Thoughtcrime. Plus: The Veepstakes

I urge you to read this important piece by Matthew Yglesias about David Shor, a progressive data analyst who sent a tweet wrongly considered controversial.

Basically, Shor compiled data indicating that, in the wake of the George Floyd killing, peaceful protests would help the Democrats while violent riots would help Trump. In part, his analysis drew from previous work done on the impact of the 1968 riots which broke out after the murder of Martin Luther King. In that year, the violence alienated enough voters to insure Richard Nixon's victory in a tight election.

(Shor did not mention that those riots led to "white flight," which severely damaged the tax base in several cities -- including my adopted hometown of Baltimore. A black acquaintance told me that memories of '68 explain why the Freddie Grey "uprising" -- if you can call it that -- petered out so rapidly.)

Progressives piled on Shor, calling him a racist because he dared to offer unwelcome data. Example:

Yo. Minimizing black grief and rage to "bad campaign tactic for the Democrats" is bullshit most days, but this week is absolutely cruel. This take is tone deaf, removes responsibility for depressed turnout from the 68 Party and reeks of anti-blackness.

How the hell is it anti-Black to be concerned about re-electing Trump? This tweet reeks of pro-Putin ratfuckery. I strongly doubt that the writer speaks for all or most black people.

I will never comprehend how any black person can read this story and still insist that defeating Trump is relatively unimportant.

Actually, the writer of the above-quoted tweet has something in common with Donald Trump: They both want unwelcome data to remain hidden. Trump asked for less Covid testing, on the theory that fewer tests would somehow results in fewer cases. Unfortunately, placing the numbers behind a veil did not change the spread of the disease. Similarly, hiding Shor's data won't make that data wrong.

Bottom line: After the online kangaroo courts had pronounced him racist, Shor was fired -- even after he recited one of those humiliating forced apologies that used to be characteristic of the USSR. That cowardly act is the only point on which Shor deserves criticism. I would never have said "I'm sorry" under those circumstances, not even if someone literally held a gun to my head.

A former staffer for Bernie Sanders responded to Shor’s tweet on Progressphiles to say “we need to recognize the role data plays in this conversation.” And in particular, “using it to dictate how BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and people of color] should feel and protest is harmful.”

Shor did not say that protesting is harmful; he said that rioting is harmful. And he didn’t say that data should dictate how people feel. And while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.

Something similar happened to Michael Moore after he warned that Biden could lose in 2020. Instead of countering his argument with evidence, progressives labeled him a defeatist -- a thought-criminal. Progs are also angry at him because he dared to make a deeply pessimistic film about the environmental crisis.

The left demands slap-happy optimism. The left has become Billy Mumy in that old Twilight Zone episode, forever insisting that everyone around him must say positive things: "That was a good thing you did. And it's good that you're making it snow. It's real good. And tomorrow's going to be a real good day!"

Left-wing censors have even gone after Noam Chomsky, who is now considered a reactionary. Yes: Noam fucking Chomsky. His thoughtcrime: Daring to sign the same letter that J.K. Rowling endorsed. He's also a noted opponent of postmodernism, the official religion of the left.

I myself have been banned permanently from Democratic Underground and other forums because I refuse to feign an optimism that was never part of my character.

(I've always been this way. Remember that scene in Apollo 13 when the returning spacecraft fell out of communication as it passed through the ionosphere? That really happened. At the time, I kept telling my family: "They're dead! They're all crispy critters. It's over. They're dead!" When the blackout period lasted nearly two minutes longer than predicted, I was almost giddy: "I TOLD YOU SO! THEY'RE ALL DEAD! DEAADDDD!!!")

(No, I didn't have many friends.)

My specific offense at DU was submitting a post which outlined my "Big Smear" theory. Could that theory be wrong? Of course. (You could have knocked me over with a feather when my Apollo 13 prediction turned out to be a bit off the mark.) But it is absurd to argue that airing that theory could in any way damage Joe Biden's chances. It's not as though saying "Trump will smear Biden" is controversial. It's certainly not the same thing as saying "Biden deserves to be smeared."

I have no problem with the person who says "Cannon, you're wrong -- and here's why." In fact, I welcome that response. As Churchill once said: "I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."

But the practitioners of "cancel culture" have nothing to teach anyone.

It is time to cancel the cancelers. They overestimate their power.

The Veepstakes. Most people misinterpreted Biden's notes to himself, which were caught on camera. If you look at the entire page, he clearly was not listing Kamala Harris' virtues as a vice presidential candidate. The purpose of those notes was to remind him how to respond if journalists ask about her -- and about other topics.

Joe Biden understands, finally, that he needs to stick to a script -- because when he goes off-script, he becomes his own worst enemy. Those notes are his script.

I still think that he'll choose Tammy Duckworth. My personal choice would of course be Elizabeth Warren, but I doubt that Biden would agree.

Harris? No. I love her for this, but...no.

First: She would be more effective as Attorney General. Wouldn't you love to see her go after her predecessor? And against the Trump crime family? She would be a monster in that role.

Choosing her as VP would mean endless arguments over busing and reparations. I doubt that she favors reparations in her heart, but during the primary battle she was forced to make a few vaguely pro-reparations noises. Both busing and reparations are unpopular -- and as I keep trying to remind everyone, elections are a popularity contest.

Besides, Harris isn't terribly popular with African Americans. They had their chance to vote for her, and they went shopping elsewhere.

We've been hearing a lot about Susan Rice lately, and she has much to recommend her. She's brilliant. She's dedicated. She can do the job. She and Biden are friends and former co-workers. Apparently, they see eye-to-eye on foreign policy, which is Biden's truest passion.

But consider the drawbacks: Rice has never held elective office. She has never debated. There is no evidence that she can ignite a popular following.

However, there is evidence that she would energize a populist resistance. Choosing Rice would mean an endless rehash of BENGHAAAAAAAZEEEEEE!!!! Even though she did nothing wrong, the prospect of revisiting that tiresome pseudo-controversy is depressing.

On the other hand, maybe the public is as sick of BENGHAAAAAAAZEEEEEE as I am. I doubt that the majority of Americans believe in the weirdo Benghazi conspiracy theories that the rightwingers have been peddling for what seems like the past 500 years.

My bottom line is this: After the Big Smear hits, the Veep candidate may suddenly become the candidate. I can't see Rice playing that role. I can't see many people voting for her, though quite a few would still vote against Trump.

Duckworth? Yeah. She's a hero. A lot of people would vote for her.

Better still: Warren.