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
He lost me at "but to vent that anxiety in other people's spaces...".
It's not "your space", it's a public forum.
Don't want people commenting on your opinion? Don't air it in public, or just block and move on.
No need to write a book about how they're wrong to express their opinion in the same way you just did. It just comes off as sanctimonious.
Fell free to point out my own hypocrisy and we can go in circles.
I'd argue there's a spectrum from a totally public forum to a totally private forum, and replies to social media posts on platforms where users are followed are somewhere in the middle.
It's kinda like comments on a blog post. The blog owner still controls the space, including the power to block users and delete their comments from that page, and enjoys a privileged position with respect to what is essentially publishing and moderation powers in that particular space.
It's within that particular accountholder's powers to block, ignore, or mute other commenters' ability to interact with the content posted (including simply turning off replies for certain users or all users). So in that sense, the platform itself is public while that particular user's profile page and the feed of that user's posts is curated by that user.
And perhaps most importantly, these commenters are leveraging Ken Jennings' account popularity to magnify their own comments' visibility. They could post something on their own, but they also know that their replies to Ken Jennings have a much higher reach than their own original posts would.
In other words, there's a fundamental difference between capturing a screenshot and posting a reply somewhere else, versus replying on platform.