The Wall Street Journal - 02.08.2019

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Friday, August 2, 2019 |A

How We

Talk Online

Because Internet

By Gretchen McCulloch

(Riverhead, 326 pages, $26)

BOOKSHELF| By Chi Luu

W

hat do you say on the internet when there’s no one

to hear you scream? If you’re a digital native you

might keysmash “asdjkhjf;lfdl;k” or use an un-

pronounceable emoticon when there are no words to convey

quite what you’re feeling. But if you’re part of the dwindling

population of people for whom internet life remains alien,

such weird, wordless linguistic innovations might render

you speechless and possibly a little panicked.

The internet is the big linguistic disruption of our time,

changing the way we communicate at dizzying speeds. Is this

a good thing or a bad thing? As the linguist Gretchen

McCulloch argues in her book “Because Internet: Under-

standing the New Rules of Language,” it’s just a thing (as the

internet would say). Language has always changed to meet

our needs. The “boundless creativity of internet language,” in

fact, is evidence of how online text is moving from a dry and

rule-bound writing technology to inventively spontaneous

digital speech, as we chat

with our friends across great

distances, with all the feels.

Even the way online text

looks, Ms. McCulloch observes,

has acquired new social

significance. Something as

innocuous as punctuation can

change how a message affects

us. Text written in all caps now

conveys shouting and emphasis,

something we might not want to

overdo. Too few exclamation

points in a message makes for an

unenthusiastic response. Too

many starts to seem insincere. It

can be hard to wrap your head around

what these conventions mean if you don’t live

on the internet. Ms. McCulloch aims to guide readers through

the mire and makes a linguist’s case, essentially, not to panic.

“Because Internet” isn’t merely a catalogue of the

linguistic quirks of the internet’s now native population.

(For one thing, the book doesn’t even touch upon the

popular“because” + nounslang construction that makes up

its own title.) It’s an approachable and scholarly take on how

and why successive waves of users, each more comfortable

in their internet skins than the last, have developed a more

playful and meaningful internet language, using fast-evolving

forms of typography, emojis and memes. From early “h4x0r”

(hacker) leetspeak slang to fanciful ~*sparkle punctuation*~,

Ms. McCulloch draws on sociolinguistic research and

engaging anecdotes to show that, often, these changes are

not random. There are patterns in how internet language

changes, leading to ever more complex connotations for text

that was once taken at face value. The memes may be funny,

but it’s worth taking online slang seriously.

After half a century of existence, Ms. McCulloch observes,

the internet is no longer a pale artificial imitation of life. The

online worldisthe real world now, a space where many peo-

ple spend a good part of their lives socializing with friends

and strangers. Alienating online spaces become less so when

we act more human in them, but being misread on the inter-

net can have serious repercussions in the offline world. Inter-

net language has had to become richer, more emotionally

complex and patterned after speech, so that we can really

talk to each other. The rules of internet language may be new,

but the reasons they arose are old. They answer very human

needs to be able to signal politeness, social solidarity, conver-

sational intent, humor and emotions.

In face-to-face speech, we naturally rely on different

paralinguistic cues, such as body language and intonation,

to communicate social subtleties. With the “lack of a body”

being “writing’s greatest disadvantage,” it’s slightly harder

to achieve these crucial signals online, but internet users

have managed it in surprising ways. Ms. McCulloch

recounts the history and use of emojis, which essentially

act as the gestures we need in our online speech. She

tracks the evolution of once maligned acronyms like “lol”

(now almost always lowercase), which no longer means

only “laughing out loud” but now often signals a more

polite ironic amusement. She recounts how punctuation

such as exclamation points, periods and ellipses, along with

intentionally minimalist text, can all be used to convey

things like politeness, seriousness or intention to those who

can read the signals.

Ms. McCulloch discusses how this expressive typography,

often used for social in-jokes, can go “a long way towards

making the internet feel not chilly and impersonal, not

shouty, not even just politely cheerful, but like a place where

we can belong.” Given the rise of hate speech and ill-will

online, this has become more important than ever.

Collectively, it seems “internet people” are actually striving

to build a kinder, gentler, funnier and far more human

internet by creatively using textual and linguistic distinctions

to do what we take for granted in person.

The prevalence of internet-speak can feel unsettling to

some because we think of writing as formal, well-behaved

and edited to its best form according to rules we’ve all

learned. Writing on the internet, meanwhile, seems chaotic,

informal, unfiltered and “beautifully mundane,” just like

speech. But Ms. McCulloch counsels that “the changeability

of language is its strength....Because we remake language

at every generation, because we learn it from our peers,...

because we can make ourselves understood even though we

all speak subtly different personal varieties, language is

flexible and strong.” Despite our fears about the way we

speak online, standard language will not be the worse for it.

Ms. McCulloch’s book is a good start in guiding readers to

consider the wild language of the internet as a thing of

wonder—a valuable feature, not a bug.

Ms. Luu is a computational linguist and language

columnist for JSTOR Daily.

The linguistic and typographical oddities

of the internet reflect very human need

to communicate ineffable social subtleties.

Socialism Won’t Win in Brooklyn, Iowa

T

he Democrats at times
reprise the argument my
parents used to have
during long car rides: “Turn
left.” “No, make a right.” If my
party makes the wrong turn,
we’ll end up in an electoral
ditch in 2020.
The argument reflects a rift
among Democrats: the “dis-
rupters” versus the “defeat-
ers.” Disrupters want to tran-
scend Donald Trump and
bulldoze straight through the
foundations of American poli-
tics and economics. Defeaters
want to make slight turns with
one goal: replacing President
Trump. Disrupters argue for a
candidate who will turn out a
party base that has drifted fur-
ther left. Defeaters counter
that we must persuade voters
who straddle the center.
It’s a false choice. Demo-
crats have to do both. The road
to a Democratic presidency

runs through a few dozen

swing counties in about a half-

dozen swing states. David

Wasserman of the Cook Politi-

cal Report focuses on, among

others, Maricopa, Ariz.; Pinel-

las, Fla.; Saginaw, Mich.; New

Hanover, N.C.; Erie, Pa.; and

Kenosha, Wis.

Swing voters are, by their

nature, centrists. They aren’t

animated by extremes. They

value a functioning govern-

ment that moves them forward

versus one that veers too far in

either direction.

“Impeachment” falls hard

on their ears. A position that

sounds like open borders with-

out any rules is out of touch.

Arguing that you’re going to

“blow up the system” doesn’t

have much credibility against a

candidate like Mr. Trump—who

has, well, blown up the system.

Socialism may sound like a

good voter-turnout strategy in

Brooklyn, N.Y. It’s a recipe for

defeat in Brooklyn, Iowa,

which is in a congressional dis-

trict flipped by a moderate

Democrat in the 2018

midterms.

Speaking of the midterms,

can’t my party accept a win-

ning strategy when it finds

one? Democrats won the

House majority by defeating 41

Republican incumbents. They

flipped those districts with

moderate candidates who

made local voters comfortable.

The House Democratic Caucus

expanded on the right but

finds itself having to prove it’s

not socialist. Democrats criti-

cize Speaker Nancy Pelosi for

not being liberal enough, and

President Obama’s policies on

health care and immigration

came under attack at the de-

bates. Cue the “Twilight Zone”

theme.

The divide in my party is re-

flected in two comments by

prominent Democrats. Mayor

Pete Buttigieg argues that

Democrats can’t “try too hard

to play it safe.” I respectfully

disagree. It’s not playing it

safe. It’s playing it smart.

I do agree with the late lib-

eral lion, Speaker Tip O’Neill,

who admonished Democrats:

“All politics is local.”

He was right. Democrats as

well as Republicans should

see beyond the confines of

absolutism to an electoral ho-

rizon that stretches in both

directions.

Mr. Israel was a U.S. repre-

sentative from New York,

2001-17. He directs the Insti-

tute of Politics and Global Af-

fairs at Cornell University.

By Steve Israel

If Obama is too far

right for Democrats,

they’re too far left

for swing voters.

OPINION

Coming in BOOKS this weekend

The fraught creation of America’s public lands • Western

political thought and the Ottoman Empire • The life of

P.T. Barnum • George F. Will’s ‘Conservative Sensibility’ •

Prohibition’s ‘King of the Bootleggers’ • & much more

Not all those
who wander
are lost,
J.R.R. Tol-
kien ob-
served. The
corollary is that not all who
lead know where they’re go-
ing. Both these statements are
true of Joshua Harris, the for-
mer pastor and author of “I
Kissed Dating Goodbye”
(1997), who acknowledged on
Instagram last week that “by
all the measurements that I
have for defining a Christian,
I am not a Christian.”
Mr. Harris’s announcement
carried strange poignancy for
millennials who grew up in
evangelical churches. In the
1990s, when they were teens,
the mood was countercultural.
Parents pondered their disillu-
sion with the sexual revolu-
tion and observed the high
rate of teen pregnancy and the
AIDS epidemic. Dads attended
Promise Keepers, moms con-
sidered home schooling, and
both urged their kids to save
sex for marriage.
The Purity Movement, also
known as the True Love
Waits Movement, caught on.
In July 1994, some 210,
teenagers gathered on the
National Mall in Washington
to sign virginity pledges. Oth-
ers made the same vow at
church youth groups and
home-school conferences.
Mr. Harris, son of a promi-
nent Christian home-school ad-
vocate, took the idea to its ex-
treme. “I believe that the
fundamental problem with re-
lationships today is that we’ve
disconnected romance and

Joshua Harris Kisses Christianity Goodbye

commitment,” Mr. Harris, then

22, argued in “I Kissed Dating

Goodbye.” In his view, intimacy

wasn’t just about sex. The risk

of dating before marriage was

emotional promiscuity, even if

the relationship never got

physical, he argued. “Intimacy

without commitment, like icing

without cake, can be sweet,

but it ends up making us sick,”

he wrote.

Mr. Harris imagined a bride

watching her groom walk

down the aisle, accompanied

by all of his ex-girlfriends.

Teens at purity conferences

were given a paper heart, then

told to rip it in half for each

past relationship. What re-

mained was all they had left to

offer. Or they were compared

with a piece of gum: Would

you want to chew it after

someone else already has?

Christian groups like James

Dobson’s Focus on the Family

promoted the book, but it also

went mainstream. Mr. Harris

appeared alongside Ben Af-

fleck on Bill Maher’s “Politi-

cally Incorrect.” He estimates

his book sold 1.2 million cop-

ies. When I checked recently,

it was still for sale at a Man-

hattan Barnes & Noble.

“I Kissed Dating Goodbye”

flirted with precepts widely

considered heresy among Prot-

estants. Christianity holds that

people are inherently impure

and incapable of pleasing God

except through Jesus, who

atoned for their sins. Mr. Har-

ris’s book implied that some-

one who behaved a certain way

could be pure enough to win

God’s approval. The book also

reimagined the prosperity doc-

trine, suggesting God would

reward those who pleased him

with a great marriage—and a

satisfying sex life.

The book’s message became

“a big part of my identity, and

almost my own sense of self-

worth,” Mr. Harris told me

last December. “So to even

open the door to think that

maybe it was, on the whole,

unhelpful, and hurt people—it

was just hard to go there.”

Credit Mr. Harris for star-

ing into the abyss. In 2016 he

had asked readers to tell him

how his book affected them

and got hundreds of re-

sponses. The replies were sim-

ilar to what I’ve heard from

friends who feel haunted by

his book. For some, failed

marriages—or failure to get

married despite following the

book’s advice—have left them

fearful that they displeased

God. Others feel purity was

turned into a fetish.

Mr. Harris’s book seems to

have taken a special toll on

young Christian women, who

felt controlled and objectified

when church leaders told

them that immodesty, even if

unintentional, makes them re-

sponsible for violating men’s

spiritual and emotional purity.

Worst of all, some readers

told Mr. Harris they had lost

their faith because of the

shame and spiritual duress his

book inflicted.

Hearing such things left Mr.

Harris “in a place where I

would find my own faith re-

ally shaken,” he said in De-

cember. “The brand of Christi-

anity that I practiced was so

specific, and was so tied to

thinking certain ways, certain

practices.” Questioning them

means “I’m having to figure

out what does that mean, in

regard to my relationship with

God, because my relationship

with Godwasthose things.”

Mr. Harris was questioning

whether “I can let go of this,

and not let go of God.”

In July, Mr. Harris made

two personal announcements

on Instagram: He and his wife

were separating, and he had

“undergone a massive shift in

regard to my faith in Jesus,”

he wrote. “Many people tell

me that there is a different

way to practice faith and I

want to remain open to this,

but I’m not there now.”

Many Christians responded

with mourning, but I’m hope-

ful. Abandoning untrue beliefs

is progress, and a faith that

doesn’t stand up to the tough-

est inquiry isn’t worth believ-

ing. The Book of Hebrews says

that “without faith it is impos-

sible to please God, because

anyone who comes to him

must believe that he exists

and that he rewards those who

earnestly seek him.” Mr. Har-

ris, please keep seeking, and

I’ll be praying as you wander.

Ms. Melchior is a Journal

editorial page writer.

Don’t give up praying

for the disillusioned

leader of the 1990s

Purity Movement.

HOUSES OF
WORSHIP
By Jillian Kay
Melchior

The nation
has struggled
to categorize
the Demo-
cratic presi-
dential candi-
dates. Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren is
some days a
“populist,”
others a “lib-
eral.” Sen. Bernie Sanders is at
pains to define “democratic so-
cialism” as apart from plain,
old “socialism.” The media de-
scribes Sen. Amy Klobuchar as
a “centrist” or “moderate,”
even as she insists on “proven
progressive.”
There’s an easier taxonomy:
Lefties vs. Crazy Lefties. That’s
the choice Democrats have in
the primaries, and the two
pools from which Donald
Trump’s opponent will come.
This summer’s debates have
been primarily useful for high-
lighting how radically the Dem-
ocratic Party has shifted. Ba-
rack Obama can fairly be
described as the most liberal
president in American history—
from his command-and-control
regulatory regime to the Af-
fordable Care Act, from his tax
hikes to his activist judges. Yet
the entire Democratic primary
field is now rebuking his
agenda as small and weak, if
not proto-Trumpian.
Mr. Obama avoided cam-
paigning in 2008 on a public
option, and the White House
willingly jettisoned that de-
mand in the final ObamaCare
negotiations. He knew that at
best it would muster 43 Senate
votes, while senators like Joe
Lieberman had vowed to fili-

The Left vs. the Crazy Left

buster a government “take-

over” of health insurance that

would balloon the national

debt. House Blue Dogs simi-

larly rejected it. Yet all 20 of

the candidates on this week’s

debate stage backed Medicare

for any American, if not all of

them.

Mr. Obama touted natural

gas as a bridge fuel to a future

lower-carbon environment. He

kept his economy afloat by

winking at the state-led frack-

ing revolution, and since retire-

ment he’s even (misleadingly)

bragged that he was responsi-

ble for record new U.S. oil pro-

duction. Yet what was the radi-

cal-left position of a few years

ago—“keep it in the ground”—

is now mainstream. On

Wednesday even Joe Biden said

no when a moderator asked if

there would be “any place for

fossil fuels, including coal and

fracking,” in his administration.

Hawaiians will never visit the

mainland again.

Mr. Biden’s rivals—includ-

ing Sen. Cory Booker, Julián

Castro (an Obama cabinet sec-

retary) and New York Mayor

Bill de Blasio—scored him for

not using his clout as vice

president to stop Mr. Obama’s

“deportations.” Activist audi-

ence members egged this at-

tack on, chanting “three mil-

lion deportations!” Mr. Biden

made a stab at defending the

Obama immigration policy,

but he promised the Obama

deportation rates would “ab-

solutely not” resume were he

president. The entire field is

on record for easing asylum

rules, and some want to de-

criminalize unauthorized bor-

der crossings.

On the topic of law and or-

der, not a single candidate

spoke in defense of hundreds

of thousands of police officers

who daily risk their lives for

public safety. They instead

nodded along with descrip-

tions of police systems as

“criminal,” “corrupt” and “bro-

ken.” Mr. Obama spoke at a

2016 memorial for five mur-

dered Dallas cops. Would any

Democratic candidate dare

show up at such an event

today?

The debates have high-

lighted important policy dis-

tinctions. But in the context of

this overall leftward shift, they

are rightly measured on a slid-

ing scale from “lefty” to “abso-

lutely nuts.” And it’s only the

presence of the real radicals

that allows commentators to

get away with suggesting any

of these policies are remotely

“centrist” or “moderate.”

The crazies want to tax ev-

eryone and everything—finan-

cial transactions, carbon, bank

liabilities, sales, wealth, in-

come, families. Mr. Sanders

has outright said he will raise

taxes on the middle class,

while Ms. Warren has all but

admitted as much. The ordi-

nary lefties merely want to

raise taxes on capital, estates,

businesses, payrolls and higher

incomes.

The crazies would take over

or kill entire sectors of the

economy. Some Medicare for

All proponents would immedi-

ately outlaw private insurance;

others would do it over time.

Fossil-fuel jobs would be abol-

ished, while disfavored corpo-

rate executives would face

“jail.” The lefties would merely

regulate the hell out of the

economy, dictating what types

of health plans, financial prod-

ucts, energy, and drugs we can

have, and at what price.

The crazies would pack the

Supreme Court (Ms. Warren),

prosecute Mr. Trump (Kamala

Harris) and spend billions on

slavery reparations (Marianne

Williamson). The lefties would

merely require two years of

mandatory national service

(John Delaney), ban union and

nonprofit political speech (Mi-

chael Bennet) and impose

sweeping new gun control

(John Hickenlooper).

The Democratic Party

seems to be banking that vot-

ers dislike Mr. Trump so much

that they’ll accept any alterna-

tive. That’s an enormously

risky bet. All that’s missing in

this race is any evidence that a

country that elected Mr.

Trump is four years later will-

ing to leapfrog beyond Obama

policies into liberal nirvana.

The polls continue to show (as

they long have) that the U.S. is

a center-right country. Ms.

Warren wondered on Tuesday

why anyone would bother run-

ning for president if they

weren’t running as a full-

blown radical. Because elec-

tions are supposed to be about

winning.

Write to [email protected].

If you’re looking for a

moderate president,

you won’t find one in

the Democratic field.

POTOMAC
WATCH
By Kimberley
A. Strassel