Reading fiction creates empathy

I downloaded Michigan’s COVID data, updated on the 13th. The peaks in new cases per day for the last few weeks are 1448, 1262, 1870, 1531, and 1648. I think we’re in a plateau. The deaths per day remain unchanged. The Guest Editorial in the November-December issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact magazine, written by Richard Lovett, is about what to do about fake news. He discussed the research of Rebecca Goldberg, a behavior science researcher at Google. We can’t suppress fake news, but we can blunt its hold on the public conversation. That’s possible because the methods of disinformation haven’t changed, even though the method of distribution has. Those methods include attacks on the speaker that have nothing to do with the issue and logical fallacies, such as false dichotomies. Goldberg did research that included showing some subjects videos that explained methods of disinformation before showing all subjects samples of fake news. Those who were shown the videos were much more cautious in believing the news. There was a recent natural experiment in the power of disinformation. Early in the pandemic Fox News host Tucker Carlson early on said COVID was a problem. His fellow host Sean Hannity was more dismissive. In counties where Carlson was more popular viewers were more likely to take protective measures than viewers in counties where Hannity was more popular. The counties that favored Hannity had a sharper rise in cases. There are pro-vaccine people, anti-vaccine people, and those who don’t pay much attention either way. They’re discussing kids and pets with their online communities where they encounter disinformation. That means they’re the ones most affected by it and the ones where learning about fake news methods would have the most effect. So why aren’t the required high school classes in logical fallacies? There are three main defenses to fake news. Lovett wrote:

Goldberg’s “detecting misinformation techniques” ads is one. Listening politely to friends with opposing views is another (especially under a mutually agreed on time limit). But for readers of this magazine, the biggest answer might be realizing that reading fiction creates empathy – which might be one of the best ways to inoculate yourself against [Victoria] Parker’s “unjustified polarization.”

And reading fiction is a lot more fun. Yesterday marks the 10th anniversary of the mass shooting in the Sandy Hook elementary school. There have been many pieces on many of news outlets marking the date, including this one by Rebekah Sager of Daily Kos. Did nothing happen as a result of that tragedy? Or was it the start of an effort that finally produced the Safer Communities Act signed into law a few months ago? Of course, a lot more needs to be done to stop guns being the top cause of death in children. It is astonishing we keep letting this happen. There are, naturally, many cartoonist marking the anniversary, such as this one with pictures of all those who were murdered that day. The one that affected me the most is this one that shows marks on a door frame that usually show the growth of a child, but instead marks the years of school shootings. David Neiwert of Kos reported the mass shooting at the Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub...

seems to have spurred far-right extremists to a higher level of action. Since those murders, groups like the Proud Boys, armed militiamen, and various neofascist groups that have been turning out to harass LGBTQ communities under the rubric of labeling them “groomers” since this summer have begun ratcheting up their politics of menace.

Neiwert then gave several examples where militia groups have shown up, or just threatened to show up, at various LGBTQ events, most frequently a drag queen event. Many times that prompts canceling the event. Neiwert wrote:

“The goals are clear,” tweeted author Andy Campbell: “Cancel community events by mobilizing violent bigoted gangs, and ultimately, flood the narrative with ‘groomer’ until all drag/LGBTQ is accepted as inherently threatening.” "The world is getting more and more unsafe for the LGBTQ community,” Cheryl Ryan of the Red Oak Community School told NBC News. “We have to do better."

On to good news. Joan McCarter of Kos reported a week ago the House passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which overturns the Defense of Marriage Act from 26 years ago. Those approving the act include 39 Republicans. The act also lays out the ways the federal government must respect same-sex marriage. This does not require states to allow same-sex marriages to be held in their borders, but does require them to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. It also requires federal recognition of interracial marriages. The act is needed because many of the federal government recognitions of same-sex marriage are by executive order and could have been rescinded by a Republican president and because the Supreme Court invited cases to overturn their 2015 ruling that says same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. Hunter of Kos reported that on Tuesday Biden held a big ceremony to sign the law. Brian Karem tweeted a photo of the thousands who gathered outside the White House as Biden signed the act. Ryan Burge, a pastor at an American (not Southern) Baptist Church, created charts of the support in some religious traditions of same-sex marriage in 2004 and last year. In 2004 no religious tradition (including those with no religion) had a majority that supported same-sex marriage. 17 years later all the traditions he charted have a majority who support same-sex marriage. It is good to see this improvement. For many that is a 40 point change. Evangelicals went from 12% to 52% support. Those with no religion went from 48% to 85% support. In a post that has been hiding in a browser tab since the end of October, Chrislove of Kos, discussing LGBTQ Literature, wrote about the book Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, by George Chauncey, published in 1994. The book documents a thriving gay and culture in the city that lasted a half century. This culture was more integrated into the daily life of the city. Gay men announced their presence through red ties, bleached hair, and other insignia. Their cultural events were attended by straight people and tourists and reported on in newspapers. Chauncey wrote the book partly to dispel three myths. First is the myth of isolation, that because of the extensive homophobia gay men led isolated lives. Related to it is the second myth of invisibility. But in this half century gay men could find each other and were able to create their own culture. The third myth is of internalization that gay men soaked in the dominant medical ideas of the time that homosexuality is sick and perverse. Many gay men of this era created strategies of everyday resistance so they could claim space for themselves. At the time “coming out” was more about being a debutante at a “pansy ball” than ending isolation by announcing one’s orientation. Chauncey also refutes the idea of a progressive arc to history, in which each year is better than the one before, that there is a steady movement towards freedom. But gay life was more open in 1920 than 1960. Alas, a backlash began in the 1930s as government developed an extensive apparatus to oppress gay people. That culminated in the Lavender Scare that was a subtext to the McCarthy era. Many gay men lost government jobs during that time. Our Gay Liberation was in response to that. Chauncey also discusses at that time there wasn’t the same distinction between straight and gay as there is now. Even if they didn’t know the terms they seemed to make a distinction between orientation and identity. One could still be a “normal” man while engaging in sex with men if one did not appear to be effeminate, as in taking up cultural roles ascribed to women.