While we’re on the subject of commenting protocol . . .
Comments
Regarding Steven’s admonition to not be a troll, which I heartily second, let me add a gentle reminder to dispense with the silly nicknames for the President-elect or, indeed, any other person or groups under discussion. I understand the disdain but it does nothing to advance the argument. It simply signals unseriousness and lowers the tenor of the conversation.
Categories
Tags
@Kathy: If you’re somehow unable to write “Trump,” “POTUS,” “47” or some similar shorthand would be acceptable.
I apply this rule broadly. I refer to the Islamic State as “the Islamic State,” despite propagandists who argue that doing so somehow legitimates them and call for “Daesh” because it has insulting connotations in their language. It’s just juvenile.
As of yet, Hitler is a far worse historical figure than Trump and yet I manage to type “Hitler” without difficulty. Ditto, “Stalin,” “Mao,” “Pol Pot,” etc. It’s just not that hard.
I’ve a very different mind.
I hated to see the islamic state referred to as ISIS, as that was an affront to the anglicized name of the helenized name of a perfectly nice Egyptian deity named either Ist or Iset.
For the record, I can’t capitalize any of the names you typed out. Monsters shouldn’t be given the same considerations as people.
How about the execrable monster. That’s an accurate description. Or maybe the orange monster. Or perhaps the unmentionable, though that’s a chore to write over and over.
@James Joyner: Eh?
despite propagandists who argue that doing so somehow legitimates them and call for “Daesh” because it has insulting connotations in their language. It’s just juvenile.
Mate, DAESH is simply the bloody acronym in Arabic, what are you on about? It is literally what we say, in actual Arabic…. I write DAESH [or my usual DAECH], and will do so because, well it is the Arabic and what we say for God’s sake. No idea what you are getting this from.
(الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام, ad-dawla al-islāmiyya fi-l-ʿirāq wa-š-šām, littéralement « État islamique en Irak et dans le Cham »))
Frankly ISIS is the Anglo acronym that is insulting to them as alignign with some heathen god….
@Kathy:
Or you could just call him, RIC, Rapist In Chief.
As of yet, Hitler is a far worse historical figure than Trump and yet I manage to type “Hitler” without difficulty. Ditto, “Stalin,” “Mao,” “Pol Pot,” etc. It’s just not that hard.
To be fair to Kathy, one has immediacy, the other does not. Temporal proximity plays a role.
I agree with you, in the end.
To be honest, I refer to his fans as “Trump supporters” or “Trump voters” because “Trumpers” is too pejorative for my personal tastes. I don’t cringe when I see it–just a preference.
Well, per my personal rules that would be ric, see above. And I thin thug in chief would be more appropriate.
I do appreciate the suggestion. I don’t think James would like either one. I may just claim local custom, and use the Mexican press habit of referring to such beings by their initials. In this case, jdt.
Portillos’ first nickname, Jolopo, came from the press using his initials, JLP, in headlines.
As of yet, Hitler is a far worse historical figure than Trump and yet I manage to type “Hitler” without difficulty. Ditto, “Stalin,” “Mao,” “Pol Pot,” etc. It’s just not that hard.
To be fair to Kathy, one has immediacy, the other does not. Temporal proximity plays a role.
In the end, I agree with you.
To be honest, I refer to his fans as “Trump supporters” or “Trump voters” because “Trumpers” is too pejorative for my personal tastes. I don’t cringe when I see it–just a preference.
@Lounsbury: I’m aware of the origin of Daesh but the movement to popularize it in English wasn’t to honor the original Arabic (which we never do in any other context with acronyms) but rather because was supposedly a clever insult.
Acronyms are not common in Arabic, but Arabs across the Arab world fell in love with this one because it rhymes with or suggests a number of nefarious words and concepts in Arabic: “Committer of heinous crimes,” “crusher,” “crumbler,” “shocker.”
ISIS was a weird mistranslation (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham), which the Obama administration tried to get changed to ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) with minimal success. The latter made more sense, in that the former was a half translation.
@Kathy: I will accept DJT.
So, I have no idea how many of my attempts at humor land with people here. But I know I have made myself laugh a few times with turns of phrase or asides in the middle of otherwise serious posts.
As Joyner points out, there are other paths to humor. Insults are most often only funny within family or close friend groups. It usually requires a familiarity beyond what OTB regulars have with each other.
And even among family and friends, it requires some care, because it can go wrong easily for a host of reasons.
@James Joyner: Well I am telling you we use it Arabic and even French without 2nd thought – that English comment on the supposed sense in Arabic… maybe to Iraqis in their dialect but it does not come into mind for me. American Uni academics aside.
This is more American over-correction like the Latinx barbarism.
@Michael Reynolds: @Kathy: I’ve taught middle school and know how annoying and tiresome the vituperations of pubescents can become, so I understand and empathize with our hosts on this point.
All the same, you will be who you are no matter what.
And I’ll miss you when your gone, but not much
@Stormy Dragon: Oh, you’re free to call Trump a fascist, a rapist, a felon, or whathaveyou if it’s relevant to the discussion at hand. I’d prefer people did so in the context of making an argument rather than as an epithet. Just refer to him by his name when you’re doing it.
Trump is the only politician I have “name called” – and I have done so precisely because HE introduced it as his way of doing politics.
At the time I felt like “Little Marco Rubio” and “Lyin’ Ron Desanctimonious” would approve of doing that.
But I see your point and will stop with the misspellings and memefication of him.
If this norm had been implemented prior to the election, I might have been supportive. But now? This would not be hard for me to comply with, but it signals giving in to autocracy. Do you plan any other pivots toward normalizing Trump?
I do realize that you are employed by a military school and must adhere with military protocol in your work. But compared to the swill dished out by Trump’s entourage, I don’t believe the names have been an issue. (Threats of violence, yes, but not names.)
@Skookum: Dr. Joyner makes this request every three months or so, and we comply for a few weeks, and then slide back into our old habits bit by bit. 🙂
It is not normalizing Trump, but simply our host’s longstanding pet peeve.
(Is orange-painted president-elect an insult or a description?)
As of yet, Hitler is a far worse historical figure than Trump…
Normalizing him is a step toward helping him easily mimic his depotic heroes (dead and alive). Are you sure you want to go down the road of making our free speech a bit less so in this way? Are we now turning into Russia, China, Iran, North Korea?
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment.
@Skookum: This is a site policy going back to the Bush presidency and one repeatedly re-emphasized since, most recently (on the front page at least), in my July post on “The Trump Assassination Attempt.”
[W]hile I believe the tone of the front page has remained civil, I’ll be more careful in choosing my words as this heated campaign progresses. And I’ll be more vigilant in policing a comment section that has gotten more heated and less civil. In particular, name-calling, whether of the candidates or other commenters, is beneath the level of discourse for which we’re aiming here.
It’s also a longtime practice on the front page. As noted in my April 2019 post, “Capitalizing President,”
Third, and perhaps most influential in my own progression on this, the capitalized form encourages more respectful discourse.
While I would eventually come to admire and respect him considerably, I was rather bitter at Barack Obama’s election. While I always recognized his intellect and work ethic, I simply thought he was unqualified for the office. While Republican dismissals of him as a mere “community organizaer” went too far, he’d been a mere state senator and then started running for President almost immediately upon taking the oath as a United States Senator.
Further, the early sycophancy with which the press and the international community treated his ascension (a Nobel Peace Prize for simply taking office!) grated on me.
Over time, I increasingly made sure that I referred to him as “President Obama”** or “the President” to both remind myself that I was writing about the duly elected Chief Executive and to ensure that the tone of my criticism was sufficiently respectful as to have a chance of persuading his fans.
When Donald Trump was elected, those factors increased geometrically. He was much less suited for the Presidency by preparation than Obama and lacked his predecessor’s humility, intellect, and work ethic. And, as much as my much younger self considered Bill Clinton morally unfit to sit in the Oval Office, he was Abraham Lincoln compared to Trump. So, writing “President Trump”** and referring to him as “the President” is a useful corrective.
Ah…autocracy’s icy grip really can’t happen in America?
I’m a long time follower, myself, and I’d rather tell him what I believe in my heart than ignore.
We all had better start resisting autocracy in the every small way we can. And here I do.
@Skookum: I support the policy, which is a policy I have followed personally for quite a while. I do this for a reason that is pretty much the opposite of what you propose.
I do it because I don’t want to fan the flames. I do it because I don’t want to be like Donald Trump. I do it in quiet defiance. I do it to reinforce my sense of compassion, which enables me to have some agency.
I think this sort of behavior does not make anything better. It doesn’t make things better for me, it doesn’t make things better for people who would read me saying (or writing) it.
I have this policy because the “cute” pejorative nickname followed me around for a long time. I made the mistake once of telling a group of new friends about the old nickname that I hated, and they immediately started using it. Ouch. I’m sure they thought, “Oh, that’s not so bad” and also, “It sure is fun to tease him about that”.
So I won’t do it. I feel certain that Trump will never read anything I’ve written, or notice what I call him. It’s just a thing I do.
I suppose for some, they might feel a bit less helpless by doing this. I suggest that while it may give some short term relief, it doesn’t last, and puts you on a treadmill. Perhaps some other meaningful task that makes the world better, even in the smallest way, would be more effective.
@James Joyner:
These are reasonable asks.
I’ve got to say, given the current state of many political opinion blogs, you guys (the Landlords) here at OTB run a fundamentally decent blog. The content is consistently good and there’s very little flame-throwing here, people are pretty damned reasonable in their interactions with each other.
I hope it keeps on in that way, in that style.
@Gustopher: As a general rule, references to personal appearance are ad hominem, not argument. Even as humor goes, it’s rather lowbrow.
He beat my preferred candidate in every swing state but, har har, he sure does look funny.
Sick burn.
@Skookum: “Are you sure you want to go down the road of making our free speech a bit less so in this way? ”
Seriously? If you go to a dinner party and the host asks you to stop saying “fuck” around his five year-old, is that making your speech less free?
This isn’t the government controlling what you say. This is the owner of a private site asking his guests to maintain a certain — minimal! — level of decorum.
If you can’t live without calling Trump names, there are plenty of other places you can do that…
Can I still call Sir Keir Starmer “Mr Boring”, from time to time?
Also: “Mr Boring who won the election with a massive majority.”
Personally, I seldom do scatological name-calling. It seems generally rather pointless, apart from letting off a bit of steam. I think my disdain for certain leaders comes across nonetheless.
The true art of insult is to do so while being formally polite.
And only then to tell your adversary to go f@ck themselves with a cactus.
(Also: Lounsbury is right about Daesh. Lebanese I know have way more insulting words for them. And for Hezbollah, come to that.)
@James Joyner: I offered no judgement as to whether painting oneself orange is a good or bad thing. You brought that judgement. It’s the same as my judgement mind you, and I was being fecituous when I asked…
Anyway, if Joe Biden donned cat ears and spent the next few months that way, and I referred to him as our catboy president, that would simply be a description (and I would think Catboy President would be awesome).
@Skookum: Really? Asking Dr. Joyner to relax his very, very barely enforced standards on his site is not standing up for freedom.
He allows a lot in this site, and if one of the rules is that he gets to periodically tell people to not wear cleats on his lawn (not even “get off my lawn”), that’s fine.
(Is orange-painted president-elect an insult or a description?)
As a general rule, references to personal appearance are ad hominem, not argument. Even as humor goes, it’s rather lowbrow.
Eh, yes? Conceding that it’s lowbrow, an ad-hom, and appearances should generally be off-limits, this is a bit different.
It is not as if he was born with a cleft lip, and we are asking him to sing Mack the Knife.* No, he chooses to look like that.
*At most, I would ask him to show me that off-rhythm sway dance. Or that weird quasi-disco pointing thing he did that didn’t even make sense in context of the ballad being played. Then point and laugh.
@JohnSF:
Hey, he’ll become leader of the free world come January 20th.
I figure of Europe’s Big Three, UK, Germany, and France, he’s the one with a parliamentary majority. Macron doesn’t have one, and Scholz is more likely to be Germany’s former leader shortly.
You know the alleged Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times”? From a historical perspective, it makes perfect sense. Good governance and a placid, satisfying existence is great for those living through it, but makes for soporific reading of history.
Bad times are not a pleasure to read, but they are not sleep inducing. They’re interesting. There’s much to be said for boring leaders.
But I sense good natured ribbing on your part.
@Kathy:
“…good natured ribbing on your part…”
Right now my ribbing is generally rather ill-natured.
I think I’ve said here before, I’m getting up to HERE with “interesting times”.
I really liked the 1990’s.
*sigh*
Macron remains, imo, the most strategically minded leader of the Western major Powers; along with Tusk.
Scholz is a German SPD machine politician dimwit out of his depth.
Starmer is a stolid, sensible, managerial type.
Churchill he ain’t. More like (from the opposite side of the political divide) Balfour.
Maybe he’ll surprise me on the upside.
I certainly hope so.
EUro-NATO may be facing a potential existential crisis.
The French may actually have gamed this out; the Germans almost certainly have not.
As for the UK: dunno.
Problem is, a lot of the Labour and Conservative elites are obsessively domestic-game focused, and continuity-biased.
They really should have let me run things, lol.
The Trolls (don’t have to mention their names) have succeeded.
I’ve heard that the actual goal of trolls is to undermine popularity and impact the future of blogs that they would like to kill.
Overreaction to the over the top remarks by trollers causes moderators to become more strict and demand just politically correct comments.
Just my reaction
@JohnSF:
I really liked the 1990’s.
Same here. I’m not sure whether the 90s ended in November 2000 when the late SCOTUS selected Bush the younger as president, or in September 11 2001.
As to Germany, given the first half of the last century, I’m content to have them as followers rather than leaders.
@Bobert:
I wouldn’t go so far. It’s more like an etiquette matter. I can’t recall whether James has ever complained about the content of comments, but about the manner in which such comments are expressed.
Content-wise, he may have complained, along with Steven, for comments that lack content or derail discussions.
I see no problem wit any of that.
The 1990’s imuho ended in 2014, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
An alternative date perhaps being 2001.
But what’s a decade between friends?
Also, by 2014 the music was on the downslide. 🙂
I, too, like a peaceably inclined Germany.
I’m from Coventry, after all.
But a little bit of realism would be nice.
I suspect former Chancellors from both sides of the Christian Democrat/Social Democrat divide, such as Adenauer, Schmidt, Kohl, would all have considered Scholz a dimwit.
If you can’t live without calling Trump names, there are plenty of other places you can do that…
I don’t believe that you will find an instance where I called Trump a name. I have responded to Lounsbury twice. Once for sexism (for which my posts were banned) and once for sheer exasperation of his post content which I can never parse. I do regret that post, but oddly it wasn’t banned.
Are you so fragile that pointing out that submitting before being asked is a key part of accepting autocracy and asking Dr. Joyner to reconsider? Wow.
@Skookum:
“Lounsbury… sheer exasperation of his post content which I can never parse.
Lounsbury’s first language, I suspect, is not English.
(Forgive my presumption here, Lounsbury)
Or at least, not American demotic English.
His syntax (if you will forgive me, el Louns?) is a demotic version of a formal English mode of the 1960’s, or earlier, as inculcated by British scholastic education.
I am familiar enough with it, but it probably comes across to American-English speakers as rather complex, and insultingly sarcastic.
(Not helped by the fact that Lounsbury is, quite often, sarcastic.)
(Hi, Louns!)
Semi okay with this. Kinda. If you can’t make your point without making a bad pun, well, move on. You just have to couch it cleverly. It isn’t hard.
I know Trump is a crap person, already. Here are more acceptable terms: grossly unfit, ludicrous, unserious, uneducated, undereducated, ghastly, gross, misogynistic, anti-trans, boyish, unstudied, gauche, un-Presidential, bullying, anti-democractic. All are true. I’ll say them.
He invoked the “internal enemies” trope language. Wants to punish media that didn’t swallow his shit. I think that earns the “fascist” designation at least allowable. In fact, it is our duty to call out that type of behavior and language and push back hard.
I agree on juvenile shit, but if you are calling on that valid criticism is verboten, then I strongly object.
Is the statement “Trump is grossly unfit” allowable? Because he demonstrably is.
Joyner writes an innocuous post in the morning, and then loses an entire day of his life dealing with smart-asses. This was an important service. For which a subscription would probably be just recompense.
@de stijl:
I like imbecilic and cretinous. I’m trying to bring both words back.
I know unfit applies and probably passes Joyner’s sniff test.
What about orange. Yeah, it might be considered a bit juvenile, but Trump is more orange on weird purpose than any man I know that age. Nothing wrong with men wearing make-up. Done it myself. Not orange, though. But I’m not President-elect and that was decades ago.
I was briefly a male model. My marketing professor also did local/regional commercial shoots and hired me on. (You make almost no money.) Misbegotten youth. I did commercials (regional). I did print (regional). My speciality was legs – thighs and calves. Better money. Apparently I have (had) attractive legs. One day I wore about 47 pairs of shorts for a print shoot (Dayton’s). Did the same stance for every shot.
I’m a straight so shaving my legs in the early 80s was a big thing. Nothing at all wrong with that, but, at the time, I wasn’t chuffed. Btw, they put make-up on my legs. I found that really funny.
The best bit was that after the shoot, no one there cared if you walked off with some of the clothes you modeled. It couldn’t be sold anymore in the store. No one gave a shit. Expected. Kinda encouraged. So I did. At one point, in 1983/5 I had a stellar closet, wardrobe that I never, ever could have afforded orherwise.
One time I did a commercial for a local beer brand and was paid with two twelve packs. Fair trade in my book. Grain Belt.
The weirdest was that the owner of Aveda cut my hair on stage. There are (or were at the time) live hair cuts for newish stylists to watch and learn from. It was bizarre. I got a haircut on stage for an audience. A very abrupt and curt German guy. The big cheese. Pushed my head around like I was a mannequin. Kinda rude, actually. But, it was a nice haircut. I got make-up that day, too.
And my potential dating pool increased exponentially. Being a straight male model is flat-out dating gold.
@JohnSF: Yes, growing up in linguistic complexity it is rather hard for me to say what is my strongest language, although I speak French in adulthood perhaps more even than English, and our version of Arabic mixed in to make quite the mechoui salad. The family, we are suspecious rootless cosmopolitans, blue passports, red passports, green passports… and an education that goes with that.
I avoid some details not to be precious to be clear but as giving them rather can pinpoint me very specifically (well my using part of my name is my own fault), and once an Anglo Commonwealth journalist working in the region back in my Bush ibn Bush blogging days tracked me down – my linguistic quirks allowed her to pinpoint me by biography – to my actual office at my Fund – she was quite nice about it and I gave off the record interview, but that rather made me cautious. Given my investment work, prefer such not to happen again although unlikely w Americans but to be avoided.
In any case, as I genuiniely feel that they here suffer rather heavily from a rather closed discourse, a bit of exposure to something else should happen as otherwise the cycle of close-off masturbatory discourse continues. I do have an American graduate degree from one of the those big ones, I am quite familiar with the pattern.
@JohnSF: Yes as really it is not an insult Yes DAESH (or DAECH) don’t like it, but DAESH generally are the sorts who don’t like it if you do not (a) speak Arabic and use their full out Arabic name, (b) do not adopt their silly pretences like calling their people by ancient Islamic titles – Khalif etc. And for that they can sod off.
Joyner et al are free to do as they want on their own blog but really I think academic over-correction about other languages and supposed insults is a bit preciously overdone.
Actual direct tedious insult for insult purposes in American English, quite sensible, but over-correction about supposed insults in other languages… is overcorrection
@Michael Reynolds: Cretinous is a positvely scrumptious word, why it has fallen out in USA land… I don’t get but it is perhaps one of those franco-to-anglo words I rely on because of the dual language usage.
@Skookum:”Are you so fragile that pointing out that submitting before being asked is a key part of accepting autocracy and asking Dr. Joyner to reconsider? Wow.”
At the risk of dragging us both into one of those silly back-and-forths between people who mostly agree on everything, I must say that I do not believe that what JJ is asking for is part of accepting autocracy. He’s not doing this because he’s afraid of insulting Trump, but because he prefers a certain type of discourse that does not involve name-calling but focuses on actual arguments based on facts. I am pretty sure that if people were using schoolyard nicknames for Biden or Harris or anyone else, he would be reacting in the same way.
I personally don’t think it makes me fragile to respect the wishes of the man who provides a site — for free! — I so enjoy to behave in certain ways while I’m here. I’m going to see a play this afternoon — Left on Sixth by Delia Ephron, starring Julianna Margulies; not a big fan of any of the Ephrons, but really want to see JM — and I already know that despite my disappointment over the election I’m not going to stand up in the middle of the first act and start shouting “Fuck Trump.” Because that would do nothing other than annoy the hundreds of people who had paid to be there, as well as the actors and craftspeople — and ushers and ticket sellers and all the rest — and make me look like a complete asshole without accomplishing a thing towards my goal of resetting the American political landscape.
Maybe you think that makes me fragile, too. If so, I will shoulder your contempt and attempt to move on with my life.
@Michael Reynolds: “I like imbecilic and cretinous. ”
You’re in luck, then. You’re going to get plenty of both over the next four years!
@Skookum:
part of accepting autocracy
I will stress again, that this has zero to do with autocracy. It has been his preference for years and years. I can attest to this as something he has repeatedly noted to me in private communication.
Yes, growing up in linguistic complexity it is rather hard for me to say what is my strongest language, although I speak French in adulthood perhaps more even than English, and our version of Arabic mixed in to make quite the mechoui salad. The family, we are suspecious rootless cosmopolitans, blue passports, red passports, green passports… and an education that goes with that.
Thank you for sharing this. I will continue to try and better understand your points.
@wr:
I personally don’t think it makes me fragile to respect the wishes of the man who provides a site — for free!
I don’t think you are fragile for supporting Dr. Joyner’s policy. I think you presented fragility for suggesting that I no longer comment. While I may be a contrarian, I don’t believe that I am inappropriate in my comments (I least I try not to be).
That said, I enjoyed a nice round of bridge yesterday afternoon.
@Steven L. Taylor:
@James Joyner:
I read Popehat‘s post as recommend by Dr. Joyner earlier this week. Among other points, here are two that he made.
Fuck Civility.
Resist.
Rarely have I winced at the commentariat of this blog’s descriptions of Trump. But I have winced at the verbal violence made to one another in the group. That said, I shall continue to comply with your forum civility rules in terms of referring to Trump.
I appreciate this blog, and have for many years. Thank your for your generosity of time, patience, knowledge, web communications, and creating a home for an odd and lovable group.
@Skookum: If you want, none of us should have high expectations from mere internet commentary.
@Lounsbury:
You are, undoubtedly, right. But people do benefit from bouncing ideas off of one another for social and emotional reasons, I believe. I tell myself that I’m just going to browse the blog posts (not the comments), and before I know it I’m spouting off–and then ask myself why. I guess it helps me clarify my thoughts. I usually don’t get kudos–quite the opposite!
@Skookum: “I think you presented fragility for suggesting that I no longer comment. ”
I’m not sure what I said that made you think this was my point, but whatever it was, I apologize for it. I generally enjoy your posts, and even if I didn’t, my enjoyment is not the point of this site. I just thought your reaction to the host’s request/rule was, well, silly.
@Skookum: To belabor this a tad more: James’ point is simply about how he has long preferred the comment section to work.
Popehat is talking about something different.
Do you really think that using nicknames in the OTB comment section is effective resistance to Trump in any event?
@Steven L. Taylor: BTW, the nicknames bother me less than they do James, but he’s not wrong that they tend to come across as juvenile and do little to forward actual arguments.
But, good lord, he and I both are willing to call Trump fascist. It isn’t like the site is skirting away from criticism of Trump and his party.
Popehat is talking about something different.
Do you really think that using nicknames in the OTB comment section is effective resistance to Trump in any event?
Yes. From my reading of European history, life in autocratic police states, Tony Judt and Tim Snyder (and now Popehat), I do believe that using nicknames is small and cathartic way of resisting the normalization of Trump. However, there may come a day when it is unsafe to do so online.
Timothy Snyder
November 15, 2016
Americans are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so. Here are twenty lessons from the twentieth century, adapted to the circumstances of today.
1. Do not obey in advance. Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.
2. Defend an institution. Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions don’t protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.
3. Recall professional ethics. When the leaders of state set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become much more important. It is hard to break a rule-of-law state without lawyers, and it is hard to have show trials without judges.
4. When listening to politicians, distinguish certain words. Look out for the expansive use of “terrorism” and “extremism.” Be alive to the fatal notions of “exception” and “emergency.” Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.
5. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that all authoritarians at all times either await or plan such events in order to consolidate power. Think of the Reichstag fire. The sudden disaster that requires the end of the balance of power, the end of opposition parties, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Don’t fall for it.
6. Be kind to our language. Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. (Don’t use the internet before bed. Charge your gadgets away from your bedroom, and read.) What to read? Perhaps “The Power of the Powerless” by Václav Havel, 1984 by George Orwell, The Captive Mind by Czesław Milosz, The Rebel by Albert Camus, The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, or Nothing is True and Everything is Possible by Peter Pomerantsev.
7. Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy, in words and deeds, to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. And the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.
8. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.
9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.
10. Practice corporeal politics. Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them.
11. Make eye contact and small talk. This is not just polite. It is a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down unnecessary social barriers, and come to understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.
12. Take responsibility for the face of the world. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.
13. Hinder the one-party state. The parties that took over states were once something else. They exploited a historical moment to make political life impossible for their rivals. Vote in local and state elections while you can.
14. Give regularly to good causes, if you can. Pick a charity and set up autopay. Then you will know that you have made a free choice that is supporting civil society helping others doing something good.
15. Establish a private life. Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have personal exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. Authoritarianism works as a blackmail state, looking for the hook on which to hang you. Try not to have too many hooks.
16. Learn from others in other countries. Keep up your friendships abroad, or make new friends abroad. The present difficulties here are an element of a general trend. And no country is going to find a solution by itself. Make sure you and your family have passports.
17. Watch out for the paramilitaries. When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching around with torches and pictures of a Leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-Leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the game is over.
18. Be reflective if you must be armed. If you carry a weapon in public service, God bless you and keep you. But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things. Be ready to say no. (If you do not know what this means, contact the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and ask about training in professional ethics.)
19. Be as courageous as you can. If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die in unfreedom.
20. Be a patriot. The incoming president is not. Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come. They will need it.
–Timothy Snyder, Housum Professor of History, Yale University,
15 November 2016.
—
(PS: If this is useful to you, please print it out and pass it around!
1 December 2016)
(PPS: I removed a reference to a website, which as friends have pointed out is too context-specific for what has become a public and widely-read list. 2 December 2016)
@Skookum: That’s a great list. I’m going to try to put some of it into action. I watched a lecture series by Tim Snyder on Ukraine, and I liked it. And him. Good stuff.
And while he says name-calling helps, he uses the word “marginal”. He also says, “Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen”.
