That’s why I tell people who are into political theory that we need to read books by important and popular ideological opponents to our own beliefs so that we can have a better understanding of things and come to better informed conclusions. My book reading club does not seem interested in that though, which is sad.
I think where that gets frustrating is when the book’s argument starts off a ridiculous premise/accepted statement, and then any time spent reading after that is wasted.
“As we all know, climate change is a conspiracy. Let’s spend 80 pages taking a look at how this belief in it has negatively affected so many people’s lives.”
This is kinda the underlying problem with modern political discourse. One side has gone so far off the deep end that there’s genuinely nothing of value that they are adding to the conversation. “The Jewish Space Lasers are manipulating our weather” just isn’t a position that is worth entertaining.
That being said, it’s still worth reading the literature of the enemy, even if it’s just to know what kinds of ridiculous statements they’re holding as truth. If you don’t know how your opponent’s worldview was constructed, what hope do you have of deconstructing it?
My book reading club does not seem interested in that though, which is sad.
This, right here, is a sign of stupidity.
If one downplays or denigrates the importance of understanding opponents’ arguments or positions, that is a person incapable of critical thought. They’re not capable of informed decisions, and their opinions on the subjects or opponents in question are worthless.
They aren’t against reading these things on your own time, that would be stupid as fuck. That’s just not really why we started the club, as it’s a leftist theory reading club. That’s the argument I’ve been given anyway. But whatever I don’t care, I can read on my own time anyway as well.
So… Mein Kampf is required reading?
You know. So we can all learn that fascism is bad?
I think reading Mussolini would be more beneficial to what we are trying to achieve understanding wise. Also Ayn Rand.
Once you get past the initial disgust and existential dread, it’s very insightful.
Yes. Understand the enemy if you wish to defeat them.
You’re pretty freaking naive.
It’s similar to conspiracy debunkers and how they sometimes fall prey to the conspiracies they debunk. If you read enough of their shit, your mind fills with shit.
Sometimes it takes hold.
It shouldn’t be required reading, and bluntly, isn’t necessary are to read Mein Kampf to understand hitler, and giving broad platform is only going to normalize hitler’s rationalizations.
(And let’s be clear. The rhetoric may not be entirely how he thought. It was propaganda to play up people’s fear- especially fear of the Other.)
Banning Mein Kampf and other politically taboo books will never stop people from becoming authoritarian monsters. This pearl clutching about reading material seems to be endless.
Of course, it shouldn’t be required reading for an average person. It should for someone who claims to be an expert on subjects that are directly related to it.
If a counter-terrorism intelligence analyst doesn’t read the manifestos of their targets, they can’t do their jobs effectively and should be fired. Doesn’t mean that they secretly harbor a yearning for a “global caliphate” or bombing more federal buildings.
Normal folks shouldn’t have to read “taboo” material, or anything for that matter (I had to read it for History class), but if they don’t and claim to be experts or pass themselves as authorities on said material, then they’re wannabe know-it-alls whose opinion about it is next to worthless.
Why? Because they didn’t do the homework related to primary source material and are uninformed about the nature of what they purport to fight against. If reading only Mein Kampf turns you into a national socialist, then you were already a weak-minded idiot. And yes, Nazi Germany was a nation of millions of weak-minded idiots.
Yeah this exactly is how I feel about it.
Did I say ban?
<checks> nope. I did not say ban.
If a counter-terrorism intelligence analyst doesn’t read the manifestos of their targets, they can’t do their jobs effectively and should be fired. Doesn’t mean that they secretly harbor a yearning for a “global caliphate” or bombing more federal buildings.
You’d be surprised how often that actually does happen, though. And that’s why I called you naive. It’s actually a fairly massive problem, and part of the reason why outfits that do that generally share the load.
but for discussing political ideologies, you don’t need to read all the political texts to understand and discuss things. there are ways of getting at the core material with out reading the full shit.
You’d be surprised how often that actually does happen, though.
I can’t find anything related to this. Please link to examples and statistics on frequency of occurence.
I really like doing the opposite of this comic, i.e. reading a book titled “you are wrong”, and then I’m like “I knew it!”. Even if I don’t change my mind, I like finding angles I hadn’t considered, because as you allude to, it can help to argue one’s ideological stance.
I think different book clubs serve different purposes, and it’s unfortunate that yours isn’t scratching your itch. I wonder if they’re craving something different to you; I’m thinking of how, when I have experienced a piece of media that has resonated with me, I go through a period where I want to immerse myself in that media, and I’m desperate to discuss it with my friends. I wonder if that’s what your current book club are seeking
“You are wrong.”
“You are wrong.”
“You are wrong.”
“This is bullshit!”
Me writing a claim that I just kinda guessed was true and then searching for a source to back it up for my bibliography
Confirmation bias
Where his short tho
What do you think he’s “researching?”
Thought you had x-ray vision until I realized the typo
Lol I think I was falling asleep when I typed that. I need to remember not to comment when I’m literally in bed trying to fall asleep or eventually I’ll do a covfefe.
