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.
I thought more about this taxonomy.... this is a very interesting way of looking at it.
1. Persuasion - use logic and evidence to persuade people who don't agree with you
2. Propaganda - use repetition, volume, and determination to intimidate the people who don't agree with you into silence (I need to think more about this one)
3. Performance - raise your status among the people who already agree with you by demonstrating your purity and commitment.
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.
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.
I thought more about this taxonomy.... this is a very interesting way of looking at it.
1. Persuasion - use logic and evidence to persuade people who don't agree with you
2. Propaganda - use repetition, volume, and determination to intimidate the people who don't agree with you into silence (I need to think more about this one)
3. Performance - raise your status among the people who already agree with you by demonstrating your purity and commitment.
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