctions.

So often, nowadays, we end up arguing about whether or not something is "racist," even when most of us would agree, "it's bad." Maybe it's the fault of obnoxiously "rational" intellectuals who turn things into debates that distract from what's really happening. Maybe it's the fault of liberal voices who believe their consequentialist view is objectively true.

It's not, though. A law that happens to oppress or neglect marginalized groups is not objectively or inherently racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or anything else—unless you hold that consequentialism is universally true and objectively right.

Which it's not. There's a reason manslaughter and murder carry different sentences. Intent matters.

Do I believe we should adopt a more consequentialist view when dealing with policies like this? Absolutely I do. I don't think we should ever allow "unintended consequences" to further entrench groups of people in poverty or put them in jail. I think if you need to implement policies that would have these effects, you best be damn sure you implement additional ones to mitigate the damage.

I just don't like the absolute confidence when labelling the policies and condemning the people who propose them. You do so based on your ethical BELIEFS. You don't get to act indignant if someone holds a different belief; that doesn't make the other person evil.

And I don't like when people distract from real conversations and argue the wrong point. I don't care if a law is inherently racist, Sam Harris. Is it a good law or bad law?

And with that, I call it a day.

With love!

John