Basically, I think a good way to encourage members of the site to read more political theory would be to put some kind of marker on their profile or next to their name that shows how much and what kinds of political theory they have read. I also hope this would have the secondary effect of allowing lurkers who see disagreements to get a better feel of which side has a stronger basis for their position.
Maybe something simple like marking which accounts participate in the weekly reading series, and make it a riff on challenge coins or something.
Edit: I should specify that it would be awarded to people that are participating in discussion groups and such as a way to signify who is involved in the education side of the community.
Edit 2: Fuck It, I have been convinced that this is a bad idea. Instead how about a weekly what are you reading thread?
I think this is a bad idea for a few reasons.
-
This website already has a major sectarianism problem, posts and comments removed for sectarianism often get hundreds of upbears and our userbase is overwhelmingly ML/XJT. Theory flairs would almost certainly lead to people discriminating sectarianly based on what sects theory is in people's flairs.
-
There's a major difference between reading, understanding and being able to apply theory. Just having read a book (and I say this as someone who's read a bunch of books) doesn't mean it's being applied to any given post. If you're making a post that comes from an understanding of theory and you want to share that, reference the relevant part of those texts in the post, preferably with page numbers and a link. Saying "I've read State and Revolution AND all 3 Volumes of Capital while you're only half way through Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism so my opinions on Hasan's new car are objectively better than yours get rekt nerd" isn't something we actually want to happen or people to implicitly assume.
-
It implicitly places purely academic experience of having read a book over practical experiences of surviving oppression, agitation, organisation and direct action.
-
It would take a significant amount of dev time to set up and an enormous amount of mod time to administrate, both of which could almost certainly be better spent elsewhere.
These critiques are fair, so here is how I would modify the original idea. (I put this in the original post too)
Instead of just "read theory" what if the criteria was "participate in hex-bear book club" so it is less about collecting books and more about who engages with the material and the community?
Also I figured point 4 would be a sticking point. I had intended this post as more of a conversation starter, and figured someone who knew more about running websites would weigh in.
-
I don't need a picture to know whose the good guy in an argument, but I've also been around long enough to know that people will read some random take in a comment and run with it uncritically.
This line of argument is a little reductionist, but yes I think it would help. Most peoples introduction into leftist theory is twitter discourse and discussion boards like these. If it is possible to note who is a reliable resource it might ease the transition. Instead of just “read theory” what if the criteria was “participate in hex-bear book club” so it is less about collecting books and more about who engages with the material and the community?
Honestly, fair enough. It is those kind of interactions that are best, but I am unsure how to encourage them to happen without some social reinforcement.
There's something very ironic about a leftist trying to gamify reading theory with badges to encourage better political conversations. Maybe if I read more theory I'd be able to put it into words :thonk:
I'm just trying to spitball ideas on how to get users to read and listen to the stuff our beliefs are built on. Gamification is not ideal, but its the only thing I can come up with at the moment.
..encourage users to read more theory...
I dunno, maybe just skim through posts and comments with an eye for unfamiliar account names saying dodgy stuff, engaging with it seriously to point out applicable theory and where their comment/post is lacking.
I kinda dig making a snarky comment and somebody's response a serious analysis/critique of whatever I was non-seriously commenting on.
I honestly wish I had time to do this more often but I'm currently in the middle of writing my thesis. This post was more a random thought that came up during research today.
This creates problems while not solving any existing ones.
If I've read Das Kapital vols 1&2 in manga form instead of text form cause I have adhd and don't have the time/energy to read dense things consistently and I am immune to audiobooks, do I have a different flare than someone who read the text in full, even if I have a better understanding of the concepts (outside the cost of linen)? Can I still get a flair for theory I read in high school even though it's been 15 years and I don't remember anything about it and didn't have enough world experience to understand and apply it? Who's gonna stop me from lying about what theory I've read for clout? Who's gonna be the arbiter of what is or is not considered theory? Does watching the yellow Parenti lecture count as reading theory even though it's a speech and not text?
This still doesn't address the question of who is the arbiter of what is or is not theory, or who decides when you've read or understood the theory.
A better system would probably be having a thread where people write some free-text responses to a couple of open-ended questions about theory, but that still creates more problems than it solves - who wants to spend an afternoon writing essays about their current understanding of theory that would only exist to serve as something to get dragged out and nitpicked over when some nerd is having some angry nerd moment and wants to trap you in a Well Aksually.
Credentialism is a fuck, just don't be a g*mer who needs to unlock achievements and judge people based on their comments
Credentialism is a fuck, just don’t be a g*mer who needs to unlock achievements and judge people based on their comments
I put this in the edit, but what would you think about giving it to active members in theory discussions, and reading series posts? Less credentialism, more about engagement and good faith discussion.
Idk, I'd worry that might create some kind of clout-chasing, cliquiness, or hierarchy. I think it'd be better to just let the individual posts stand on their own and highlight the good ones (like in c/effort) — especially since occasionally we'll see great posters have the occasional bad take.
And if the theory you've read is relevant to the comment you're making, you're probably going to reference it, no? (Eg "... this is like what Lenin discussed in Imperialism, ...")
Maybe having a stickied "theory tracker" thread where people can opt-in to making and updating a post that just lists some of what they've read and are willing to discuss further? I still don't really see what value it would add though — virtually all the bad-faith discussion here comes from wreckers, and you could just as easily create a bad-faith post where you lie about all the theory you read in order to prop up your bad-faith comments.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I think that this is attempting to invent a problem to solve rather than solving a problem that actually exists? I don't usually find myself wondering what theory the people I'm discussing things here have actually read — it's usually pretty easy to tell who's pulling things out of their ass vs who's done some reading and synthesis.
Very possible I'm misunderstanding the point though. I think keeping a cumulative list of people who've participated in the on-Hexbear reading group discussions isn't a bad idea if the comrades that organize the reading groups don't mind the work of maintaining that list from thread to thread, if that's more along the lines of what you're suggesting?
Very possible I’m misunderstanding the point though. I think keeping a cumulative list of people who’ve participated in the on-Hexbear reading group discussions isn’t a bad idea if the comrades that organize the reading groups don’t mind the work of maintaining that list from thread to thread, if that’s more along the lines of what you’re suggesting?
I think this is closer to the point I was getting at. Just figured it might be useful to know who is involved in the educational side of the community, and maybe give them something special to draw people in. Probably prohibitively difficult to do, but the original post was just a random idea I thought might be interesting to discuss.
No, that just introduces a needless hierarchical system and facilitates the growth of "power-users" that would act like obnoxious know-it-alls who can't be criticized from "below" because they have internet credentials saying they read more books.
" I also hope this would have the secondary effect of allowing lurkers who see disagreements to get a better feel of which side has a stronger basis for their position."
This in particular is an example of what we shouldn't want: People siding with/ believing somebody because they have more internet bullshit hanging off their username. Frankly, people who are well read in theory can still have dogshit takes (I've made several comments before about well-read idealists who shit on every AES country because they don't align perfectly with what they've read). They can even be literal capitalists and imperialists (like Barrack Obama)!
The "stronger basis for their position" should come by virtue of better reasoning, and better sources where applicable.
that would act like obnoxious know-it-alls
which is already a tendency on the left. The politics version of those tech people who act super obnoxious when someone doesn't know something
that's good people who never get called on their bulshit never improve as people. Everyone has flaws and if you never get called out on your flaws that's a sign you aren't in a healthy environment
true enough, recently i got sick of hearing myself rant and rave. being shouty mcsocialism is repulsive even if one is right. but no one was going to call me out! Anyway at the moment it's better to stfu and listen and ask questions, or just not engage at all (personally speaking for the time being anyway)
The “stronger basis for their position” should come by virtue of better reasoning, and better sources where applicable.
I agree, but I would guess that the the better educated someone is on the topic the less likely you are to see that kind of behavior. As I said to another commenter, what if the criteria was “participate in hex-bear book club” so it is less about collecting books and more about who engages with the material and the community?
Would do like a quiz on the theory or just trust people to not lie for internet point
I'm thinking it would be for people who are active in theory discussion posts or reading series.
ok, but only if that means I can lie about the fact I read it and yell at other people for not reading the theory I have lied about reading.
We already do. The site is a reddit clone built for a community that was banned there.
I vote we implement this and award all the badges posthumously to Lenin.
Genuine question: Why not? A bunch of people have given reasons already but I would like to hear yours.
Don't want.
The last thing we need is some hierarchical bullshit that solves no problems.
I don't know if this would qualify as hierarchical anymore than anything else, but if i concede the point what do you think about a slight modification? What if the criteria was “participate in hex-bear book club” so it is less about collecting books and more about who engages with the material and the community?
So you want us to do means testing but it's good actually because theory?
How about no?
I don't see how this is means testing. Reading theory is not and would never be a prerequisite to engage in discussion.
If you want people to engage with theory, don't shame them by making it a public competition over who's read the most. Use the carrot instead: quote the most interesting, fiery, and relevant bits - relevant in the sense that they can speak to people's experiences on the ground and at their current level of understanding. I have a lot of success with :graeber: because he's both very gripping and very accessible.
When people bring up opinion polling, or the Sanders/Corbyn losses, as expressions of the democratic will of society (they lost! get over it) I like to hit them with this little bit of text about how various channels shape and constrain public opinion. On automation, I pull up this lovely quote that helps highlight how much labour is actually caring labour. If you're feeling dejected about revolutionary potential, this essay is a good remedy.
Honestly I didn't even consider it as shaming them. I figured it would just be a nice way to note who is involved in the discussion. Regardless, this is good advice.
