Your friend is only partially correct. For sure a lot of liberals came here to escape the unhinged tech-nazi and his merry fools, but he's quite, quite wrong all people on Bluesky are far-left race/gender devotees. He should look at the people here, like Jesse Singal, Sam Harris and others. Not even close to woke! And anyway, I get the impression he's on X, therefore in a bubble of his own.
I agree. The right got so used to the social justice left being against free speech they convinced themselves they were the free speech people and it became a tribal totem, often in opposition to actual freedom of speech.
If you really wanted to see everything you would make X and Bluesky accounts and lurk--then nobody would ban you.
Hi Helen, with the benefit of hindsight from an observer position I wonder what his answer would have been if you'd explicitly brought out the contradiction: "So you're saying that I should support viewpoint diversity by shutting out a particular viewpoint?"
I wonder too. I suspect he would have said something about the woke not being willing to discuss anything but I don’t know. I didn’t put it that directly at the time. We were in passing at a conference.
Well Bluesky almost immediately suspended the account of the VP of the U.S. for doing nothing but quoting Clarence Thomas' recent concurrence on SCOTUS's upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors. This happened today.
And Laura Loomer too, when she opened an account to complain about being kicked off X. I can’t speak for Bluesky, but me personally I would label them trolls. Not serious people, not debaters, just trollers with an agenda and a love for “disruption”.
You are absolutely, completely, 100% correct. I couldn't agree more.
Your interlocutor, unfortunately, is exhibiting the symptoms of being infected with a "Woke Right" virus. Perhaps you can inoculate him with a dose of New Discourses; but it may be too late.
I've been traveling! I was in London for a week, and seriously thought of trying to meet you, but it didn't seem like the best time for you. If you want to see what I experienced in London and where else I'd been, feel free to check out https://jonathanblake.substack.com
I think a lot of these folks are using a different Bluesky than I am. I don’t encounter much of anything that seems to irk so many people. I don’t doubt it’s there, if you go looking, but I’ve found it to be a pretty tame place thus far. I suppose, since there’s no algorithm forced upon you—yet—a lot depends on what you go looking for.
Related: isn’t retreating into some version of an “echo chamber” human nature? Don’t we all have some version of this in our lives? Sure, we should venture away from time to time, but I am not sure avoiding the people and places that cause you anxiety is such an awful thing.
I used to read a certain publication that I found to be pretty good at walking a line between all of the extremes. But, then I’d stumble upon the comments section—almost always a mistake, I know—and I would find the most vile, awful people lurking in there. Eventually, this wore on me to a point where I grew uncomfortable supporting this publication. Is this faulty logic and “retreat” on my part? Perhaps. But, I also didn’t like the way any of this made me feel, from a mental health and anxiety standpoint; I could only take so much of the awfulness.
Isn't there another piece to this that gets overlooked? Notice how people who oppose free speech tend to attack in groups. It's not uncommon for these groups to be predatory, with some members going so far as to continue attacking through additional channels long after the initial blowup. Meanwhile, those who support free speech rarely jump into dogpiles. Individual free speech advocates are sometimes predatory, but you don't see them actively trying to eliminate individuals who disagree with them. In a nutshell, there is a wildly asymmetrical aspect to this that gets left out of reasoned discussions like your note.
From my experience Bluesky allows extremely violent discourse, but only in one direction. Anything questioning the accepted viewpoint is instantly banned. On X I see all kind of tomfoolery.
From what I’ve seen of Bluesky, it’s less a matter of freedom of speech as freedom to spew hateful comments. I’ve seen many nasty comments & ‘intolerant’ labels as it concerns trans gender stuff. Substack seems like a refuge for discussing these issues in comparison (though Helen might say it’s echo-chamber-y?)
If social media is the replacement for the town square, then the analogy for BlueSky is that we have allowed private corporations to purchase the facilities and then allow them to restrict who can participate and what can be said. However, no non-left leaning site censors, bans and cancels anything near the extremes as does BlueSky. If they did, I think you would object to their existence.
The balance question is if social media are platforms or publishers. If a platform like your cellular and wifi service were allowed to cancel you because your political thoughts and ideas are wrong, would you still support it?
One might say the same about the sexes. A great many people get rather "offended" by the argument that, technically speaking, some third of us, at any one time, are, in fact, sexless. Those with a philosophical turn of mind might consider this defense of that perspective:
Your friend is only partially correct. For sure a lot of liberals came here to escape the unhinged tech-nazi and his merry fools, but he's quite, quite wrong all people on Bluesky are far-left race/gender devotees. He should look at the people here, like Jesse Singal, Sam Harris and others. Not even close to woke! And anyway, I get the impression he's on X, therefore in a bubble of his own.
Me too.
Haha, right?
I agree. The right got so used to the social justice left being against free speech they convinced themselves they were the free speech people and it became a tribal totem, often in opposition to actual freedom of speech.
If you really wanted to see everything you would make X and Bluesky accounts and lurk--then nobody would ban you.
Hi Helen, with the benefit of hindsight from an observer position I wonder what his answer would have been if you'd explicitly brought out the contradiction: "So you're saying that I should support viewpoint diversity by shutting out a particular viewpoint?"
I wonder too. I suspect he would have said something about the woke not being willing to discuss anything but I don’t know. I didn’t put it that directly at the time. We were in passing at a conference.
Well Bluesky almost immediately suspended the account of the VP of the U.S. for doing nothing but quoting Clarence Thomas' recent concurrence on SCOTUS's upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors. This happened today.
Vance got reinstated quite quickly. I followed (but had to unblock my MAGA list to do so!) Out of curiosity, you know.
And Laura Loomer too, when she opened an account to complain about being kicked off X. I can’t speak for Bluesky, but me personally I would label them trolls. Not serious people, not debaters, just trollers with an agenda and a love for “disruption”.
You are absolutely, completely, 100% correct. I couldn't agree more.
Your interlocutor, unfortunately, is exhibiting the symptoms of being infected with a "Woke Right" virus. Perhaps you can inoculate him with a dose of New Discourses; but it may be too late.
Thank you for another crystal-clear argument.
I haven’t been in London much, no, but do check in if you come this way again!
Jonathan! I haven’t seen you for a while! I’m hoping it’s not that advanced but he certainly has developed some black and white thinking!
I've been traveling! I was in London for a week, and seriously thought of trying to meet you, but it didn't seem like the best time for you. If you want to see what I experienced in London and where else I'd been, feel free to check out https://jonathanblake.substack.com
I think a lot of these folks are using a different Bluesky than I am. I don’t encounter much of anything that seems to irk so many people. I don’t doubt it’s there, if you go looking, but I’ve found it to be a pretty tame place thus far. I suppose, since there’s no algorithm forced upon you—yet—a lot depends on what you go looking for.
Related: isn’t retreating into some version of an “echo chamber” human nature? Don’t we all have some version of this in our lives? Sure, we should venture away from time to time, but I am not sure avoiding the people and places that cause you anxiety is such an awful thing.
I used to read a certain publication that I found to be pretty good at walking a line between all of the extremes. But, then I’d stumble upon the comments section—almost always a mistake, I know—and I would find the most vile, awful people lurking in there. Eventually, this wore on me to a point where I grew uncomfortable supporting this publication. Is this faulty logic and “retreat” on my part? Perhaps. But, I also didn’t like the way any of this made me feel, from a mental health and anxiety standpoint; I could only take so much of the awfulness.
Isn't there another piece to this that gets overlooked? Notice how people who oppose free speech tend to attack in groups. It's not uncommon for these groups to be predatory, with some members going so far as to continue attacking through additional channels long after the initial blowup. Meanwhile, those who support free speech rarely jump into dogpiles. Individual free speech advocates are sometimes predatory, but you don't see them actively trying to eliminate individuals who disagree with them. In a nutshell, there is a wildly asymmetrical aspect to this that gets left out of reasoned discussions like your note.
From my experience Bluesky allows extremely violent discourse, but only in one direction. Anything questioning the accepted viewpoint is instantly banned. On X I see all kind of tomfoolery.
People need to lighten up about blue skies. Twitter is still needed for some reason
Blue sky nothing but blue skies https://youtu.be/SI4ZTXOi6Ew?si=jEN61WGRk2CX5F-4
From what I’ve seen of Bluesky, it’s less a matter of freedom of speech as freedom to spew hateful comments. I’ve seen many nasty comments & ‘intolerant’ labels as it concerns trans gender stuff. Substack seems like a refuge for discussing these issues in comparison (though Helen might say it’s echo-chamber-y?)
If social media is the replacement for the town square, then the analogy for BlueSky is that we have allowed private corporations to purchase the facilities and then allow them to restrict who can participate and what can be said. However, no non-left leaning site censors, bans and cancels anything near the extremes as does BlueSky. If they did, I think you would object to their existence.
The balance question is if social media are platforms or publishers. If a platform like your cellular and wifi service were allowed to cancel you because your political thoughts and ideas are wrong, would you still support it?
> "Free Speech is a Practice, Not an Identity".
One might say the same about the sexes. A great many people get rather "offended" by the argument that, technically speaking, some third of us, at any one time, are, in fact, sexless. Those with a philosophical turn of mind might consider this defense of that perspective:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas