Hey now, the Art of War is great and everyone should read it. Most people have never really sat down and thunk about the whens whys and hows of getting 50,000 of your buddies together to slaughter those shitass wankers in Wu and it shows.
The thing about "Art of War" is that it is incredibly short and can be read from cover to cover in a half hour. It is an interesting read, but when somebody is trying to position themselves as an intellectual and they name drop Sun Tsu, you can tell they aren't very much of a reader.
I think that's more of an ”I've never read a book that wasn't one of the required ones in school, but want to appear smart” thing. Which is admittedly at the very least chud adjacent.
's list of recommended books was all shit like that and Orwell. At least Steve Jobs' list showed he'd maybe read a book that wasn't one of the Anglo ”every schoolchild has read this” ones.
I've found that to be more common with run-of-the-mill libs, where they also always mix up fiction with non-fiction. Chuds just won't read or id they do read it's like they try to read Julius Caesar's auto-biograohy uncritically.
It's incredibly funny to me that the Art of War does contain some very useful insights, especially for the time, but everyone seems to be hell bent on repeating the most basic bitch conclusions from that text like they're an ancient chinese secret.
The importance of logistics, flexibility, mobility, and so forth are things organizations and militaries fuck up to this day but all anyone wants to talk about is how winning without fighting is the best. Wow, getting what I want without being punched in the face is better than getting what I want but also being punched in the face? Ground breaking.
yeah I mean I wouldn't build a 'Chud-o-Meter 3000' around this because some people are collectors or want to be well rounded, but companies that print these usually choose from the western canon, so no radical stuff allowed, I have a few general history books bound in that classic style but nothing left-leaning except for the Eric Hobsbawm Modern History series.
I'm more thinking of people who show them off in the background as part of their online persona like some right wing commentators
yeah I think marble or bronze busts in the room are a pretty good clue
also if they have large sections of non-fiction leather bound books that could be a tip off, see the top 10 bestsellers here for example
RETVRN
deleted by creator
Hey now, the Art of War is great and everyone should read it. Most people have never really sat down and thunk about the whens whys and hows of getting 50,000 of your buddies together to slaughter those shitass wankers in Wu and it shows.
deleted by creator
The thing about "Art of War" is that it is incredibly short and can be read from cover to cover in a half hour. It is an interesting read, but when somebody is trying to position themselves as an intellectual and they name drop Sun Tsu, you can tell they aren't very much of a reader.
deleted by creator
: (
Should...
Should I take down my signed first edition copy?
deleted by creator
Well yeah I've got Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Marcus Aurelius...
Oh no...
Oh no!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Sun Tzu: 'Have a plan instead of sending your whole army to die for no reason'
Chuds:
I think that's more of an ”I've never read a book that wasn't one of the required ones in school, but want to appear smart” thing. Which is admittedly at the very least chud adjacent.
I've found that to be more common with run-of-the-mill libs, where they also always mix up fiction with non-fiction. Chuds just won't read or id they do read it's like they try to read Julius Caesar's auto-biograohy uncritically.
It's incredibly funny to me that the Art of War does contain some very useful insights, especially for the time, but everyone seems to be hell bent on repeating the most basic bitch conclusions from that text like they're an ancient chinese secret.
The importance of logistics, flexibility, mobility, and so forth are things organizations and militaries fuck up to this day but all anyone wants to talk about is how winning without fighting is the best. Wow, getting what I want without being punched in the face is better than getting what I want but also being punched in the face? Ground breaking.
What if you have the Zhuge Liang annotated version, and it's on the shelf next to your copy of Romance of the Three Kingdoms?
deleted by creator
bro using spies will get you intel 🤯
bro it's easier to win if you have the high ground 🤯
bro cavalry moves faster than infantry 🤯
bro don't let your supply lines get cut off 🤯
bro you'll lose fewer resources if you don't fight 🤯
bro it's expensive to keep people in the field 🤯
deleted by creator
What if you use it as a guide to urban camping as a homeless person? That book saved my ass so many times when I was bumming around the USA
How does the art of war apply to finding shelter?
Where to camp not where to find shelter.
I have a room full of old vintage leather bound books because
Uhhh
yeah I mean I wouldn't build a 'Chud-o-Meter 3000' around this because some people are collectors or want to be well rounded, but companies that print these usually choose from the western canon, so no radical stuff allowed, I have a few general history books bound in that classic style but nothing left-leaning except for the Eric Hobsbawm Modern History series.
I'm more thinking of people who show them off in the background as part of their online persona like some right wing commentators
It's not about the content of the books for me. It's about the smell