The practical part of K-Punk has to do with his Spinozist take on good and bad affects, active feelings (joy) and sad passions. Good affects prepare the individual to take action, whereas bad affects make the individual a slave to alien passions, that is, sad, powerless, resentful.
As for the actual content of that which promotes good affects, and that which promotes bad affects, K-Punk provides no simple formula for making this determination. But he gives lots and lots of examples in his daily postings
Further, to the extent that K-Punk "demystifies" the institutions and structures of modern society and thought, he presumably does so to advance his readers capacity for action . . . . That is, "adequate ideas" are the source of active feelings. To the extent that a person remains subject to mystification, he cannot have adequate ideas. And so on and so on . . . . (I'm a bit skeptical about the project of "demystification," which is the not same as saying that the project is without merit. If I didn't find merit, I wouldn't read K-Punk on a regular basis.)
Apart from the practical application of what K-Punk says, there's also intellectual pleasure to be had in reading his blog. Of course, whether such intellectual pleasure is a good or bad affect, I cannot say . . . .
At any rate, it appears that K-Punk has departed from Dissensus . . . . Hopefully he'll return . . . . However, I think K-Punk feels that people ganged up on him for making unpopular arguments. And I think, further, that he interpreted such ganging up on him as "oedipal" and "resentful" in character. Oepidal, because anyone who disagreed with his arguments was *supposedly* more interested in establishing himself (or herself) as a personality independent of K-Punk than in pursuing rational debate. Resentful, because rather than show gratitude for his provocative writings, rather than be provoked into genuine thought, people were *supposedly* eager to resort to insults and empty slogans of thought . . . . This is how I think K-Punk views the matter
What is clear is that the "thought" and "politics" sections of Dissensus have died a quick death in K-Punk's absence . . . . At the same time, I believe that K-Punk has proven a bit too thin-skinned in the face of criticism. Criticism that was for the most part friendly in spirit . . . . And I think that his views on "personhood" have exacerbated the matter. That is, even though K-Punk writes in the mode of a gadfly, even though he appears to emulate the strange charisma of a Socrates or Nietzsche in his writings, he insists, as a theoretical proposition, that there are no "persons" as such and, therefore, no person named K-Punk. He is merely a conduit through which thought is communicated. Whatever. But he seems to have taken any criticism aimed at K-Punk's positions as prima facie proof of intellectual bad faith. Why? Because they're not *his* positions, and any serious person would realize as much . . . . And so it goes
In the end, it's all just a silly crying shame