Say the Magic Words

The current flap on Bluesky comes from an interview with Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, specifically the following passage:

But I think this question of language goes pretty deep. And it goes to not just being careful not to say things that are egregiously weird sounding, but it’s also the way we interact with advocacy groups. I remember saying I was for a cessation of hostilities in Israel and Palestine. And people said why don’t you say ceasefire? I’m thinking, that’s literally the same thing. I remember saying I was for a big, bold climate bill. And someone said why don’t you say Green New Deal? And this idea that there are magic words that we must be forced to say defines progressivism and political courage by essentially saying whatever a bunch of activists want us to say, as opposed to doing the thing. And I think that there are a bunch of people who see what we’re doing as performative, for that exact reason. But it’s also just alienating. This magic words thing has to go away.

He's getting dunked on for this, specifically by people mocking the notion that "ceasefire" is an example of "egregiously weird" language.

I'm actually going to come to Schatz's defense here, though, because I think he's being misunderstood, and I don't think he's saying that the word "ceasefire" is an example of "egregiously weird" language (which it obviously isn't). Rather, Schatz is saying that there is a different, additional problem on top of the use of weird terms -- the problem where (some) activists insist that if you don't use the exact term they use, you're an enemy, even if substantively you're supporting the same things.

This is what the "ceasefire" example is all about. Schatz calls for a "cessation of hostilities". Some activists get mad at him because it doesn't use the particular word "ceasefire". And Schatz's point is that's a really dumb thing to get mad about, when he supports the same basic substance contained in the word "ceasefire", just expressed in slightly different language. It would also, I think, be dumb for someone who supported "cessation of hostilities" to get mad at someone else who is calling for a "ceasefire", and to insist that they should say "cessation of hostilities" instead. They're saying the same thing, so who cares about minor differences in phraseology! It's sort of the opposite of the "egregiously weird" critique -- here the words really don't (or shouldn't) matter, but people act as if they're everything and the policy content is nothing. If you don't utter the magic words, it doesn't matter if you're in agreement on the actual substantive policy question. That sort of behavior is Schatz suggests, reflective of persons who think it's more important to "perform" being better than others (which they demonstrate by use of the "magic words", and by contrasting themselves with those who don't) than it is about people looking to build power. It is toxic, and it is self-destructive.

To be sure, the fact that this criticism is in many ways the opposite of the "weird language" criticism suggests that we're going to encounter line-drawing problems. Sometimes the use of different words meaning the same thing is immaterial, and we should ignore it; other times certain words are deemed to be outright "weird" or alienating and we should tamp down on them. Which is which? The example Schatz offers in the previous paragraph, of saying "center" (as in "I’m going to center the needs of the working class."), strikes me as thin gruel -- is that really that weird or esoteric? "Latinx" is another popular one Schatz suggests, and maybe it's more clearly on the esoteric side of the line; but again, one could easily say "I use 'Latino', you use 'Latinx', but we're clearly talking about the same damn thing so why pitch a fit over the exact language being used?"

Nonetheless, the underlying point is reasonable enough. When it comes to language, and different words that express the same or similar ideas, we should ask ourselves what are the actual stakes of using term X vs. Y. Sometimes, there's a real difference -- either because the underlying idea really is manifestly different, or because one set of words really is alienating or esoteric or aimed only at a rarefied elite. But most of the time, it really doesn't matter that much, and we shouldn't treat it as mattering that much -- certainly, not so much as to generate a moralized critique. "Green New Deal" might or might not be good message discipline, but if you want a big bold climate bill, and a politician supports a big bold climate bill, don't act like they don't actually support a big bold climate bill if the only basis for your skepticism is that they don't say the magic words "Green New Deal." And likewise with "ceasefire" -- there's nothing wrong with the word "ceasefire", and I don't take Schatz to be saying otherwise, but what he is saying is that if someone supports the underlying position of a "ceasefire" but for whatever reason uses slightly different language to express his view, maybe take the W rather than declare that it doesn't count unless he uses the magic word.

Out/In List: 2024-25

The other Debate Link tradition each year: the out/in list!

Out                                                    In

Biden                                                Trump

Vote Joy                                            Existential dread

DINKing                                           Childcare expenses

Polio vaccines                                   Polio

Justice Thomas                                  Justice Ho

Restore Roe                                       Restore Comstock

Major questions doctrine                  Unitary Executive

Reducing inflation                             Raising tariffs

Vice President Vance                         Co-President Musk

Bluesky is an echo chamber              X's MAGA civil war

Pac-2                                                   Pac-???

Bibi is a goner                                    Bibi somehow survives again

ADL leads the resistance                   ADL leads the acquiescence

Jews blamed for Trump losing          Jews blamed for Trump winning

“Democracy dies in darkness”          "AI bias meters"

Free speech absolutism                      Overturn NY Times v. Sullivan

January 6 was an insurrection            January 6 pardons

“Heterodox” thinkers                         Führerprinzip

Susan Collins’ furrowed brow            Susan Collins doesn't bother

I'd say I hope you're "in", but given the contents of that column that seems mean. So I'll just wish everyone the best of luck next year -- we'll need it.

New Year's Resolutions 2025

Who's ready for New Year's Resolutions? 

Before we begin, we as always recap how I did with last year's resolutions:

Met: 1, 2 (finally!), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13

Missed: 12

Pick 'em: 11 (does avocado count?), 14 (stir-fry isn't exactly "new", but its position was solidified this year).

Wow -- if I didn't know better, I'd almost think 2024 was a good year! Now, what to strive for in 2025?

* * *

1) Bring a healthy baby boy into the world.

2) Get said baby boy his polio vaccine, and all other recommended* vaccinations (*RFK Jr. not a valid source for recommendations).

3) Submit my book manuscript.

4) Travel abroad.

5) Take baby to some sort of event at our synagogue.

6) Have accepted for publication at least one academic article (book does not count).

7) Publish at least one non-academic (popular) article.

8) Win a lot at a "real" art auction (i.e., not eBay or Goodwill).

9) Frame all or most of my art collection.

10) Take and share an appropriate amount of pictures and videos of baby's growth and various milestones.

11) Learn to swaddle the baby, preferably before he grows too big to swaddle.

12) By the end of the year, sleep adequately (I accept the first half of the year will be a lost cause).

13) Be financially secure after adjusting for new child-related expenses.

14) See friends who don't live in Portland.

15) Survive one year of fascist leadership.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXII: Inadequate Linux Education

The whole premise of "Things People Blame the Jews For" is that Jews are blamed for anything and everything, no matter how absurd. Yet even though I created the series, I never fully comprehended the true scope of "no matter how absurd". I thought I did, but I didn't. After all, I was always able to make a snarky comment or bit of wry commentary, an endeavor which necessarily required being able to draw some connection between what Jews were being blamed for and some attribute of the real world. The connection might be tenuous or even invented, but it was there, and I could follow the thread.

Today, I may have been bested, for I have encountered a specimen on Bluesky that I really just have no comment on. I cannot make heads or tails of it. It transcends the series. It has defeated me. Behold:

"Says it all really." Indeed, it does.

This Is Your Grandpa's Democratic Party(?)

"Democrats abandoned ordinary Americans."

It's not true. But it's stuck, like a craw in the mouth of the American voter (and the American pundit). And the big question amongst Democratic strategists is how to dislodge it.

My latest idea, in my ongoing quest to become the Democratic Party's Francis Coppola, is to explicitly run with a narrative that says "yes, this is your Grandfather's Democratic Party" -- directly tying oneself to JFK and the New Deal and the civil rights era and that whole period where (supposedly) the Democratic Party was the party of ordinary Americans. Cut to lines about:

• Defending labor unions.
• Bringing back honest, well-paying jobs that can support your family.
• Taking on the billionaires robbing our democracy.
• Protecting civil rights.
• Restoring a women's right to choose.

All intercut with images of modern workers interspersed with older imagery (the March on Selma, men on girders building skyscrapers, etc.) that evokes the good old days.

What's the point of the ad? Basically, it's to create a permission structure for people who have -- for whatever reason -- internalized the narrative of "the party left me" to tell themselves things have changed again. They're not voting for the modern Democratic Party that Fox News has created for them in their minds over the past few years (latte-sipping coastal elites blah blah blah), they're voting for the mythologized Democratic Party of yesteryear that the Fox News caricature is tacitly juxtaposed against -- the party of the New Deal and of JFK, the party that was a working-class party, the party that built things and fought for everyday Americans.

"Mythologized" is important. Obviously, in reality the Democratic Party of that era (or any era) was not some clarion beacon of the worker's voice; nor was it some uncomplicated bastion of civil rights and women's rights advocacy. I know that, you know that. I also know that "ordinary Americans" is a loaded term, that the past wasn't actually that great for a whole lot of people, and so on.

But we're not writing a history paper here, we're dealing with a mood, and that mood is not especially connected to historical reality. How many times have you heard someone say that the current Democratic Party "just keeps moving to the right" (when it is beyond obvious that the Biden administration is the most progressive Democratic administration in my lifetime)? Objectively, it is impossible to defend the notion that the Democratic Party leadership is more conservative now than it was during the Clinton administration. In reality, making a show of affirming people who think "well, back then Democrats were fighting for me" is worth playing a bit of make-believe. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, and just the gesture of "this is a change in a direction that makes you feel fuzzy" can have an outsized impact. The past wasn't actually that great, and modern changes are good actually. But if you can make people feel as if the things we're pulling for now are simply a restoration of the hazy memories they have when things were inchoately "better" (or "less complicated" or "less divided" or whatever), you're in a very good position.

I'm not saying the idea is perfect. In particular, even as a subversion of the "not your grandpa's ..." frame, the tagline still is a rough one at a time when many people are aggrieved at the "gerontocracy" in American politics. So workshop the hell out of this. I'm not prideful about it. But I think there's something here. The great insight of the contemporary conservative movement is in how they manage to fuse their present-day reactionary values as if there were simply a restoration of the greatness of the founders (I read one constitutional commentator describe originalism as "ventriloquizing the present through the past"). Democrats can do it too -- and as the Republican Party falls deeper and deeper into the grip of billionaire oligarchs and weird paranoid extremists, there's an opening here we can and should exploit.

Learning the Right Wrong Lessons, Part II

The major pivot point in Joe Biden's term in office did not stem from inflation or the war in Gaza. It came following his withdrawal from Afghanistan. That decision was marked by a few key characteristics:

1. It was the right call: we weren't accomplishing anything in Afghanistan, and nobody had a better plan to turn things around other than "stay for six more months, and then six more months after that."
2. It was always going to be bumpy, leaving ample attack avenues open for political opponents (and the media) to exploit; and
3. It was vocally demanded by the American left.

Three of Biden's predecessors over a twenty year period had stayed in Afghanistan, perhaps not believing the first point, perhaps fearing the second. Biden was the one who actually followed through and did the right thing, hoping that the progressive actors who enlivened the third point would rise to his defense to counteract the second.

It didn't happen. Biden withdrew, got absolutely pilloried for it in the press, received essentially no credit for it from the left, and to be honest his presidential tenure never recovered. As I and many others observed, any rational political observer knew what lesson to draw from the ordeal, and it's not a good one.

I think we're going through the same scenario with Biden's recent commutation wave targeting persons who were already moved into home confinement during COVID. After the Hunter Biden pardon, there were absolutely valid questions about how the clemency power was being used, and one narrative many progressives rapidly coalesced on was that if Biden is going to pardon his own son, he better use it to the benefit of ordinary, non-connected inmates in the clutches of prison system. Much like the Afghanistan withdrawal, this was a vocal demand of the left, and much like the Afghanistan withdrawal it was essentially assured that any large-scale deployment of the clemency power would yield something that political opponents could exploit. Contrary to the idyll fantasies in certain quarter, most people in prison have indeed done something wrong, and any political action to benefit the likes of "them" is a ripe avenue for political attack. This is one reason why criminal justice reform is hard.

Anyway, Biden issues a commutation order for roughly 1500 people, the largest one-day usage of the clemency power in American history. One of the beneficiaries was the notorious "kids for cash" judge in Pennsylvania, Michael Conahan. People -- including liberals who a moment earlier were demanding expansive use of the clemency power -- went ballistic. And Biden got essentially got no credit.

It goes without saying that the Conahan committed an absolutely heinous crime. But it is a testament to how bad the media culture is around this issue that when I first heard about Biden's decision I was misled twice. First I thought it was the case that Biden pardoned Conahan; he didn't, the sentence was commuted. Then I got the impression that the commutation meant that the judge would serve a negligible time in jail (time is meaningless to me right now, I had absolutely no sense of when the judge committed his crimes or was convicted and sentenced). Wrong again: Conahan was sentenced to seventeen years in prison, and this commutation occurred after he served fourteen.

Could one say that the Biden administration could have reviewed the commutations more closely to make sure a guy like this wasn't included? Perhaps -- but I'd level two notes of caution. First, if it wasn't him, odds are it'd be someone else. Again, most people in federal prison did something to hurt someone. If you support using clemency on a wide scale, you have to be willing to take that hit. Second, there is an inherent incompatibility between doing clemency at scale and adding a bunch of extra layers of individualized review. If we're talking a dozen or so people or so, it's probably possible to conduct a timely review of each of their records in depth that will assure oneself that there's nothing there that will trigger major political blowback. When we're talking about thousands of people at once, that sort of review isn't feasible without gumming up the works indefinitely. So if you think the problems in our carceral system are not just a few idiosyncratic cases of unusually sympathetic people who were caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time, but is systemic, then you need to allow for reform mechanisms that are systemic in nature, and that necessarily means they're not going to be perfectly attentive to the particularities of every inmate's case.

Here, the reason that Conahan received a commutation wasn't because someone looked at his particular case file and said "this person is especially worthy of executive grace." There was rather a broad metric the Biden administration was using -- people who had already served most of their sentences, were medically vulnerable in prison, had not been convicted of violent or sexual offenses, and who had already been transferred into home confinement -- and this man was one of 1500 or so who met the criteria. That's a reasonable metric, and if you're telling me that it's essential to add more bureaucratic barriers to the clemency process -- and, in essence, make it much, much harder to issue clemency at scale -- in order to ensure that Michale Conahan serves seventeen years in prison instead of fourteen, then I say your priorities are out of order.

But the reality is that, like with Afghanistan, any observer will see what Joe Biden did here, see the reaction, see the anemic defense he received even from many of those who demanded action just like this, and learn the only rational lesson there is to learn: stay away from criminal justice reform. Be stingy with the clemency power. Keep more people in prison for longer. That's the lesson, and I'm sure every savvy Democratic politico is internalizing it.

Racist Idiots Continue To Be Mad That Caitlin Clark Is Not Racist

It's an exaggeration to say that conservatives only care about women's sports when it gives them an excuse to be transphobic. Sometimes they care about women's sports in order to be racist too.

For example, every once in a while, idiots try to conscript Caitlin Clark into racism and then get really mad that she doesn't participate.

In college, I remember a blowup some people had over Angel Reese doing some trash talking against Clark when LSU beat Iowa in the national championship. Clark, of course, is no stranger to trash talk herself, and people rightfully understood the pearl-clutching on her behalf as highly racialized in character. But the "controversy" was entirely on the outside; Clark gave absolutely no indication that she couldn't take what she dished out. Her view was always that trash talk and the like is part of the game, whether she's on the giving or the receiving end. Racists wanted to be racist on Clark's behalf, Clark did not bite, and it was pretty clear that the folks who rushed to "defend" her resented her for not obliging.

The other day we witnessed another iteration of this, after Time Magazine mentioned ongoing frustration by some Black WNBA players (h/t: Kevin Drum) who think they're persistently overlooked because of race (and that, in turn, Clark's popularity stems in part from the "great white savior" narrative). Clark was asked about the issue, and gave a perfectly reasonable answer about the importance of celebrating and uplifting the many Black players who have contributed immeasurably to the league's success:

“I want to say I’ve earned every single thing, but as a white person, there is privilege,” says Clark. “A lot of those players in the league that have been really good have been Black players. This league has kind of been built on them. The more we can appreciate that, highlight that, talk about that, and then continue to have brands and companies invest in those players that have made this league incredible, I think it’s very important. I have to continue to try to change that. The more we can elevate Black women, that’s going to be a beautiful thing.”

A good answer, and predictably, some people went ballistic over it:

Well, it happened. Caitlin Clark finally bent the knee to the insufferable, gaslighting, disgusting, race-baiting woke mob.... Anyway, Clark got her roses, and then proceeded to bend the knee to the mob.... Caitlin Clark bends the knee to an invisible mob.... Why did the best player in the WNBA — by a laughably wide margin — crumble like a cheap tent?

Now we can concentrate on how pathetic this whine is. But I want to flag something specific, as someone who actually did follow the WNBA season this year: Caitlin Clark is not, in fact, the best player in the WNBA. The best player in the WNBA, by a laughably wide margin, is A'ja Wilson. This is no knock on Clark, who is an outstanding player and was well-deserving of rookie of the year. But let's look at the stat lines this season (all stats on a per game basis):

• Wilson: 26.9 points, .518 FG%,11.9 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 1.8 steals, 2.6 blocks, 1.3 turnovers
• Clark: 19.2 points, .417 FG%, 5.7 rebounds, 8.4 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.7 blocks, 5.6 turnovers

With all respect to Clark, this is a blowout. Wilson averaged a double-double on the season. She led the league in blocks; she set an all-time league record in points per game. She led Clark in every statistical category but assists (unsurprising, since Clark is a guard and Wilson is a center). That's why Wilson won the MVP by a unanimous vote -- only the second time that's occurred in WNBA history.

Again, this is not at all to dismiss Clark as anything other than an all-star. She had a great rookie season. She did a fantastic job leading the hitherto sad sack Indiana Fever to the playoffs, overcoming a dismal season start (where we saw Clark's own adjustment pains getting used to playing at the highest level of the sport). Her own rookie of the year honors, and fourth place finish in MVP voting, were also very well-deserved. And she plays a exciting style of basketball that's a ton of fun to watch -- I know full well that  a Caitlin Clark game is must-see TV.

Obviously, at one level this only validates the complaint by Wilson and others regarding how they're overlooked for clearly racist reasons. But I also raise this because the sort of racist morons out here demanding Caitlin Clark be racist also, very clearly, pay absolutely zero attention to the WNBA -- Caitlin Clark included -- for any reason other than looking for an excuse to be racist. They know nothing about the game other than that it might provide a vector for various racist and transphobic projections. So it's no surprise that when the game and the players don't indulge them in their bigotry, they throw a tantrum. It's literally the only reason they care about women's sports.

With Great Blocking Power ....

As everyone knows, one of the main differences between Bluesky and even "old Twitter" is the blocking culture. One of my favorite stories from when I first joined Bluesky came in the wake of a series of negative interactions with a semi-prominent journalist figure. I considered blocking her but then I thought "no -- while this wasn't pleasant, there was nothing abusive here, so I'm going to be better than that." The next morning I woke up and discovered ... she had blocked me! Moral of the story: block first. At least that way you get the satisfaction.

The block-happy culture of Bluesky has led to a lot of chatter about Bluesky turning into an "echo chamber" -- an accusation which, ironically enough, is one of the fastest ways to get yourself blocked on Bluesky. For my part, I think the echo chamber complaint is overblown (in part because very often what we tell ourselves is "exposure to diverse views" actually is a way to reaffirm "wow, those people are maniacs"). But I do think that it is important to start thinking about best blocking practices in a informational system where "block early, block often" is normal and not frowned upon.

Take block lists, for example. These can be valuable tools to ramp up blocking of entire suites of bad actors quickly. But they're also easily abused. I've seen reports of trolls and other bad actors setting up block lists seeded with an assortment of the "usual suspect" controversial accounts and then, once people adopt them, adding in (say) trans rights activists. If you're not paying attention to who is curating the lists, it is easy to get taken in by that sort of move. That doesn't mean "don't use block lists", it just means be mindful when and how you use them. The mantra of "block early, block often" shouldn't be used to disavow one's own responsibility over the choices you make -- rather, it should accentuate it.

A similar concern attaches to "secondary" block lists -- that is, those populated not by the primary bad actors, but by people who follow those bad accounts. Again, it's not that I can't see the use case for these, but they're fraught with danger. Most obviously, people who research, say, antisemitism (to use a random example) may follow all sorts of unlovely accounts for research and monitoring purposes. Follows do not equal endorsement. And the broader version of that insight is that who people follow is their business.  People make follow/unfollow decisions for an infinite number of reasons. We have absolute autonomy over what shows up on our feed, but we shouldn't start claiming authority over other people's feeds. If they start being unpleasant in their own voice, block them, but the moralization over who one follows strikes me as problematic. Tend to one's own garden.

Maybe you have quarrels with either of the above examples. But the bigger picture point I'm trying to make is this: a social media culture in which blocking is normal also has to be one where we take responsibility for the choices we make when blocking. A social media culture where blocking is rare can get away with people being less mindful about it, because they're only going to be acting in the most clear-cut cases -- one doesn't need to do a lot of deep reflecting to justify blocking RandoNazi1488. It's when we move beyond those cases that thought and consideration becomes important. And precisely because there are not and cannot be rules about blocking -- it is, ultimately, a matter of personal discretion -- it is especially important to cultivate a suite of good virtues around blocking. Block people who are abusive, but not people who just disagree. Block people for what they write, not for what the people they follow write. I don't think these are especially onerous, and I think most people are trying to follow them to one degree or another. But it can be easy to conflate Bluesky's quite healthy "block early, block often" mantra into an unhealthy belief that the actual ethos of the community is "I shouldn't have to think at all about my blocking choices." That isn't our ethos, and it shouldn't be our ethos.

A willingness to block often is not the same thing as being cavalier about blocking. Ideally, a healthy blocking culture will entail thinking carefully about how to balance hearing from a range of views and avoiding epistemic silencing with having a pleasant experience and not being inundated with worthless troll blather. I do think most people are capable of striking that balance in a reasonable way, but it isn't something one can do thoughtlessly. With great blocking power comes great blocking responsibility, and that's something we should embrace.