For instance, two journalists may report on the same undisputed facts, while one makes those facts seem negative, and the other makes them seem positive, without either of them saying anything that’s actually untrue. Word choice does the hard work. Afterward, it’s easy to hide behind this lack of untruths, claiming neutrality, even though language choice strongly implied a particular conclusion.

But of course, if you are purposely making something seem bad or good (independently of the facts), you have an opinion, and you are potentially altering the reader’s perceptions of the facts. The facts, as a reader perceives them, are not divorced from context and implication.

Of course, it’s sometimes good to express an opinion, to call something out as bad or good. But when it’s done on purpose via word choice alone, it can be a sneak attack that hits us below our conscious awareness. It can determine our opinions about the facts without us even realizing it. And when done with sufficient skill and subtly, we may come away falsely assuming that the author had a neutral point of view, that they just plainly told us the facts.

Consider how many different ways there are to express the facts about these specific situations:

Situation A
(1) It is known that revenues will be the same as last month.
(2) Haiden explained that revenues would be the same as last month.
(3) Haiden said revenues would be the same as last month.
(4) According to Haiden, revenues will be the same as last month.
(5) Haiden admitted revenues would be the same as last month.
(6) Haiden could not deny that revenues will be the same as last month.
(7) Haiden confessed that revenues would be the same as last month.
(8) Haiden had no choice but to admit that revenues would be the same as last month.

Situation B
(1) An insider close to the situation explained that the action was premeditated.
(2) The action was premeditated, as Remy later informed us.
(3) Remy filled us in that the action was premeditated.
(4) Remy said the action was premeditated.
(5) Remy told us the action was premeditated.
(6) Remy claimed the action was premeditated.
(7) Remy was going around saying that the action was premeditated.
(8) If you believe Remy, the action could have been premeditated.
(9) Remy made the claim that the action was premeditated.
(10) Remy tried to claim that the action was premeditated.
(11) Remy wanted people to believe that the action was premeditated.

Situation C
(1) We learned that the allegations against Pat are entirely false.
(2) Pat explained that the allegations were entirely false.
(3) Pat said the allegations are false.
(4) Pat denied the allegations.
(5) Pat claimed the allegations were false.
(6) Pat would not admit to the allegations.
(7) Pat refused to admit the allegations.
(8) Pat is playing the part of the victim and telling people the allegations are false.
(9) Pat is still claiming the allegations are false yet hasn’t given us a shred of hard evidence.

Situation D
(1) Santana is sexually liberated.
(2) Santana has a preference for having multiple sexual relationships.
(3) Santana enjoys having sex with different partners.
(4) Santana has a variety of sexual partners.
(5) Santana is not choosy about sexual partners the way most people are.
(6) Santana is promiscuous.
(7) Santana is a slut.

Situation E
(1) We learned additional useful information about the story by talking to Peyton again.
(2) Peyton later added additional information that helped us better understand the story.
(3) Peyton told us more information about the story.
(4) Peyton’s original story wasn’t complete.
(5) Peyton had omitted information in the original telling of the story.
(6) Peyton had prevented us from fully understanding the story by leaving out information.
(7) Peyton did not tell us the whole story.
(8) Peyton left out important parts of the story.
(9) Because Peyton left out important parts of the story, we were misled about what had really taken place.
(10) Peyton misled us about the story.

This essay was first written on October 19, 2018, and first appeared on this site on October 29, 2021.

You shouldn’t spoil the movie: imagine going to a movie that has a lot of good parts, but you don’t enjoy those good parts because while they’re happening, you keep thinking about the fact that the movie will eventually end. If it doesn’t make sense to do that in a movie, then it makes even less sense to do that in your life. You may find it helpful to simply note when disruptive thoughts about death occur and remind yourself at those times that they are counterproductive if they are distracting you from enjoying “the movie.”

Death doesn’t harm you while living or dead: if a person is alive, then death has not reached them yet, so a person’s death cannot harm that person while they are still living. If a person is dead, then they do not exist, and so can experience no harm. Hence your own death cannot harm you either when you are living or when you are dead. So if death is a harm to you, it is a harm to you during those seconds or minutes when you are transitioning from alive to dead, but at least that period is very short-lived and has not happened yet.

Death is bearable: if it is not death itself that you fear, but rather the suffering that sometimes comes before death, keep in mind that very, very few people commit suicide upon nearing death, suggesting that the suffering that sometimes comes before slow deaths is probably very rarely truly intolerable (unless the barrier to committing suicide is very high).

You are incredibly lucky to exist at all: you may not feel it every day (or even most days), but the fact that you exist is an extremely lucky chance occurrence. Consider, for instance, that male ejaculate contains on average about 280 million sperm, and that if ANY of these had fertilized your mother’s egg other than the one that did, you would not exist right now. And that’s just one of a vast number of coincidences that were required for you to be born.

It could be worse: there are probably quite a few things worse than total oblivion (hell, for instance, or just being tortured for years). To me, this contrast effect (comparing death to even worse things) makes me feel better about death itself since it is merely oblivion and could be worse.

Your impact can live on: the things you choose to do while alive can impact distant generations living long after you are gone, even if you are not a famous scientist or influential politician. For instance, if you have children, then the way you treat them will have effects on how they treat their children and hence how their children treat their own children, etc. (at least, assuming the world doesn’t end before then). Or, if over a span of a number of years you end up giving ten thousand dollars to malaria prevention, it could very well save a person’s life, which could have long-term positive consequences for that person’s parents and spouse and friends and children. More generally, there are ripple effects for many actions that you take, which end up having second-order and third-order consequences that could extend long past your lifespan.

Full acceptance can make it easier: instead of fighting mentally against the reality that you will die, truly accepting that it will happen and then focussing on how to live your life with this constraint can be less upsetting in the long run. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you should give in to dying soon: you should still do everything you can to extend your life while fully accepting that it is eventually inevitable.

We’re in this together: remember that everyone who was born more than 125 years ago is now dead, that this is something all humans face, and that (unless some truly remarkable new technology is invented, which I’m hoping for, but which is a long shot) we all share this hardship. Talk to others about how they come to peace with death. Lean on them. You don’t need to go it alone.

You can have one hell of a ride: even though the ride must end, you can make it a damn good one. With hard work and some luck, you can have a truly amazing and meaningful time while you’re here.

Finiteness does not mean meaninglessness: occasionally, people find that the fact that things will end makes everything feel meaningless. But if you believe this is true, that implies that you believe things would only be meaningful if they lasted forever. I don’t know about you, but this intuitively feels false to me. My gut says the opposite is true, at least in the sense that finiteness imbues greater meaning to each minute, making time more precious.

Death is a reminder to deeply savor: because of death, we should make an extra effort to try to savor the taste of every bite of chocolate, the feeling on our skin when we walk outside into nice weather, the coziness of being indoors when it’s raining, the excitement of each deep connection we make with other human beings, the start of our favorite song, the smell of fresh air, and the thrill of grasping a new idea. If you lived forever, you could consume each of these things an infinite number of times, but you only have a finite number of each of them left, so experience them as fully and completely as you can manage.

Death is bad, but you can find peace with it: don’t get me wrong, death is NOT a good thing (except in the rare instances where it cuts a bad existence short). It is undeniably bad because it causes good things (things that we value) to cease. One day of happy, meaningful, altruistic life lived is better than just one hour of it, and one year of it is better still (all else held equal). Even if there are a few problems that death makes simpler, like overcrowding and avoiding the stagnation of ideas, in the absence of death, we could find better solutions for these problems. But even accepting that death is truly bad, it is something we can learn to be at peace with.
Consider returning to the list above when you feel your own mortality weighing on you heavily, and see which of these framings you find most helpful.