Permanently Deleted
Think about the material conditions, demographics, and typical politics of someone who:
- Is really into books,
- Is active on Reddit, and
- Posts a lot about books on Reddit.
The center of that Venn diagram is probably pretty reactionary.
Yeah but also things like "If you only read one political book in your life, read Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti" can get upvoted there.
You need to learn how to speak to reddit. If you do that you can achieve anything anywhere on the site. Reddit has a very specific tone and style that it likes and once you manage to find a style that sufficiently panders to reddit you can get just about anything to get upvoted.
It is pure practice. Learn how to pander for upvotes. Pander for upvotes hard.
It is pure practice. Learn how to pander for upvotes. Pander for upvotes hard.
If this sounds :cringe: and too online to anyone, remember that figuring out mass communication is an essential part of any successful leftist project.
It is legitimately a testing ground for your ability to phrase leftist ideas and theory in a manner that appeals while still being blatantly and openly communist. With immediate scored feedback.
We do not need to hide we need to learn to fucking communicate as completely open communists in a way that appeals.
Yup. And beyond the testing ground piece, lots of people do change their political opinions based on what they read online. So there's a direct effect, too.
To add to this -- this is why communists should be practicing, editing, re-editing and re-re-editing their rhetoric online.
On reddit when you find something that works, a specific style of phrasing things, a specific presentation method -- that will work over and over and over again.
Save what works. Re-use it. Edit it and edit again. Improve it.
Yes. And anyone that disagrees with that has to explain how fascists grew without the internet. They very clearly built themselves on it successfully, and continue to do so.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to be a redditor. The website is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the posts will go over a typical internet user's head. There's also reddit's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into its characterisation- the site's philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. Redditors understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike reddit truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in reddit's existential catchphrase "Narwhal Bacon," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as spez's genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
yea it's filled with those kids in high school who would roll their eyes and scoff any time the teacher tried to critically think about a story - "the curtains were fucking blue!!1" shit
also dudes who can't stop talking about 1984 despite never reading it
Since it's a main sub, they probably aren't even lit snobs. I doubt most subscribers even read consistently, or if they do it's all the same few Sci Fi, fantasy, or YA series going by the sub's content.
/r/bookscirclejerk and /r/truelit are the only places on reddit you should go for book talk. Maybe /r/pynchon too. The /r/books crowd thinks all books are of equal merit and audiobooks are "reading" because it's a main subreddit on reddit and Americans on the internet don't actually read anything except for trash tier fantasy and scifi interspersed with memories of Shakespeare from high school.
I remember visiting /r/bookscirclejerk and what jumped out at me was the hatred for audiobooks. What's wrong with audiobooks?
It's not so much the hate of audiobooks, it's more that /r/books acts as if "reading" encompasses listening to a book. There's nothing wrong with audiobooks, it's just not reading. You're listening to a book, so your experience is going to be a little different, and the places in your brain are very different for processing audio information and reading. Just a different experience, and to label them both as "reading" and treat them equally is the same as people who are like "look reading the back of the cereal box and reading Proust is the Same because it's both READING" imo.
So, suppose I listen to an audiobook of an existing book, and I want to talk about that book with people. Where am I supposed to go, if not a forum that's about books?
I think you're misunderstanding the point of a circlejerk sub. It's not /r/books2, it's a parody and mockery of /r/books. The jokes about audiobooks are there because there's a huge trend in /r/books of making these big dumb dramatic posts about how audiobooks are literally exactly the same as paper books and there's no difference in the experience whatsoever and all you ELITISTS need to shut up about how audiobooks are bad (made in response to exactly 0 people talking shit about audiobooks), so the circlejerk sub makes fun of that.
:sweat:
But yeah. Meta-Reddit is at least self-aware.
I think you tend to be a better natured person if youre making fun of redditors
Checked that sub out once and saw the same books being talked about repeatedly. Haven't looked at it since.
r/
found your problem
beat the mayo until it forms stiff peaks
