Tag Archives: Vox.com

Can We Please Stop Blaming Everything on the Pandemic?

1 Reply

A short while ago, Vox.com published an article decrying how people are acting in public now: People forgot how to act in public https://tinyurl.com/mur5rx3x Reports describe concert attendees throwing phones & other items at performers (I cheered when I read about Cardi B launching her microphone at the person who threw a drink at her), Broadway audiences engaging in grotesque displays, and people using cell phones disruptively during movies. The conclusion, after consulting some “experts,” was that this behavior related to the forced closures and isolation everyone experienced during the pandemic.

I found the article confusing.  On the one hand, it claimed people during the pandemic had simply “forgotten” how to act. Now that they can return to these collective experiences, “[w]hen someone makes a scene in public at a group event, we’re disturbed in large part because these gatherings are extremely important to our intellectual and emotional selves …. The “collective effervescence” of live events is something humans crave, whether they know it or not.”

The quoted term apparently refers to the fact that while we’re buying a ticket for the performance, we’re also “buying that electric feeling of a crowd of humans appreciating the same thing …. these events are moments of highly pleasurable social connections.” The idea seems to be that in addition to our personal experience of the performance, we are also stimulated by the enjoyment of others around us, even though we don’t know any of them, and we resent the disruption of that collective and connective response by people who seem more interested in what’s on their phones.

I readily admit that I prefer the other people attending a show to actively enjoy it, but only up to the point just before their “enjoyment” lapses into hysterical enthusiasm that detracts from the show. We experienced this during the musical MJ in New York a while back. Some members of the audience, seated near us, apparently came to believe that the actor playing Michael Jackson was Michael Jackson inexplicably risen from the grave and there for their personal entertainment, in return for which they were obliged to scream and shriek at every cool move the actor made to imitate the real MJ. The noise was overwhelming and detracted from our experience of the show. The “collective effervescence” spilled over into something else.

Tne academic cited in the Vox article thought that “the lockdown’s impact on social gatherings has affected our social skills, such as conversation and general awareness … and I’m sure it has impacted social skills.”

The pendulum swing from gathering in real life to being relegated to social media to now, in 2023, coming back to real-life events may explain why some people are being disruptive and not fully comprehending the impact they’re having on their fellow audience members. They’re using the modes of social connection they got accustomed to — posting a video from a movie theater, scrolling through social media during a Broadway play, or treating a concert like a performance they’re watching from home — in a setting that’s inappropriate. In some cases, it’s an upsettingly tangible example of the self-interested behavior we’ve come to call “main character syndrome,” wherein a person seems to believe that everything that happens around them only contributes to their own story.

That is a bridge too far for me.

I suspect the explanation lies in a broader social phenomenon associated with generational attributes that lead some groups (broad generalization here) to only be seriously interested in things that are about themselves. They therefore can easily block out the interests of those around them. This explains the hysterical laughter and ultra-loud conversations in restaurants that ignore the impact on people at adjoining tables. These people simply don’t care that their “good times” are affecting other people’s “good times,” because everything important and relevant is just about them and them alone.

Make all the excuses you want, but I reject the idea that people in the space of one year lost entirely their awareness of the people around them to such an extent that upon returning to a movie theater, for example, they think it’s fine to text and even talk. We’ve attended three movies in the past month and in every case the end of the previews includes a prominent, loud warning to “don’t text, don’t talk, don’t ruin the movie.” That same warning was played at movies well before the pandemic closed everything. People who violate that warning simply don’t care much about anyone else. They didn’t care before or during the pandemic either. They saw the pandemic as an unjust inconvenience in the world that should still be revolving around them exclusively.

As for the “fans” throwing things at performers, I have tried to understand what might cause such odd behavior. Several possibilities came to mind:

  1. The throwers are obscenely wealthy, which explains their up-front seats, and don’t place real value on their phone – they have more than one or can easily afford another.
  2. The perps are resentful of the notoriety of the performers and want to show them they’re not so special compared to the anonymous ticket-holder in the audience, so “take that, Taylor Swift; you’re not so special.”
  3. The perps have been suppressing their violent hostility toward everyone in authority and now they can release their angst against a live target who is “up” on the stage while they are stuck “down” here with the other screaming masses.

There is no way to sort this out. The truth probably is “all of the above and more” for many people in the audience. But it’s not the pandemic.

So, please, let’s stop with the overreaching explanations for why people behave like inconsiderate boors. It’s most likely because they are inconsiderate boors. The pandemic may have made us more aware of their presences because collective activities still seem “new,” but these particular people are the same as they always were. Once a boor, always a boor, someone once said. You can see them taking videos at the ballet immediately after being told to turn off their phones and put them away because videoing the performance is “strictly prohibited.” Better not sit near me ….

 

“Civil Discourse” As a Device to Suppress the Truth in the U.S. Senate

Leave a reply

Well, well, well, what a sad state we have come to. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, sitting as judge in the Senate proceedings on President Trump’s impeachment, ignored blatant personal attacks by White House counsel in their opening salvos against the lead House manager, Rep. Adam Schiff, reminiscent of the hysterical, inappropriate and repeated comments of Reps. Jordan, Nunes, Meadows and other Republicans during the House’s initial consideration of impeachment. White House counsel in fact lied to the Senate about the House investigative process that led to the impeachment. Schiff, when he had the opportunity to call out those lies, spoke diplomatically, saying he would not call counsel liars but would solely note that they were “mistaken” in their descriptions of the House process.

Later, after a ridiculously long day and night (about 13 hours) of alternating argument on motions to subpoena documents and witnesses, all of which were rejected by party-line vote, Rep. Nadler had a turn at the podium. Nadler was there to argue for a subpoena to issue for the testimony of former National Security Adviser John Bolton. In the course of his argument, Nadler asked of the Senate, “Will you choose to be complicit in the president’s coverup? So far, I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses — an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”

As reported by Vox.com,

The president’s counsel has no standing to talk about lying,” Nadler said, pointing out that the counsel lied about Trump not being invited to take part in the impeachment inquiry. He told the Senate he personally had invited Trump — which is true — and that “a few days later, we received a letter from Mr. Cipollone on the White House stationary that said, ‘No, there’s no interest in appearing.’ So on the one hand, they’re lying —”

Nadler cut himself off there, and returned to his effort to rebut the White House’s claims with facts. But he returned to his point when concluding his remarks, saying the president “defies everything. Defies the law to withhold aid from Ukraine. Defies the law in a dozen different directions, all the time. And lies about it, all the time. And sends Mr. Cipollone here to lie about it.”

…. Nadler was correct in asserting the White House counsel was lying to the Senate. As Vox’s Aaron Rupar [see https://bit.ly/2TPOfzI] noted, the defense team’s opening remarks alone contained at least four easily refuted lies. And as the proceedings went on, those lies — particularly the claim that Trump had been barred from participating in the impeachment inquiry — were repeated.

Nadler’s statements were an attempt to push back against these false claims — and given the fact that they were delivered after more than 10 hours of deliberation, they may have been couched in some frustration.

Given that frustration, and the length of the day, working to avoiding fistfights on the Senate floor is admirable. And it is important that the drama of the trial be contained to discussions of presidential wrongdoing, rather than on fights.

But if there is no way for either side to openly challenge when the other side is not presenting arguments based on the facts, there is little point in having the trial at all. The way it will end seems predetermined, and what Trump did with respect to Ukraine is clear, meaning its value lies in hearing the best — fact-based — cases for why the president does or does not deserve removal.” [https://bit.ly/2Gd1wKy]

Nadler, likely fatigued by the length of the proceedings as dictated by the Republican majority, spoke very bluntly and, for him, passionately.

Now, the president’s lawyer rose to object, taking umbrage to what he argued was an affront to the Senate, demanding an apology. Suddenly humble and solemn, Mr. Cipollone acted out his new persona as a wounded warrior, advocating not for himself, of course, but for the Senate, for the great body itself.

Astoundingly, in my opinion, the Chief Justice now took it upon himself to admonish the parties to remember that they were speaking to the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” He claimed to be chastising both sides equally, but it was not equal. Not even close.

White House counsel not only attacked House managers personally, but they lied to the Senate about the House process, a fact noted by commentators on news programs. I am pretty hard to surprise these days, but I shared the astonishment of legal commenters that White House counsel would lie to the Senate about something so well-known and so obvious. But they did it. No one demanded they apologize. No one wept about the smudge of the Senate’s supposedly stellar reputation as the “world’s greatest deliberative body” when counsel for the president openly misrepresented facts.

I hope that the Chief Justice is going to manage these contentious and unprecedented proceedings in a more even-handed manner going forward. I am not suggesting he intervene to critique the parties’ arguments as they are made. The parties should be given leeway to make their respective cases. But if we’re going to maintain the pretense that everyone in this conflict must leave passion at the door, that should apply to both sides in equal measure. The phony umbrage of White House counsel is of a piece with the president’s continuing efforts to suppress evidence and damage the credibility of the House investigation. The fact that they represent the president does not authorize the judge in the case to place his thumb on the scale of justice. The next time White House counsel attack the integrity of the House managers or grossly misrepresent known facts, the Chief Justice must call them out immediately and put a stop to what is, in every manifestation so far, a one-sided and fundamentally unfair proceeding.

ADDED NOTE: While the impeachment trial is underway, the Senate GOP is tweeting false statements about Rep. Schiff and the House Democratic process that led to Trump’s impeachment. Question: are Republicans to be allowed to beat their chests about “civil discourse” while simultaneously lying to the world in another forum?