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?
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?