One step against mass shooters

We live in a society that values fame above all.  People want to be known for something.  At least, they do, until they grow up, and accept the responsibilities of an adult.

Years ago, I wrote the following in a blog post about a series of young adult books that taught the wrong lesson:

Here's an important life lesson that should be communicated to children at all times. Your role in society will probably be something that no one will want to write a book about, or translate to film. Despite that, your life will be successful. You will have a job, good friends, a special someone, a home, a community, interests, and hobbies.

The essential point is that few people will become famous, and children need to learn that as part of growing up.  But this post was written years before YouTube, which allows a much larger number of people to become famous.

Now, what happens if you don't even have the talent to become YouTube famous?

Hopefully, you learned from watching your family, your friends, and the prominent members of your community that none of that is necessary to be successful.

But for those who don't learn that lesson, especially boys who come from broken homes with absent fathers and no strong male figures in their lives?

The mass media is still willing to make them famous, if they commit an act of suitable evil.

But they don't have to do this.

What if the latest mass shooter was referred to in all media coverage by the serial number 20180214-FL-A?  What if, instead of putting the shooter's picture on the broadcast, they instead used an image reduced to block pixels that make an Atari 2600 image look like a Rembrandt portrait?  What if, instead of making a person famous, they treated him like the non-person he was?

What would the next potential mass shooter think?

Geek Culture

Over on Twitter, Mark Kern (involved in the creation of computer games like World of Warcraft, Diablo 2, and Starcraft) had an interesting discussion about how things have changed for geek culture.  With comic book movies dominating the box office and the Internet presenting computer games as a pursuit on par with athletics (e-sports), there are people following these passions who have never seen these as other than mainstream.  And he related his own experiences with being a geek back in the day, when these pursuits were decidedly unpopular.

There were a lot of positive responses, of people sharing their own stories, but as is the case with social media, there were plenty of negative responses--people denying this was a problem, or saying this wasn't real bullying (compared to, say, racial discrimination).

Twitter isn't the right platform for sharing longer stories, so I thought I'd reminisce here.

Back in the day, I was into video games and role-playing games.  Video games were pretty widely played, but this was long before e-sports, and even before popular musicians and athletes talked about video games, so they weren't mainstream.  Other games, comic books, science fiction and fantasy, and the like were even more obscure.  So my interests didn't do anything to make me popular.

What was popular in culture during my junior high school days?  Skater and surfer culture.  Kids who did neither would wear Vans shoes and T-shirts with the logo of some surf company in Hawaii.

And I thought skater and surfer culture was stupid.

Now, to give you an example of what adults thought about my interests?  A junior high school guidance counselor suggested I could be more popular if I just dressed like the popular kids, faking an interest in the dominant culture.

The way I see it, bullying was tolerated.  I won't try comparing its seriousness to something like racial harassment.  However, I will note that if a minority student were being attacked because of his culture, I guarantee you no guidance counselor would suggest he try acting more white.

Analyzing Monsters, Inc.?

One of the things you can't avoid on the Internet is alternate takes about popular media.  One I saw recently was how the classic animated film Monsters, Inc. wasn't a goofy children's tale, but a scathing warning about an evil corporation profiting from forced scarcity!

Sure, you can read it that way, if it fits your politics.  But I can create even more hot takes!

It's a warning about government bureaucracy:  See, Monsters, Inc. is a power plant, so they're a public utility, either a government function or regulated by the government.  Their resistance to looking for energy sources other than children's screams?  It's because it's government work.  No monster will ever get in trouble for doing things the way they've always been done, and no monster is going to stick his neck (or necks) out to take a chance on something new.  Why risk the pension, the corner office, the executive secretary, the reserved parking space, the whole personal fiefdom?

It's a warning about forced societal roles:  Big monsters scare.  That's what they're supposed to do.  Little monsters act in support.  That's the way society is supposed to function.  And some monsters are more than happy to profit off of this arrangement.

See?  Isn't forcing everything to fit your preconceived notions fun?