So you’re saying social media isn’t a cesspool? That’s what these quotes are highlighting.

You don’t need to argue with my comment, a comment that quotes the article like that. It’s not suggesting this was a “both sides” situation, and that Kirk had upsides. It’s pointing out polarization, and lack of decorum, lack of sensitivity, a pressure to race to post, gross incentives for profit and many other toxic properties of social media.

Kirk was a shithead. Don’t get me wrong. But, all your reply is is restating facts about Kirk and the right wings tactics and not discussion about the topic of the article.

I specifically quoted these in hope of replies that were not just statements that reflect one side of the toxic discourse. Even if they are correct and factual about Kirk and the corrosive rhetoric he and his organization peddle.

The article is about extreme polarization. And polarization means there is no nuance. Nuance would be following the facts, not making up ones own lies about the radical left.

The article is about talking past each other instead of with each other. The article is about people just posting their views instead of engaging with others in a nuanced way.

“Lack of Nuance” here is talked about broadly as a property of social media platforms. Not as a property of Kirk.