I cannot engage with all of the argument, much of which I agree with. Bluesky is best avoided for reasons stated. However, the anger at Klein etc al was because he misrepresented Kirk as some kind of Socratic contrarian. There is nothing courageous about arguing with a bunch of young students whose ideas are still hardly formed and whose ability to hold an argument was even less developed. And then to release edited footage of the encounter to show yourself in the best possible light. Moreover, the injunction "Prove me wrong" sums up everything that was so problematic about his approach. It was not about genuinely engaging in a debate where you both might learn something or where you might even change your mind or reflect on your own values. Several times, Kirk was shown to be hollow, and then his response was to simply double down on his original position rather than, say, go and think about his ideas. I'm all for engaging with others who have radically different views, and as an academic, I agree that academia has become a self-destructive political monoculture. However debate has to be in good faith, and that, sadly, was not what he was about.
"There is nothing courageous about arguing with a bunch of young students whose ideas are still hardly formed and whose ability to hold an argument was even less developed."
I wonder if you realize that college students are not 12 or 13, but rather 18 year olds who can vote. If they cannot argue and think about their ideas, what's been going so horribly wrong in their lives? And how would they form these ideas without challenging them and debating them?
Your points seem much more like an argument for keeping students well away from college professors than people who show up and ask for people to volunteer to debate.
I'm sure many weren't. That was the problem with the whole set up. Politics as performance, rather than a serious attempt to address really serious issues. But, then, we live in an unserious age.
While I agree with your take, one comment has me flummoxed. Your comment about what Grok seems to ‘think’ imbues it/‘him’ with full sentience. Grok just uses a heuristic to collate what people say on X. There is no ability by it to actually ‘in the Star Trek term’ ‘Grok’ or have knowledge of anything. Be careful and precise when giving it human ‘abilities and powers’…
I got tired of Bluesky in part because all users seem to be babies that mass block anyone who doesn't exactly share the same beliefs instead of attempting to argue lol... And I'm pretty far left.
As a slow learner who considers himself social left / fiscal conservative, but a political independent who often votes Democrat due to limited / non-existent rational choices, it took me awhile on BlueSky to reach a conclusion similar to yours.
Two areas where we may differ:
I would not say "...all users...", as I have yet to initiate even one block - or even mute - any account on BlueSky. Though I have been blocked by dozens of rabid, closed-minded, presumably Democrat politicult members. And thus likely muted by many others. Many of them behave so awfully that they make me spitefully and somewhat pleased that their party controls none of the three branches of our federal government. Most there feel anti-rational, with many feeling downright fascist to me.
My original posts there receive little to no engagement. Thus I am increasingly reluctant to post anything in my own words on my main feed, so I almost exclusively repost or reply, though less of each.
Second, my experience is that almost all humans are substantially ethically and intellectually self-limiting. I have personally never known - or known of - a substantive exception. Not one, not ever. Even the minuscule number of the best among us tend to specialize, rather than attempt to be holistic.
This is in large part because it requires more time and cerebral bandwidth to deal with the innumerable issues we humans create, than almost any are willing to expend in resolving well. Far and away more problems and problem creators, than dedicated, holistic-minded problem solvers.
Enter one of humanity's common solutions to our limited bandwidth:
To varying degrees, almost all humans substantially evade, minimize, distort, or deny truth, reason, ethics, science, facts, and reality.
It strikes me as odd that you make politics by propaganda the habit of the right and politics of performance the habit of right, as opposed to recognizing that these are inherent behaviors of both/all political mass movements. The leadership (Musk and... well you didn't mention any on the left) tells people what it wants them to believe based on what benefits the leadership, and the adherents tell people what they feel to signal their loyalty and standing to the group. Propaganda tells those who already are following what they are supposed to espouse, and performance signals the group loyalty of the follower.
> In some ways, Klein’s remarks are too magnanimous
So the problem is that you set out in this paragraph the exact same critique people are making against Klein's piece ...
... and then go on to dismiss it as 'hysterical' when other people make it *right after* complaining that they lack 'moxie and fearlessness'.
So "the Left" must learn from Kirk to have more 'moxie and fearlessness' ... but not in the way that would make someone - who agrees with the substance of their arguments - feel that a random selection of posters were being 'hysterical'.
That's ... too much moxie/the wrong kind of fearlessness?
Also ... just thinking about *hysteria* right now, your bsky::ezra klein link is actually going to be quite boring for connoisseurs of hysteria (video clip of 2.5 mins of Jamelle Bouie - many things you can say about it but "excitingly hysterical" is not one of them.
But if you *were* looking for hysteria? I'd say someone calling the killing of Charlie Kirk America's Reichstag Fire and calling for the US Right to follow in the steps of the ... uh Nazi Party probably counts:
which part of the reaction on Bluesky was "hysterical"? the link your provided displays exactly zero hysteria. people are unhappy with his patent misrepresentation of Kirk and his rhetorical practices, but no one with any following is saying anything that can fairly be described as hysterical. nor is it fair to call the reaction merely performative; expressive, certainly, but not performative. people are rightly upset that a leading progressive pundit is so ready to concede ground to Kirk and his project of abolishing the very liberal democratic culture that Klein credits him for adumbrating. after all, if the most influential voices among us are so naive, the urgent fight to salvage democracy from the clutches of theocrats and fascists is imperiled. given the stakes, you'd expect a good deal *more* hysteria than the comments actually display.
and let's not forget that Kirk openly called for the execution of Joe Biden, without anyone publicly wringing their hands over "hysteria" or the threat of political violence
> Given this, it is puzzling that many of the same people who have spent nearly a decade worrying about online misinformation and echo chambers have responded to this development by abandoning X en masse to create their own progressive echo chamber on Bluesky.
Oh no no no it’s not an echo chamber if the people in it have the correct opinions
I cannot engage with all of the argument, much of which I agree with. Bluesky is best avoided for reasons stated. However, the anger at Klein etc al was because he misrepresented Kirk as some kind of Socratic contrarian. There is nothing courageous about arguing with a bunch of young students whose ideas are still hardly formed and whose ability to hold an argument was even less developed. And then to release edited footage of the encounter to show yourself in the best possible light. Moreover, the injunction "Prove me wrong" sums up everything that was so problematic about his approach. It was not about genuinely engaging in a debate where you both might learn something or where you might even change your mind or reflect on your own values. Several times, Kirk was shown to be hollow, and then his response was to simply double down on his original position rather than, say, go and think about his ideas. I'm all for engaging with others who have radically different views, and as an academic, I agree that academia has become a self-destructive political monoculture. However debate has to be in good faith, and that, sadly, was not what he was about.
"There is nothing courageous about arguing with a bunch of young students whose ideas are still hardly formed and whose ability to hold an argument was even less developed."
I wonder if you realize that college students are not 12 or 13, but rather 18 year olds who can vote. If they cannot argue and think about their ideas, what's been going so horribly wrong in their lives? And how would they form these ideas without challenging them and debating them?
Your points seem much more like an argument for keeping students well away from college professors than people who show up and ask for people to volunteer to debate.
Do I understand correctly that you are referring to most showing up at Charlie Kirk events were there to engage in or listen to good faith debate?
I'm sure many weren't. That was the problem with the whole set up. Politics as performance, rather than a serious attempt to address really serious issues. But, then, we live in an unserious age.
While I agree with your take, one comment has me flummoxed. Your comment about what Grok seems to ‘think’ imbues it/‘him’ with full sentience. Grok just uses a heuristic to collate what people say on X. There is no ability by it to actually ‘in the Star Trek term’ ‘Grok’ or have knowledge of anything. Be careful and precise when giving it human ‘abilities and powers’…
At least that’s how I understand it.
Good article
I got tired of Bluesky in part because all users seem to be babies that mass block anyone who doesn't exactly share the same beliefs instead of attempting to argue lol... And I'm pretty far left.
As a slow learner who considers himself social left / fiscal conservative, but a political independent who often votes Democrat due to limited / non-existent rational choices, it took me awhile on BlueSky to reach a conclusion similar to yours.
Two areas where we may differ:
I would not say "...all users...", as I have yet to initiate even one block - or even mute - any account on BlueSky. Though I have been blocked by dozens of rabid, closed-minded, presumably Democrat politicult members. And thus likely muted by many others. Many of them behave so awfully that they make me spitefully and somewhat pleased that their party controls none of the three branches of our federal government. Most there feel anti-rational, with many feeling downright fascist to me.
My original posts there receive little to no engagement. Thus I am increasingly reluctant to post anything in my own words on my main feed, so I almost exclusively repost or reply, though less of each.
Second, my experience is that almost all humans are substantially ethically and intellectually self-limiting. I have personally never known - or known of - a substantive exception. Not one, not ever. Even the minuscule number of the best among us tend to specialize, rather than attempt to be holistic.
This is in large part because it requires more time and cerebral bandwidth to deal with the innumerable issues we humans create, than almost any are willing to expend in resolving well. Far and away more problems and problem creators, than dedicated, holistic-minded problem solvers.
Enter one of humanity's common solutions to our limited bandwidth:
To varying degrees, almost all humans substantially evade, minimize, distort, or deny truth, reason, ethics, science, facts, and reality.
It strikes me as odd that you make politics by propaganda the habit of the right and politics of performance the habit of right, as opposed to recognizing that these are inherent behaviors of both/all political mass movements. The leadership (Musk and... well you didn't mention any on the left) tells people what it wants them to believe based on what benefits the leadership, and the adherents tell people what they feel to signal their loyalty and standing to the group. Propaganda tells those who already are following what they are supposed to espouse, and performance signals the group loyalty of the follower.
> In some ways, Klein’s remarks are too magnanimous
So the problem is that you set out in this paragraph the exact same critique people are making against Klein's piece ...
... and then go on to dismiss it as 'hysterical' when other people make it *right after* complaining that they lack 'moxie and fearlessness'.
So "the Left" must learn from Kirk to have more 'moxie and fearlessness' ... but not in the way that would make someone - who agrees with the substance of their arguments - feel that a random selection of posters were being 'hysterical'.
That's ... too much moxie/the wrong kind of fearlessness?
Also ... just thinking about *hysteria* right now, your bsky::ezra klein link is actually going to be quite boring for connoisseurs of hysteria (video clip of 2.5 mins of Jamelle Bouie - many things you can say about it but "excitingly hysterical" is not one of them.
But if you *were* looking for hysteria? I'd say someone calling the killing of Charlie Kirk America's Reichstag Fire and calling for the US Right to follow in the steps of the ... uh Nazi Party probably counts:
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1965908051824660740
which part of the reaction on Bluesky was "hysterical"? the link your provided displays exactly zero hysteria. people are unhappy with his patent misrepresentation of Kirk and his rhetorical practices, but no one with any following is saying anything that can fairly be described as hysterical. nor is it fair to call the reaction merely performative; expressive, certainly, but not performative. people are rightly upset that a leading progressive pundit is so ready to concede ground to Kirk and his project of abolishing the very liberal democratic culture that Klein credits him for adumbrating. after all, if the most influential voices among us are so naive, the urgent fight to salvage democracy from the clutches of theocrats and fascists is imperiled. given the stakes, you'd expect a good deal *more* hysteria than the comments actually display.
and let's not forget that Kirk openly called for the execution of Joe Biden, without anyone publicly wringing their hands over "hysteria" or the threat of political violence
> Given this, it is puzzling that many of the same people who have spent nearly a decade worrying about online misinformation and echo chambers have responded to this development by abandoning X en masse to create their own progressive echo chamber on Bluesky.
Oh no no no it’s not an echo chamber if the people in it have the correct opinions