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.
I've seen this response a lot in the last few days, but most left-of-center figures can't even bring themselves to do as much as Kirk, however little that may be. Certainly most of the people making this case do not (though I don't mean that personally).
It's especially grating to hear the criticism directed at Klein, who has earned substantial credibility on that front.
"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.
If it works better, consider that someone who does this sort of thing professionally will in general wipe the floor with someone off the street with zero experience in doing such a performance. It's a sucker's game to call it a "debate".
The difference with college professors is the ideal of arguing in good-faith, versus evident arguing in bad-faith which is what Kirk did. In fact, I'd turn it around - what Kirk was doing was the epitome of the "bad" professor, but he's being praised for it since it was in the service of right-wing propaganda.
The problem here is evident in your first paragraph: debate and discussion isn't zero sum, so "wiping the floor" with someone less informed isn't the right framing. If someone is more knowledgeable, due to say doing something professionally, it is desirable that they should point out the flaws in the other's thinking; that other should certainly be less certain of their beliefs if they haven't considered those points!
You are thinking too much in terms of debate as high school debate competition, which is a strange sport version of actual discourse.
The bad professor angle comes not from debating their students, that is good, but rather in demanding that their students' bow down and accept their views on pain of punishment. Students could walk away from Kirk and suffer nary a poor grade or really any negatives at all. Not so with bad professors who demand that you profess to agree with them if you want a passing grade and thus a degree. You are exactly backwards in what the issue is there.
These sorts of performances don't turn on knowledge, but rhetorical skill. It's similar to how many doctors don't want to do public "debates" with anti-vaccination lunatics. The lunatics may be utterly nuts when it comes to scientific knowledge, but extremely good at selling lies - and yes, selling lies is a skill at which some people excel at - e.g Charlie Kirk!
There's a fallacy of ambiguity around the world "debate" which I think you're demonstrating. It can mean "explore the case for an idea" or "advocate your side's view regardless of truth". To much (to be scrupulously fair not all, but the exceptions seem to me pretty small) of the right-wing, it has the latter meaning. And thus they project it into professors, because they can't imagine anyone would do otherwise. I'm not fond of the following phrase, because I know it's got a logical problem, but "accusation as confession" does seem to be accurate here.
I think you will find that selling lies is something all sides of every political system tend to excel in. I would invite you to watch Charlie Kirk's interview by Gavin Newsome sometime. I think one would be hard pressed to come up with lies he told there for instance.
I was a college professor for a time, and I can attest that there are absolutely professors who will fail you for disagreeing with them. Regardless of what some on the right might be doing, the left, especially the activist professor portion, are elbow deep in "advocate your side's view regardless of truth".
Well. I've worked in higher education for 30 years and most 18 year olds are still kids. It's about emotional immaturity. Nothing went wrong in their lives but it takes time to acquire a sophisticated sense of nuance. Very few have it by 18. Most of us not until our mid-20's. After all the decision to make 18 the age of seniority is completely arbitrary. I would go further. Not even Kirk had reached intellectual or emotional maturity. His all or nothing approach, and the framing of the whole business as being about "winning" was pretty childish. As was his style of argument.
So how are students supposed to gain a sense of nuance and really anything other than how to repeat ideological slogans if they never debate or otherwise argue with those who disagree with them? And how do you align your claims that 18-22 year olds are somehow put upon to voluntarily debate with people who disagree with them when going to college at the age of 14 was fairly standard until the last few hundred years? It sounds as though you are arguing the equivalent of "18 year olds can't run a solid mile, so you shouldn't ask them to practice and train to run a mile." How do you learn to do things without trying to do things?
Of course they are supposed to do that. I didn't remotely say what you implied. Indeed, it is only through practice that they can improve. But at age 18, they are still very young and inexperienced. My point was simply that it's not "courageous" to debate with them. In fact, it's taking advantage of their vulnerability and naivety, and then turning it into a public spectacle for personal enrichment. So it's all rather unethical
You are trying to have it both ways. You can't say that they are too young and inexperienced to debate, and therefore engaging them in voluntary debate is bad, and at the same time say they need to debate and engage with different ideas.
Traveling around and engaging publicly with audiences and interlocutors who specifically disagree with you to try and change their minds or at least show them your perspective is in fact courageous. It at least requires enough courage such that it almost never happens; Kirk wasn't operating in a saturated market.
I agree that many of the students who took up the microphone to speak with Kirk were quite naïve in their understanding of the world, but the point of debate is to disabuse oneself of that. The students themselves certainly don't seem to have an accurate understanding of their naivety or how little they actually know.
I do not know what you mean by saying the students were "vulnerable". Vulnerable to what? What dangers does public debate of a topic and ideas pose? Isn't that why they are in college to do in the first place?
If you take advantage of their naivety, and then broadcast it to make them look stupid, they are vulnerable. But maybe I'm being overly sentimental. As to having it both ways, I think we've strayed from the original point i was making. Which was that it is not courageous to have a debate, as a 32 year old, with a bunch of college kids. I might say let him do it, but let's not misread what was going on. A village football team might gain a lot from playing against a professional side, but you wouldn't say how brave the latter were. It's not an encounter of equals. When he was occasionally caught short, he would refuse to engage, and then just double down. "Prove me wrong, but if you do, I'll just raise my voice and repeat what I said at the start." That was his shtick, and it was unedifying.
I think you are mischaracterizing what Klein said. He doesn’t call Kirk a Socratic contrarian. He just says Kirk was in the business of persuasion. Seems to me a bad idea to make Socratic debate a litmus test for legitimate politics. But if you do, it also seems important to treat others’ views carefully and to interpret them charitably,
I read Klein again. I'm sure I agree with except on the point of Socrates. But then, I didn't ever say he should be a litmus test. Maybe it was not quite the right simile, but i just think it was tone deaf of Klein to say that Kirk was interested in having an open debate about political values. That's why it often degenerated into a shouting match.
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.
I almost completely agree with you. In fact, I suspect few were there in good faith intellectualism. I was merely wondering if the other person replying to you was inferring that.
Kirk was a prominent political propagandist who habitually made intellectually and factually inaccurate statements in promotion of his particular politicult.
Where my view might differ a bit from yours:
"But then, we live in an unserious age." seems to be another variant of "these days". The issue with that entirely common public sentiment, seen all over social media, is that human nature does not change.
For more on my perception of that nature, feel free to view my prior reply to another respondent under this post.
Well I take your point. However, whatever human nature may be, we only ever see it through the lens of specific cultures. But in any case, that's not so important here. I certainly don't want to appear like I'm harking on about the good old days, but in a time when so many of us are in denial about the major challenges facing advanced societies (it should always be up to someone else), and when the political class fall back on empty sloganeering, and when political debate is driven by algorithm and marketisation, then I don't think it's mistaken to say we live in unserious times. To live in denial means you are not serious.
"...we only ever see it through the lens of specific cultures."
Many of the tiny percentage of humans who are erudite have had exposure to human nature writ large, and so may only partially agree with that view.
And as referenced in my reply to another respondent under this blog post, the following types of behaviors you accurately note, seem to be a long time norm in Homo sapiens, rather than chronocentric or geocentric:
"...in a time when so many of us are in denial about the major challenges facing advanced societies (it should always be up to someone else), and when the political class fall back on empty sloganeering, and when political debate is driven by algorithm and marketisation, then I don't think it's mistaken to say we live in unserious times."
You raise some valid and pressing concerns, so I thank you for the debate.
It strikes me as odd that you make politics by propaganda the habit of the right and politics of performance the habit of left, 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.
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 even 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.
Find this case totally compelling. But is there not an additional reason people gravitate to silos —apart from wanting their belief confirmed? Often they are looking for people who are more thoughtful or better informed than themselves to help them understand and clarify their intuitions. (Why I’m here!) dangers built into that desire for sure, but it need not be purely performative or therapeutic.
Agree with your criticism of Bluesky, which is largely a superfluous platform.
At the same time, I was bewildered by Klein’s piece, and thought he painted much too charitable a picture of Kirk’s views and approach. (Additionally, it was strange he first admitted not knowing enough about Kirk to eulogise him but then proceeded to do so anyway.)
The piece made me wonder though: is there a point where people’s views become so nasty and authoritarian that the fact that they are pursuing them peacefully and by attempting to persuade becomes irrelevant? If so, where is that line, and where did Kirk fall on it? Surely, we would not describe David Irving or David Duke as having pursued politics the right way, even though they also tried to persuade often hostile audiences (and as far as I am aware did not use or incite violence).
Your essay today resonates strongly and is very much appreciated. I took a step back from reading or writing Substack Notes a couple weeks ago because I noticed a coarsening of exchanges that seemed eerily like those I had seen on social media as the 2016 election in the US grew closer (those in 2016 were definitely similar to what you describe on Bluesky right now). I’m now in the process of reassessing how best to engage with Notes, as well as comments.
Like you, I strongly believe persuasion is not only possible, but far, far preferable for the purpose of finding common ground on and changing attitudes and views. Long years of union organizing and political canvassing have taught me how valuable and necessary it is—and also how very difficult it is to do well, requiring patience, perseverance, and humility (that yes, sometimes we are the ones who have got it wrong).
What I am thinking about is this: When it comes to online communications, there do exist barriers to achieving productive exchanges that are not so often present in person-to-person interactions, particularly one-on-one. The open question for me is whether and to what extent those can be overcome. Here are some preliminary observations:
There are of course many Substack essay writers (you are one) who write essays that consistently offer productive food for thought. That seems to me to be Substack’s highest and best use.
When it comes to Notes and comments, however, it can be a very mixed bag—yet these, it seems to me, are where the potential is theoretically greatest for constructive exchanges across difference to occur. For example, while Paul Krugman writes a great deal of thoughtful analysis, the comments are most often not particularly useful for purposes of constructive engagement. What seems most useful are instances where Substack writers engage directly with commenters—but that is a big burden for Substack writers to take on, particularly as your subscriber lists grow.
With notes, I have observed two problem areas. Firstly, too often people tend to respond to notes who are already in agreement with the content, or, alternatively, because they disagree and want to lob an attack. Secondly, Substack algorithms do seem to abet this silo-style formation; for example, it can be devilishly hard to find content that branches out beyond what might have brought one here in the first instance.
Thank you for yet another thought-provoking essay.
> 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
> 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:
I didn't link Jamelle Bouie. I linked a search of Ezra Klein. Scroll down for several minutes. Read some of the top takes:
- "Ezra Klein is really out here making it seem like whiteness is some intellectually crippling shit."
- "Ezra Klein, Nazi apologist."
- "Ezra Klein is fucking terrible".
- "Just so we're clear, Ezra Klein believes that practicing politics the right way is saying things like "gay people should be stoned to death" just so we're clear."
- "These people are absolutely brain diseased" (referring to Klein).
- "Ezra Klein proudly announcing “I am the white moderate MLK warned you about“ essentially. Ghoulish, racist, transphobic, pinche gringo."
You can keep scrolling and find endless content like this. If you're on Bluesky and have seen the reaction to his article and don't find it hysterical, we strongly disagree on what constitutes hysteria.
I like Ezra Klein but that op ed seemed like an exercise in energetic spin designed to extract a productive conclusion, that debate is good, from truly poor soil.
> You can keep scrolling and find endless content like this
Isn't that inherent in the nature of scrolling on any social media site?
For me, this looks like a set of people agreeing with your critique, subsampling out the ones who are more overflowing with "moxie and fearlessness" (/exaggeration and emotiveness).
Hysteria, to me, is not someone saying "I saw a guy on the news saying X - what a ****** asshole!". That's just ... normal people talking. I would, of course, sit there and feel a bit superior for not stooping to such language/theatricality.
Hysteria is when someone proposes some disproportionate follow-up action (e.g. the Reichstag Tweet, but also a bunch of similar tone ones) that isn't just "this person has different feelings about expressive language than me".
One small correction. There are no conservatives. MAGA is not conservative. This president is not conservative. These republicans are not conservative. These people’s words and actions are those we have fought serious wars over here and abroad. They’ve made it clear it’s about money and power.
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.
"The link you provided displays exactly zero hysteria." "Noone is saying anythng that can fairly be described as hysterical."
Fair enough. If you spend a few seconds scrolling through the search, here are some of the things that come up:
- "Ezra Klein is really out here making it seem like whiteness is some intellectually crippling shit."
- "Ezra Klein, Nazi apologist."
- "Ezra Klein is fucking terrible".
- "Just so we're clear, Ezra Klein believes that practicing politics the right way is saying things like "gay people should be stoned to death" just so we're clear."
- "These people are absolutely brain diseased" (referring to Klein).
- "Ezra Klein proudly announcing “I am the white moderate MLK warned you about“ essentially. Ghoulish, racist, transphobic, pinche gringo."
I find that kind of content and the endless examples of it if you keep scrollling hysterical. Not sure if that's a semantic or substantive disagreement between us - probably both.
big difference between highly critical and hysterical. people are upset at him for sane washing extremely dangerous and offensive views for rational reasons. hysteria is an irrationally hyperbolic emotional response.
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
My de-facto activity involves a lot of "politics as performance", but I have to argue that performance can actually be good and useful, because it edges on "politics as coordination".
I have written several blog posts and argued with people online trying to explicitly do "politics as persuasion", and I have successfully moved some people on some positions. However, I wouldn't be able to do it, if it wasn't for some political performance I've seen on Bluesky and similar progressive echo chambers.
People posting opinions, and even just memes, helps me discover talking points. Seeing how people inside the echo chamber react to this or that helps me be aware of this side of the discourse. A lot of my "persuasion" attempts, reasoned and researched arguments that I post outside of the echo chambers were only reasoned and researched because I was able to distill the tacit wisdom from inside the echo chambers, adapt some preaching-to-the-choir arguments into more widely applicable ones, and expand a meme into an actual point. And some things I have posted purely as persuasion have found their way out of the echo chamber via other people.
Very few people can reasonably do propaganda or persuasion. But pretty much everybody can do backline support with performance.
I posit that Charlie Korma status on the right as a cross between the Dalai Lama and Aristotle says more about the perceptions of his ideological opponents than it does his inherent intellectual and moral rectitude. I also posit that Ezra Klein is an excellent example of someone. Who has proven willing to deplybad faith arguements to 'won' an argument.
I think this is part of it, but also, I think the online culture around being a leftist or progressive has become something that’s not compatible with joy and happiness.
I’ve been on Bluesky a few times, and still have an account, but don’t really engage because I don’t like the people there. I don’t like the people there because of 2 things.
1. The critical theory practice of looking for a deeper analysis of power structures
2. The incentives of social media
The way these 2 things interact has made it so that the person who is less able to find joy and celebrate gets rewarded, and everyone can see that, so it’s gamified being unhappy and not allowing others to be happy. Not to mention the lack of incentive to go beyond critique and talk about pragmatic solutions in this environment, instead any such proposals like Klein’s Abundance gets dismissed.
My experience on there was much improved once I started avoiding the political stuff, but then at that point that made it essentially the same as X, just much more irrelevant. So it just didn’t make sense to continue engaging.
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.
I've seen this response a lot in the last few days, but most left-of-center figures can't even bring themselves to do as much as Kirk, however little that may be. Certainly most of the people making this case do not (though I don't mean that personally).
It's especially grating to hear the criticism directed at Klein, who has earned substantial credibility on that front.
"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.
If it works better, consider that someone who does this sort of thing professionally will in general wipe the floor with someone off the street with zero experience in doing such a performance. It's a sucker's game to call it a "debate".
The difference with college professors is the ideal of arguing in good-faith, versus evident arguing in bad-faith which is what Kirk did. In fact, I'd turn it around - what Kirk was doing was the epitome of the "bad" professor, but he's being praised for it since it was in the service of right-wing propaganda.
The problem here is evident in your first paragraph: debate and discussion isn't zero sum, so "wiping the floor" with someone less informed isn't the right framing. If someone is more knowledgeable, due to say doing something professionally, it is desirable that they should point out the flaws in the other's thinking; that other should certainly be less certain of their beliefs if they haven't considered those points!
You are thinking too much in terms of debate as high school debate competition, which is a strange sport version of actual discourse.
The bad professor angle comes not from debating their students, that is good, but rather in demanding that their students' bow down and accept their views on pain of punishment. Students could walk away from Kirk and suffer nary a poor grade or really any negatives at all. Not so with bad professors who demand that you profess to agree with them if you want a passing grade and thus a degree. You are exactly backwards in what the issue is there.
These sorts of performances don't turn on knowledge, but rhetorical skill. It's similar to how many doctors don't want to do public "debates" with anti-vaccination lunatics. The lunatics may be utterly nuts when it comes to scientific knowledge, but extremely good at selling lies - and yes, selling lies is a skill at which some people excel at - e.g Charlie Kirk!
There's a fallacy of ambiguity around the world "debate" which I think you're demonstrating. It can mean "explore the case for an idea" or "advocate your side's view regardless of truth". To much (to be scrupulously fair not all, but the exceptions seem to me pretty small) of the right-wing, it has the latter meaning. And thus they project it into professors, because they can't imagine anyone would do otherwise. I'm not fond of the following phrase, because I know it's got a logical problem, but "accusation as confession" does seem to be accurate here.
I think you will find that selling lies is something all sides of every political system tend to excel in. I would invite you to watch Charlie Kirk's interview by Gavin Newsome sometime. I think one would be hard pressed to come up with lies he told there for instance.
I was a college professor for a time, and I can attest that there are absolutely professors who will fail you for disagreeing with them. Regardless of what some on the right might be doing, the left, especially the activist professor portion, are elbow deep in "advocate your side's view regardless of truth".
Well. I've worked in higher education for 30 years and most 18 year olds are still kids. It's about emotional immaturity. Nothing went wrong in their lives but it takes time to acquire a sophisticated sense of nuance. Very few have it by 18. Most of us not until our mid-20's. After all the decision to make 18 the age of seniority is completely arbitrary. I would go further. Not even Kirk had reached intellectual or emotional maturity. His all or nothing approach, and the framing of the whole business as being about "winning" was pretty childish. As was his style of argument.
So how are students supposed to gain a sense of nuance and really anything other than how to repeat ideological slogans if they never debate or otherwise argue with those who disagree with them? And how do you align your claims that 18-22 year olds are somehow put upon to voluntarily debate with people who disagree with them when going to college at the age of 14 was fairly standard until the last few hundred years? It sounds as though you are arguing the equivalent of "18 year olds can't run a solid mile, so you shouldn't ask them to practice and train to run a mile." How do you learn to do things without trying to do things?
Of course they are supposed to do that. I didn't remotely say what you implied. Indeed, it is only through practice that they can improve. But at age 18, they are still very young and inexperienced. My point was simply that it's not "courageous" to debate with them. In fact, it's taking advantage of their vulnerability and naivety, and then turning it into a public spectacle for personal enrichment. So it's all rather unethical
You are trying to have it both ways. You can't say that they are too young and inexperienced to debate, and therefore engaging them in voluntary debate is bad, and at the same time say they need to debate and engage with different ideas.
Traveling around and engaging publicly with audiences and interlocutors who specifically disagree with you to try and change their minds or at least show them your perspective is in fact courageous. It at least requires enough courage such that it almost never happens; Kirk wasn't operating in a saturated market.
I agree that many of the students who took up the microphone to speak with Kirk were quite naïve in their understanding of the world, but the point of debate is to disabuse oneself of that. The students themselves certainly don't seem to have an accurate understanding of their naivety or how little they actually know.
I do not know what you mean by saying the students were "vulnerable". Vulnerable to what? What dangers does public debate of a topic and ideas pose? Isn't that why they are in college to do in the first place?
If you take advantage of their naivety, and then broadcast it to make them look stupid, they are vulnerable. But maybe I'm being overly sentimental. As to having it both ways, I think we've strayed from the original point i was making. Which was that it is not courageous to have a debate, as a 32 year old, with a bunch of college kids. I might say let him do it, but let's not misread what was going on. A village football team might gain a lot from playing against a professional side, but you wouldn't say how brave the latter were. It's not an encounter of equals. When he was occasionally caught short, he would refuse to engage, and then just double down. "Prove me wrong, but if you do, I'll just raise my voice and repeat what I said at the start." That was his shtick, and it was unedifying.
I think you are mischaracterizing what Klein said. He doesn’t call Kirk a Socratic contrarian. He just says Kirk was in the business of persuasion. Seems to me a bad idea to make Socratic debate a litmus test for legitimate politics. But if you do, it also seems important to treat others’ views carefully and to interpret them charitably,
I read Klein again. I'm sure I agree with except on the point of Socrates. But then, I didn't ever say he should be a litmus test. Maybe it was not quite the right simile, but i just think it was tone deaf of Klein to say that Kirk was interested in having an open debate about political values. That's why it often degenerated into a shouting match.
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.
I almost completely agree with you. In fact, I suspect few were there in good faith intellectualism. I was merely wondering if the other person replying to you was inferring that.
Kirk was a prominent political propagandist who habitually made intellectually and factually inaccurate statements in promotion of his particular politicult.
Where my view might differ a bit from yours:
"But then, we live in an unserious age." seems to be another variant of "these days". The issue with that entirely common public sentiment, seen all over social media, is that human nature does not change.
For more on my perception of that nature, feel free to view my prior reply to another respondent under this post.
Cheers.
Well I take your point. However, whatever human nature may be, we only ever see it through the lens of specific cultures. But in any case, that's not so important here. I certainly don't want to appear like I'm harking on about the good old days, but in a time when so many of us are in denial about the major challenges facing advanced societies (it should always be up to someone else), and when the political class fall back on empty sloganeering, and when political debate is driven by algorithm and marketisation, then I don't think it's mistaken to say we live in unserious times. To live in denial means you are not serious.
"...we only ever see it through the lens of specific cultures."
Many of the tiny percentage of humans who are erudite have had exposure to human nature writ large, and so may only partially agree with that view.
And as referenced in my reply to another respondent under this blog post, the following types of behaviors you accurately note, seem to be a long time norm in Homo sapiens, rather than chronocentric or geocentric:
"...in a time when so many of us are in denial about the major challenges facing advanced societies (it should always be up to someone else), and when the political class fall back on empty sloganeering, and when political debate is driven by algorithm and marketisation, then I don't think it's mistaken to say we live in unserious times."
You raise some valid and pressing concerns, so I thank you for the debate.
It strikes me as odd that you make politics by propaganda the habit of the right and politics of performance the habit of left, 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.
I think you’ve got a typo repeating the word “right”.
I do in fact, thanks for pointing that out!
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 even 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.
Yeah I was a little hyperbolic; I didn't mean all users but too many of them.
Find this case totally compelling. But is there not an additional reason people gravitate to silos —apart from wanting their belief confirmed? Often they are looking for people who are more thoughtful or better informed than themselves to help them understand and clarify their intuitions. (Why I’m here!) dangers built into that desire for sure, but it need not be purely performative or therapeutic.
BlueSky is a waste of time while Twitter is an abomination.
I would say you have it completely backwards. But, yeah, they are both disasters.
Agree with your criticism of Bluesky, which is largely a superfluous platform.
At the same time, I was bewildered by Klein’s piece, and thought he painted much too charitable a picture of Kirk’s views and approach. (Additionally, it was strange he first admitted not knowing enough about Kirk to eulogise him but then proceeded to do so anyway.)
The piece made me wonder though: is there a point where people’s views become so nasty and authoritarian that the fact that they are pursuing them peacefully and by attempting to persuade becomes irrelevant? If so, where is that line, and where did Kirk fall on it? Surely, we would not describe David Irving or David Duke as having pursued politics the right way, even though they also tried to persuade often hostile audiences (and as far as I am aware did not use or incite violence).
Your essay today resonates strongly and is very much appreciated. I took a step back from reading or writing Substack Notes a couple weeks ago because I noticed a coarsening of exchanges that seemed eerily like those I had seen on social media as the 2016 election in the US grew closer (those in 2016 were definitely similar to what you describe on Bluesky right now). I’m now in the process of reassessing how best to engage with Notes, as well as comments.
Like you, I strongly believe persuasion is not only possible, but far, far preferable for the purpose of finding common ground on and changing attitudes and views. Long years of union organizing and political canvassing have taught me how valuable and necessary it is—and also how very difficult it is to do well, requiring patience, perseverance, and humility (that yes, sometimes we are the ones who have got it wrong).
What I am thinking about is this: When it comes to online communications, there do exist barriers to achieving productive exchanges that are not so often present in person-to-person interactions, particularly one-on-one. The open question for me is whether and to what extent those can be overcome. Here are some preliminary observations:
There are of course many Substack essay writers (you are one) who write essays that consistently offer productive food for thought. That seems to me to be Substack’s highest and best use.
When it comes to Notes and comments, however, it can be a very mixed bag—yet these, it seems to me, are where the potential is theoretically greatest for constructive exchanges across difference to occur. For example, while Paul Krugman writes a great deal of thoughtful analysis, the comments are most often not particularly useful for purposes of constructive engagement. What seems most useful are instances where Substack writers engage directly with commenters—but that is a big burden for Substack writers to take on, particularly as your subscriber lists grow.
With notes, I have observed two problem areas. Firstly, too often people tend to respond to notes who are already in agreement with the content, or, alternatively, because they disagree and want to lob an attack. Secondly, Substack algorithms do seem to abet this silo-style formation; for example, it can be devilishly hard to find content that branches out beyond what might have brought one here in the first instance.
Thank you for yet another thought-provoking essay.
> 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
> 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
I didn't link Jamelle Bouie. I linked a search of Ezra Klein. Scroll down for several minutes. Read some of the top takes:
- "Ezra Klein is really out here making it seem like whiteness is some intellectually crippling shit."
- "Ezra Klein, Nazi apologist."
- "Ezra Klein is fucking terrible".
- "Just so we're clear, Ezra Klein believes that practicing politics the right way is saying things like "gay people should be stoned to death" just so we're clear."
- "These people are absolutely brain diseased" (referring to Klein).
- "Ezra Klein proudly announcing “I am the white moderate MLK warned you about“ essentially. Ghoulish, racist, transphobic, pinche gringo."
You can keep scrolling and find endless content like this. If you're on Bluesky and have seen the reaction to his article and don't find it hysterical, we strongly disagree on what constitutes hysteria.
I like Ezra Klein but that op ed seemed like an exercise in energetic spin designed to extract a productive conclusion, that debate is good, from truly poor soil.
> You can keep scrolling and find endless content like this
Isn't that inherent in the nature of scrolling on any social media site?
For me, this looks like a set of people agreeing with your critique, subsampling out the ones who are more overflowing with "moxie and fearlessness" (/exaggeration and emotiveness).
Hysteria, to me, is not someone saying "I saw a guy on the news saying X - what a ****** asshole!". That's just ... normal people talking. I would, of course, sit there and feel a bit superior for not stooping to such language/theatricality.
Hysteria is when someone proposes some disproportionate follow-up action (e.g. the Reichstag Tweet, but also a bunch of similar tone ones) that isn't just "this person has different feelings about expressive language than me".
One small correction. There are no conservatives. MAGA is not conservative. This president is not conservative. These republicans are not conservative. These people’s words and actions are those we have fought serious wars over here and abroad. They’ve made it clear it’s about money and power.
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.
"The link you provided displays exactly zero hysteria." "Noone is saying anythng that can fairly be described as hysterical."
Fair enough. If you spend a few seconds scrolling through the search, here are some of the things that come up:
- "Ezra Klein is really out here making it seem like whiteness is some intellectually crippling shit."
- "Ezra Klein, Nazi apologist."
- "Ezra Klein is fucking terrible".
- "Just so we're clear, Ezra Klein believes that practicing politics the right way is saying things like "gay people should be stoned to death" just so we're clear."
- "These people are absolutely brain diseased" (referring to Klein).
- "Ezra Klein proudly announcing “I am the white moderate MLK warned you about“ essentially. Ghoulish, racist, transphobic, pinche gringo."
I find that kind of content and the endless examples of it if you keep scrollling hysterical. Not sure if that's a semantic or substantive disagreement between us - probably both.
big difference between highly critical and hysterical. people are upset at him for sane washing extremely dangerous and offensive views for rational reasons. hysteria is an irrationally hyperbolic emotional response.
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
My de-facto activity involves a lot of "politics as performance", but I have to argue that performance can actually be good and useful, because it edges on "politics as coordination".
I have written several blog posts and argued with people online trying to explicitly do "politics as persuasion", and I have successfully moved some people on some positions. However, I wouldn't be able to do it, if it wasn't for some political performance I've seen on Bluesky and similar progressive echo chambers.
People posting opinions, and even just memes, helps me discover talking points. Seeing how people inside the echo chamber react to this or that helps me be aware of this side of the discourse. A lot of my "persuasion" attempts, reasoned and researched arguments that I post outside of the echo chambers were only reasoned and researched because I was able to distill the tacit wisdom from inside the echo chambers, adapt some preaching-to-the-choir arguments into more widely applicable ones, and expand a meme into an actual point. And some things I have posted purely as persuasion have found their way out of the echo chamber via other people.
Very few people can reasonably do propaganda or persuasion. But pretty much everybody can do backline support with performance.
BlueSky is fine. Twitter isn’t.
I posit that Charlie Korma status on the right as a cross between the Dalai Lama and Aristotle says more about the perceptions of his ideological opponents than it does his inherent intellectual and moral rectitude. I also posit that Ezra Klein is an excellent example of someone. Who has proven willing to deplybad faith arguements to 'won' an argument.
I think this is part of it, but also, I think the online culture around being a leftist or progressive has become something that’s not compatible with joy and happiness.
I’ve been on Bluesky a few times, and still have an account, but don’t really engage because I don’t like the people there. I don’t like the people there because of 2 things.
1. The critical theory practice of looking for a deeper analysis of power structures
2. The incentives of social media
The way these 2 things interact has made it so that the person who is less able to find joy and celebrate gets rewarded, and everyone can see that, so it’s gamified being unhappy and not allowing others to be happy. Not to mention the lack of incentive to go beyond critique and talk about pragmatic solutions in this environment, instead any such proposals like Klein’s Abundance gets dismissed.
My experience on there was much improved once I started avoiding the political stuff, but then at that point that made it essentially the same as X, just much more irrelevant. So it just didn’t make sense to continue engaging.
Incidentally, you might like this https://open.substack.com/pub/uncommondiscourses/p/critical-theory-is-destroying-the