A lot of replies here (obviously from people not already aware of The Discourse on this point) were genuinely confused variants on “But why, they’re right, that’s a valid concern.” Let me leave a short thread for future readers explaining why that stuff is always unwelcome on here. (1/n)
It’s totally understandable if you’re dooming about any facet of the American experiment right now. So your feelings are “valid” in the sense that they represent real anxiety, and I get that. But to vent that anxiety in other people’s spaces is wrong for three reasons.
First, it’s factually wrong. There will be elections in 2026 and 2028 under Trump, just like there were elections last year under Trump and during his first term. This despite one of the two major parties now harboring a lot of anti-democratic elements and ideas.
I’m not particularly interested in convincing anyone on this point and won’t try, the future is the future. But if the left side of the political spectrum is still the domain of scholarship and expertise, take note that you don’t find scholars and experts you worrying about canceled US elections.
Second, and probably most importantly, it’s tactically wrong. “No point discussing political opposition to fascism, there won’t be elections anyway” cedes victory to your enemies. It’s defeatism and nihilism.
Finally, it’s wrong AS A MATTER OF ETIQUETTE. Entering a total stranger’s discussion and leading with your private anxiety is as off-putting in social media replies as it would be in real life. If you wouldn’t interrupt a stranger at a party to announce that America is doomed, don’t do it here.
If you are anxious and sad about the state of the world, that’s fine, and there are plenty of strategies for dealing with that. But I think you already know that drive-by online dooming isn’t a strategy. It’s selfish and adolescent. It’s a contagion that only spreads the worst of you, not the best.
Take a second and think before posting the easy Eeyore reply. You might have something substantive to say instead. Or, even better, you can say nothing at all.
https://bsky.app/profile/kenjennings.bsky.social/post/3mbuedepurs2x
It’s a quote post, not really a reply. That is very normal for popular accounts on bluesky/twitter. One is sharing something with one’s own, likely smaller audience while adding context, not necessarily really replying to the famous OP (viz. Jennings), as one can’t expect an answer. It’s an easy way to interact with and share posts from larger accounts on micro-blogging sites.
Jennings is on a micro-blogging platform, he should know to expect this (ironically, know the etiquette). Idk, him then going to such an extreme extent of publicly humiliating the other user (though the username is not visible; at least he does that), especially given his large fan-base, feels unnecessarily harsh.
That’s true. Definitely more public facing, and more on the “fair game to discuss” side of the spectrum, probably between normal replies and full blown screenshot: probably triggers an inbox item in the original poster’s place, invites commenters to follow the link to the poster’s page, possible for original poster to delete and break the quote tweet, but not an actual reply that can be seen on the default view of the poster’s page.
In a sense, that’s even further down the “fair game to discuss” end of the spectrum. Replies to the substance without identifying that particular source or providing a link to that profile (but not actually hard for someone to find). Even further down would be a simple paraphrase “I’m getting a lot of people saying something to the effect of X and I want to respond to that point” without a screenshot.
But my broader point is that these interactions do exist on a spectrum, and on-platform interactions on Twitter-like platforms is less than a full blown public forum.
Touche, I see your point. Ultimately, I think his claim about etiquette is still nonsense, though, especially given your latter point. But I won’t hold this against him, you’ve convinced me that his may be an authentic perspective.