Alan Jacobs

And I just want to go on the record as saying that I am amazed at the development of micro.blog in such a short period of time, with a staff of (basically) two people. I’m sure it doesn’t meet everyone’s expectations in full, but when you think about the total lack of progress Twitter has made in fixing its problems over more than a decade with a massive staff, micro.blog seems like a miraculous thing.

Also, everyone should remember that @manton has been open about his policy of moving slowly, of adding features and making changes only after considerable reflection, and allowing other developers to push the platform forward in creative ways. He deserves patience. The service deserves patience. Let’s give micro.blog a chance to develop. I’m convinced that over the long haul it’s going to be fantastic. In fact, I think it’s pretty fantastic already.

It’s really important to distinguish between inconsistency and hypocrisy. We’re all inconsistent (in my case quite often): we hold certain values but don’t live up to them all the time; we want always to act in certain ways but manage to act in those ways only occasionally. That’s the universal human experience.

Hypocrisy is something different. Hypocrisy is deceptive: the hypocrite pretends to certain virtues that he doesn’t hold and doesn’t even really want to hold.

When you see somebody being inconsistent and you accuse him of hypocrisy, that is, first of all, a heavy accusation. But second, you’re claiming to be able to read his heart and mind. You’re claiming that you have looked within and seen the attempt to deceive. Do you really want to claim such powers for yourself?

In most cases you should be content with the accusation of inconsistency. And in my view you shouldn’t even make that accusation without the awareness that you yourself are almost certainly at least as inconsistent as the person you are accusing.

I’ve done my best to fight this trend by keeping all but two of my books under 300 pages.

I have put up three posts on my blog this morning, and it would be better for all of you to read them than to scroll through Twitter for more D.C. outrages. (Though to be fair that would be true even if my posts were crap.) (Which they’re not.) (Probably.)

Here’s a great example of how to respond to a strong but highly disputable claim. (NB: the claim is scientific, no politics here, sorry to disappoint.)

This remains Morrissey’s best song. I will die on this hill.

Of all my significant life decisions, here are the ones I always feel great about:

• Marrying the woman I married
• Becoming a teacher
• Not voting for either major American political party since 1988

I’m aware that my site (ayjay.org) is messed up and my blog (blog.ayjay.org) is down. Working on a fix right now.

I love these playing cards.

My advice for having a good conversation would be different than Cowen’s and Herrera’s alike. My first principle would be: Don’t think of conversations in terms of technique at all.

A typically lucid and detailed story by @dlind. But it’s a shame that so much of her best reporting has the tendency to make my blood boil.

There is a Senate candidate And Beto is his name-o Better than Ted Cruz Better than Ted Cruz Better than Ted Cruz And Beto is his name-o

Herewith a reminder of the most permanently relevant post I have yet written.

On firing Ian Buruma

Very excited that my dear friend Mike Foley has supplemented Drinking with the Saints with Drinking with Saint Nick. Don’t let the Christmas season catch you unprepared!

Today I had a long conversation with a student, a physics major, who’s an atheist and very consciously so, but likes to talk about religion. She asked me a good many questions about what I believe and why, and then, when we were done, she stood up and said, “This has been really interesting, Dr. Jacobs. I think my favorite Christians are Mister Rogers and you.” And I thought, welp, that’s it, I’m done, career achievement unlocked, time to retire. I will never get another compliment that good.

On Sloan and Sherlock — @robinsloan, that is.

The “politics of personal destruction” is the only politics this country now has.

If you’re a teacher and you assign paper lengths by page-count rather than by word-count you deserve to get pwned this way.

In which I agree that we need thoughtful Christians who have real public influence but wonder how we’re supposed to get them: blog.ayjay.org/dare-to-m…

Trying to figure out if I can create a Siri Shortcut to open Drafts in dictation mode. Would be very useful while driving.

Outside Abilene

I find it fascinating that this article is so straightforward about its goal: to interpret the First Amendment in whatever way best supports the authors’ policy preferences.

This Ross Douthat column contains some relatively good news for Christians like me. Unfortunately it also doesn’t give me a lot of hope for the (political) future.

“earthquakes and hurricains of the moral World” – Snakes and Ladders