The point of this project has always been to take a look at the news and pop culture of the moment and try to dig a little bit deeper.

To spark conversations about ideas, beyond superficial reactions of: “this movie is good and I like it” or “this article is interesting and I agree with it”, by taking the focus off of opinions and instead asking questions that lead to discussions among friends. Ideally, discussions that reveal something about who we are, and what matters to us. The kind of conversations that maybe even bring us closer to some deeper truths, and to each other.

It seems like that’s the kind of discussion we’re all having right now, about one very big thing: America’s structural racism, and the police violence that’s both a symptom — and a perpetuator — of that racism.

Beyond acknowledging their validity, I’m no expert on this stuff. I’m still very much in listening and learning mode right now. So in this moment, I wanted to share someone else’s discussion. It’s between two people I admire even though I don’t always agree with them, who’ve both proven to have incredible critical minds, and who I know think deeply about the world’s problems and what we can do to fix them.

On the June 3rd, 2020 episode of the Ezra Klein Show, he and author Ta-Nahisi Coates discussed the role of the police in society, and what some alternatives might look like. The whole conversation was strangely hopeful, and though I wouldn’t normally lift such a large chunk verbatim, this exchange gave me a lot to think about — both on how to understand what’s happening today and how to imagine what the future could look like.

Right now feels like a critical moment to really consider ideas like these, and honestly discuss:

What situations have you seen or been in involving police, and how could they have gone differently with a different kind of help?

Instead of dialing 911 and having armed police respond to every problem in our communities, what might an alternative system look like?

What does the world need more of right now, that we could deploy in a nationwide effort, instead of more police forces?

Not normally something I’d click on (but this is the value of actual printed magazines, people!), this article on burgeoning communities of strict Catholics in The Atlantic contained this killer paragraph:

In some ways, these groups are merely practicing an extreme form of the insularity many Americans have already embraced. Deep-blue enclaves such as Berkeley and brownstone Brooklyn are similarly homogenous, sought out by people with a certain set of values and hopes for their children. But the rise of more radical self-sorting poses a challenge to America’s experiment in multicultural democracy, enshrined in the motto e pluribus unum—“Out of many, one.” The dream of a diverse society is replaced with one in which different groups coexist, but mostly try to stay out of one another’s way. The ongoing experiment in St. Marys suggests what might be gained by such a realignment—and what might be lost.

Hard when the shoe’s on the other foot, this one… but maybe neither is wrong and we just have to re-think what we really want out of life, community, social mobility, democracy, etc.

Is it inherently bad to want to live somewhere among people who share our values?

Is there a difference based on what those values are?

What do we lose if we all withdraw into enclaves like this? Or is it inevitable and we have to make peace with it?

Badass women, barred from work, found alternate ways to f’ing take care of business.

Plenty of writers have tackled the classic “Can Working Women Have It All?” premise (yaaaaawn), but this Atlantic piece came at the question from a different, historic angle I appreciated. Instead of looking at how hard it is to be a parent and a spouse and a successful professional, it asks who has time to run civic organizations (historically done by non-working women), when everyone’s so focused and busy running their own careers and households in tandem?

That’s not to indulge in nostalgia for a period of American history when women primarily led clubs rather than companies. Women frequently organized to fight for rights they had been denied by men, and they often aspired to lead charitable organizations because they were prevented from pursuing other paths. But ironically, in winning fuller equality with men, some women lost a share of the meaning and purpose that comes from life outside of productive labor. This is not a story about women’s failures, or a polemic against their advancement. It’s a cautionary tale for men and women alike. The corner office isn’t always the pinnacle of leadership. Often, the most important leadership happens in local communities.

So if we’re all busy working 40+ hours a week and trying to squeeze in family and friends in the time that’s left, what’s left to devote to causes or groups that move society forward?

Have we squeezed out time to be citizens of our communities in chasing the perfect work/life balance for both men and women?

How might we carve out more space for public life among personal ambitions?

If we don’t, who does the work that needs to be done in society?

Be a part of something bigger; just not “burn in hell if you don’t” bigger.

Occasionally, like this week in The Atlantic, I will read articles about groups for the non-religious attempting to replace the feeling of community that churches have traditionally provided. Weekly gathering, light ritual and a chance to meet people you share beliefs with, only without the dogma and judgment.

Some secular communities seem to be negotiating between conflicting impulses: to separate from religion on the one hand, and to adopt the frameworks often associated with religion on the other. Rather than experimenting with something wholly new, they seem to be inviting nonreligious people to revise their relationships to the kinds of collective rituals they may have avoided—or felt excluded from—in the past.

Every time I hear about one of these groups, as a non-religious person myself, I’m always torn between those impulses listed above. Part of me wonders if that slight yearning for a larger community connection is a natural human one that I should pursue, or an outdated and unnecessary one I’ll be just fine without.

Should non-religious people look for that sense of community that churches provide in other places? Where and how might they find it?

With the religious aspect removed, what should the goals and common purpose of these type of groups be in a modern world?

Or alternately, is that local community an old notion that we can fulfill in other, equally healthy and productive ways?

Sometimes doing good is about as cringe-inducing as being wrong.

Like most human beings with an ounce of self-awareness, I generally think of myself as a good person. Not the best, not a saint, but mostly good. I suspect even people who are not that great on paper must at least be able to justify to themselves that they are not, on balance, bad.

Also like most human beings, there are other human beings that drive me nuts, who I wish would fundamentally change their behavior or beliefs because in my mind, they are hurting the world and dragging us down with them.

(An example, from my point of view: those who would defund Planned Parenthood, militant gun-rights advocates unwilling to discuss regulation or reduction, anyone who still behaves in actively racist or homophobic ways. An example from the opposite point of view: people like me who don’t listen to the Bible or Constitution and want to ruin what’s great about America.)

If both parties think they are generally right, and generally good, then someone must be wrong. They can’t both be equally right. So instead of taking sides, maybe some objectivity can come into play.

Imagine Person X believes strongly in Issue X, where Issue X is something you disagree with strongly. (pro-life vs pro-choice, gun rights vs gun control, marriage equality vs tradition, etc).

You think you are on the right side of Issue X, obviously, and by living in the world not being wrong, not perpetuating ignorance, and voting your beliefs every two or four years, you are doing good. Maybe sometimes you fill out an online petition or donate money.

Person X is, in your mind, totally on the wrong side of history here. They are actively hurting the world with their ignorance. But they do volunteer work every week for the community (through church, school, etc) that helps actual people on a regular basis, and are overall very friendly and generous. Just wrong.

Who is the better person?

Who is helping/hurting society more in the big picture?