| ▲ | toyg 2 days ago |
| > Who is using Bluesky in the US? A lot of writers and creatives who could not stomach X.com anymore (and were then likely burned by Mastodon's geekiness). > Is it just my friends? If your friends are in the right-wing sphere (e.g. Joe Rogan listeners, etc), then yeah, likely. |
|
| ▲ | csallen 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The fact that the left defined Joe Rogan as right-wing for not adhering to very specific far-left tenets (e.g. de-platforming personas non grata and cooperating with cancel culture) only served to push him and his listeners rightward, and thus became a self-fulfilling prophecy. |
| |
| ▲ | djeastm 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >only served to push him and his listeners rightward Kind of takes the agency away from full-grown adults, doesn't it? How about people have principles and don't change them to chase audience/money/fame, eh? | | |
| ▲ | csallen 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You're right. Change the words "they were pushed" to "they chose". There's your agency. > How about people have principles and don't change them to chase audience/money/fame, eh? You assume that "having principles" means having your principles, and that for someone to disagree must mean they are unprincipled and simply chasing money/audience/fame. This kind of attitude comes across as incredibly arrogant and un-self-aware, and people/voters en masse want nothing to do with it. The reality is that many millions of people are principled, and they simply have different principles. For example, "opposing views should be aired and discussed" is a principle widely held by many millions of voters that the left has had an incredibly hard time understanding, respecting, and digesting. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I suspect the people that really think that are a small minority. "The South was right, black people are subhuman and needed to be taken care of by slave owners" is not going to be a popular discussion topic, for example. Or suggesting that Hitler was right about how people should be treated in Europe. |
| |
| ▲ | Levitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | For a communicator, no audience means you lose everything. Why would he, or for that matter, anyone do that? Look at JK Rowling. Stood her ground, if it wasn't for her books allowing her advocacy, she'd have disappeared. Instead she has to endure being among the most hated millionaires for a good bunch of the left. Say Rogan sticks to his guns. He would face similar, never-ending attacks, no left-leaning figure could attend his podcast without becoming guilty by association, so he'd end up interviewing basically the same people as he does now, only he wouldn't cater to some people that, given somewhat recent events, would most probably celebrate him getting murdered. I reckon we shouldn't take away the agency away from the adults who made purity testing a common practice, given the utter disaster we are experiencing as a consequence. | | |
| ▲ | chownie a day ago | parent [-] | | > Stood her ground, if it wasn't for her books allowing her advocacy, she'd have disappeared. Instead she has to endure being among the most hated millionaires for a good bunch of the left. This framing is laying on the narrative a little bit thick don't you think? It makes it seem like she's hated for being wealthy, when it is actually because she has been funding hate groups and calling for trans people to be physically attacked. The "standing up for women" rhetoric is a little bit hollow in the face of her non-existent feminism when the subject isn't physically attacking trans women, she didn't make a single comment during the recent uptick in abortion debates taking place in the UK for example. | | |
| ▲ | wastle 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > she has been funding hate groups and calling for trans people to be physically attacked She has done neither of these things you claim. Please refrain from spreading misinformation. | |
| ▲ | Levitz 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are just proving my point. Statements like this show that it's worthless to engage. Can you provide any source for her "calling for trans people to be physically attacked"? Because you seem fixated on it, and I've just spent the last 15 minutes looking for one, and I can't find it. What I can find is her spending so much goddamned money on philanthropy that she stops being a billionaire, while not dodging a dime of taxes precisely because she considers it her obligation. A fortune amassed in what is probably the most ethic way possible, through exploitation of nobody, writing books. Related to this I can find the foundation of the Volant Charitable Trust, "a grant-making trust to support charitable causes in Scotland, helping vulnerable groups with an emphasis on women, children and young people." I can also find a comment of "every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them". And that's the point. You want to paint her as some lunatic who would like to hunt trans people down for sport, when it's crystal clear that she has the "radical" (standard 2018 radical leftist) notion that trans women are not the same thing as biological women and that the definition of women shouldn't be changed to appease to them. But again. It's not worth it to engage, because we both know I can spend 20+ minutes working on this reply and you are not going to change your stance. An apostate is worse than a heathen, which is why people complain about Rowling rather than anyone who is actually right wing. Because you are scared that if you defended her, you would face the same judgement. Making the world a worse place through and through. | | |
| ▲ | chownie 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I posted that earlier without checking and recalled wrongly, rather than calling for people to physically assault she instead called for her following to take photographs of trans women in public toilets and disseminate those photos to the public[1]. That was my bad, I knew that she had done something abhorrent and indefensible but it was 5 months ago and I'd forgotten which kind of hatred she had been producing specifically. I'll cite the source first next time. 1: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLPG5DlIFIz/ -- I don't have a twitter account to forward the original, but there are news stories about this from the time if you're unsatisfied with that link. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | afavour 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “My views are everyone else’s fault” is such a prevalent and baffling claim these last few years. If you have a belief, own it. |
|
|
| ▲ | itsoktocry 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I tried out Bluesky during the great migration about a year ago. It was incredibly toxic, but of course the "left-wing sphere" thinks they are the purveyors of universal "good", thus their toxicity is fine. |
| |
| ▲ | delecti 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I suspect our politics are just too different for my attempts to defend the culture itself to be relevant, but it is super easy to cultivate what you see on Bluesky. You can detach your posts if you get quote-reposted, you can limit who can reply to posts (to followers, people who follow you, people you've mentioned, or only to yourself), blocking someone also means that 3rd parties can't even view the threads (and so can't jump into drama that one side has attempted to disengage from), you can hide replies to your posts, blocklists let you immediately prevent large lists of users from seeing or interacting with you, and there's a culture among many users to immediately block people who are thought to be potential agitators (a very proactive culture of "don't feed the trolls"). If your experience was toxic, you probably just didn't use the tools available to you to avoid that toxicity. | | |
| ▲ | whimsicalism 2 days ago | parent [-] | | i consider myself left-wing and found it very toxic. the ubiquitous blocking features are also a pretty big negative as i found myself blocked by a considerable portion of the site simply for following people in AI site features can only go so far when there is a broader cultural ethos | | |
| ▲ | _djo_ 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Honestly, getting on those blocklists is a benefit in and of itself, it means anyone who is radical enough to follow blocklists that block people just because of whom they follow won’t cross your path. There is an extremely toxic component to Bluesky’s user base, unfortunately, with the many attacks on the CEO for not banning Jesse Singal being testament to that. But for what it’s worth in the circles I’ve cultivated there I now see very little of those toxic people, and I don’t see any support for their behaviour. So I hope in time a more open culture will win out. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Levitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >If your friends are in the right-wing sphere (e.g. Joe Rogan listeners, etc), then yeah, likely. I reckon there's more of a correlation between this type of statement and being a Bluesky user than being right-wing and using X. I mean X userbase is enormous compared to that of Bluesky, you can't be serious. |
| |
| ▲ | toyg a day ago | parent [-] | | It's also dropping like a stone, which is why they are resorting to these tricks to inflate one of the few metrics that can be observed from outside (how much traffic they send to other sites). Where I live, X has completely exited polite conversation. |
|
