I'm noticing a lot of people taking "you should read more about this, here are some book recommendations" as insulting their intelligence.
This is relevant because most USians lack a political education.
i think half of people are obtuse on purpose. like it doesnt matter the context, if you tell Americans to educate themselves on anything they will take it as a personal attack and use any justification to defend their ignorance. especially people familiar with progressive sounding language.
[me sending a Black leftist reading list to my white liberal and supposedly progressive ex-right-libertarian friend]
Friend: "I'm not reading this."
Me: "Well, why not?"
Friend: "Because I'm not a leftist."
Me: "That is not a good reason but very well."
Friend: "Yeah, I know, I guess I'm just stubborn. It's just that I worry that I wouldn't get anything out of it."
Me: "Yeah, when I first read Wretched of the Earth I had to look up what 'lumpenproletariat' meant since I read it before Marx, but I honestly feel like needing to look up a few things here and there doesn't make it not worthwhile to challenge one's worldviews and listen to the perspectives of some of the most influential Black thinkers and activists of the past century."
[friend still does not want to look at the Black leftist reading list]
is it wrong to want to throw books at white people? screams "you will never understand the black perspective and history without reading black authors and that always includes lefist" throws the wretched of the earth then sister outsider and many more at head / joking
Haha, you had me laughing (as opposed to breathing heavily out of my nose) with that first sentence.
reorder the list and title it "books for liberals to be better liberals"
I have had almost this same convo so many times.
I've talked to so many people who proud themselves on not having read a book since leaving school.
School does a good job of teaching people to hate reading.
one of the ways i got motivated into reading as a little kid is one of my teachers would hand out candy whenever i finished reading a book and took a short quiz on it. very effective! my grandma would also do story time over the phone and stuff
We had a program at our school that would give you a coupon for a free pizza every 10 or so books that you read (this was grade school so they weren't really too long, think beginners level chapter books), which worked pretty well for me. Now as a grown adult, I wish I still had a way to get free pizza.
Yep, that is it! Completely forgot the name, but I do remember that it was Pizza Hut. I'm more surprised that they're still doing it, I figured they would have killed that off by now. I want pizza now.
What the heck! I wanted candy when I was younger too, it would have been nice to have your teacher.
Yeah, I agree. I only got by when I read books for my own enjoyment. Really made me appreciate Shakespeare for example, particularly Hamlet and King Lear.
the most incurious people on the planet, even worse than the br*ts
Then let them
eat cakelisten to audiobooksCommuting almost an hour one way means almost 2 hours "reading" a day, so long as you're wired for it. I understand some aren't able to digest books in that form.
Is also why like most people came here to begin with, they listened to a podcast. Really wish literal printed words weren't privileged so much, you can get through a shitload of books as audiobooks since you do not have to avoid doing anything else. Chores, your job, cooking, playing a relaxing game, you can basically just breathe books without your life being put on hold.
Absolutely, breathing books is a great way to put it.
It isn't the same as reading a book, and you have to be ready to pause frequently, but way better than nothing. Sometimes I even put music and an audiobook on at once
Nothing that requires full attention of course. Like pop-leftist books such as bullshit jobs there's a lot of what is to me fluff.
Telling someone to read a book is actually the gravest insult in American culture
Pretty much this, though tbh telling someone to do anything in American culture is a bad idea. An American on fire would rather burn to death than be told to stop drop and roll. I present it as something I did and what I learned/or whatever, generally that works better.
this is only tangentially related but a hexbear posting warrior told some lemmyverse liberal they should really read some books about the subject being discussed and suggested some specific books, the lemmyverse liberal got very mad and said basically 'fuck you, YOU should read a book", so I asked them what book they felt would be good and they recommended fucking "Ulysses" by Joyce.
Ever since noticing that their version of history is completely vibes based, stuff like this doesn't shock me at all anymore. OBVIOUSLY, the best way to understand the modern world is to read some lofty Irish musings that parallel ancient Greek poetry. The thing is, they probably didn't even read it for literatures sake. They read it for the status of having said "I've read Ulysses
"I kind of suspect they hadn't even read it, they just googled "best classic literature list" and picked the book at the top so they could sound well read and smart
I've had the following conversation at least a dozen times:
Them: I know everything I need to know about Marxism vuvuzela no iphone
Me: Tell me one thing, any thing, Marx said in his life. No google.I have never gotten an answer.
Gutentag.
To his wife, then her gave her a little peck on the cheek, pawned his pants for liquor money, and banged out a book whose first line was 'no iPhone'
You have to meet people where they're at. In my experience no one will ever read any book you recommend unless they specifically ask you for recommendations. They might click a link to a short video. Otherwise try to summarize the specific point you want them to understand with relevant quotes or examples and avoid scary words like socialism or Marx unless you want to shock them.
Hopefully if its someone you care about enough to put in repeated efforts enough of what you're saying sinks in they start doing their own research, then they might ask for advice. I've had this work on coworkers a few times but its rare. Remember your working against years of conditioning here, it won't happen overnight
I sometimes try to lead with an interesting fact, make them go "oh I didn't know that" themself, then frame the conversation as "most people aren't taught about this".
10 facts business guys (derogatory) don't want you to know about wage labor
Its the same sentiment through the lens of western academia. When you've ingested enough eugenics, the idea that you don't understand something because you lack the formal learning to process it and that you physically can't understand it because your brain don't work good are the same.
Understanding isn't a product of hard work or a consequential legacy of accumulated knowledge gleaned from prior generations, its a consequence of superior genes and natural genius.
Incidentally, the understanding of accumulated wealth and power flows along similar lines. You're rich because you're a superior deal maker. You're a "natural" leader with innate charisma. You're a savant who derives all worldly knowledge from first principles. None of these things are granted through family status or political intrigues or insights gleaned from hard work of others. Its always just you being a uniquely special wonderkin.
One person claiming that they understand or possess information another doesn't isn't just a challenge to their priors, its a challenge to their inherent brilliant nature.
I really appreciate this comment, particularly the last clause. Would you say many folks have a kind of inflated sense of self (what you called inherent brilliant nature) due to say, unearned prestige?
What I mean is, here in the imperial core I have peers who constantly trash on goods made in China. They say they can make something better, not only are the working conditions poor, the quality of the goods are bad too (as though good products could justify any kind of poor conditions; in this case they have no evidence of the conditions there in any form) and products like iPhones and MacBooks are only due to the brilliance of people in the West.
Here it's like they believe they are superior, their way of life is not due to their harder or better work. In the US, they skim off stolen land 'earned' by a near complete genocide. Really in what way are they superior?
Do you have any thoughts?
products like iPhones and MacBooks are only due to the brilliance of people in the West.
Apple products all suck. They're interfaces are simplified to the point of being glorified Speak-And-Say machines, and the company hasn't put out anything particularly novel since the iPad (which was already just a malformed iPhone).
Nothing in the engineering of these products outperforms any other device on the market, from Dell to Samsung to Huawei.
The only reason Americans think Apple is a good product is the enormous amount of marketing and the dismal state of Microsoft.
In the US, they skim off stolen land 'earned' by a near complete genocide. Really in what way are they superior?
I think it's insane how Americans wiped out native peoples, and the native floura and fauna with them, to impose a meaningful worse agricultural system in its place.
Even setting aside the raw evil of the genocide, wholesale replacement of native buffalo with imported cattle was incredibly foolhardy.
Nevermind the desolation of the Mississippi River Valley, the draining of the Colorado, and the strip mining of the Atlantic Coast interior. Just enormous amounts of waste created so we could put "profit" on our business ledgers.
But the devil is in the accounting. How do you convince people that they're being robbed when Big Line Go Up?
Completely agree with your comment on Apple devices. My view also includes the absurd amount spent on marketing and sort of anti-marketing usually through the news of non-US products (e.g. Huawei, Xiaomi, ZTE, etc.)
I'll say there are likely some genuine innovations by Apple, with as many resources and dollars poured into it, it's hard for there not to be. And much of it seems to be due to acquiring companies that have genuinely interesting technology, e.g. P.A. Semi, Imagination Technologies, etc.
there are likely some genuine innovations by Apple, with as many resources and dollars poured into it
I'll believe it when I see it. But the Apple business model always seemed to be five years behind the curve delivered with polish for a retail market.
much of it seems to be due to acquiring companies that have genuinely interesting technology, e.g. P.A. Semi, Imagination Technologies, etc.
Right. They mastered maximizing they're market cap, which gives them cheap financing to monopolize other people's innovations.
But what they advertise as revolutionary tends to simply be shiny.
anti-marketing usually through the news of non-US products (e.g. Huawei, Xiaomi, ZTE, etc.)
The real innovation is convincing people bleeding edge hardware and phenomenal engineering is cheapo crap.
There's a reason why anti-intellectualism is such a prominent thing in the U.S.
It's hard to fight and it makes people think they're smart for not learning about stuff
Personally, this is why I kind of want to start up a media project about educating people but with a down-to-earth nature so it doesn't seem like they're being insulted
You'll never break a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary type, but I can at least make some positive effort forwards
(I mean, I consider my podcast, Talker, Rexas Wanger to be a positive effort, but it's not exactly educational)
Wanger
so it's pronounced like an Elmer Fudd version of Ranger, not to rhyme with "hanger"... right?
questioning any part of someones ideology is tantamount to mental abuse to the stubborn minded, liberals in particular
people incorporate their liberalism or whatever into their identity and calling that into question is way bigger of a deal than it should be. You get the same thing with religious weirdos if you ever ask them where the bible says something they made up or why god seems to always agree with their own prejudices.
I definitely feel like I am abusive, it leaves me a bit stuck. I know "we won't make excuses for the terror" and all, but do you (or other comrades) have any advice? Is it that the timeframe needs to be longer so they don't feel abused?
I think I'm missing something here and I don't know what. What I consider banal seems to be awfully challenging, I'm very confused :/
People don't change their minds with debates for the same reason Jordan Peterson doesn't change my mind. I'm not some immaculate debate bro, I'm not under the illusion that winning a debate requires one side to be correct, it simply means that the other person's smarter or better researched on something than myself. Unless you've actually gone and read up on flat earthers, odds are if one starts debating you they'll pull this or that nonsense out of their ass that sounds convincing and that you don't have a response for; but you know better than to assume that just because you can't pin down why they're wrong that nobody can, and that if you were foolish enough to just agree with them because you didn't have a rebuttal on hand you'd suddenly be liable the moment someone with more sense than you poked holes in your new position. You probably aren't even going to go look up why they're wrong, you just implicitly trust they are wrong and have no reason to question that. You're not gonna waste a week researching a bunch of bullshit for that guy.
So now some communist, the bad guys in the cold war, is trying to facts and logic you about how communism is better actually and those freedom hating terrorists in the MIddle East are actually the good guys. I'm sure they sound very smart and up their own ass, but you can dismiss them just as easily as the flat earthers because you're not dismissing either of those people based on some college education you could never afford. The world that has provided the life you've lived so far says this thing, so the world is probably right and those other people are wrong.
This is why Huey Newton got assassinated. If you literally feed people's kids, suddenly you are the one providing people a better life, you are the one that actually has their best interests at heart. This is why "struggle sessions" mostly don't work. Changing anyone's mind requires a level of mutual trust that most people don't have with others due to capitalist atomization, just as you trust your friend when they say you're being a dick much more than you trust a stranger making the exact same points. This is why we go on and on about mutual aid all the time, it is literally the prerequisite to making any sort of changes. The moment someone is actually relying on you to live a better life is the moment they actually give a shit what you think.
Well, arguing is an action of supporting two different worldviews, and one deconstructing the other. You must win, but be gentle, this is their world.
Something like that. Methods differ from person to person, but I see the best way to convince people is propaganda of the deed. Once you find like minded people and agitate, you'll start slow, but as the contradictions sharped people will begin to 'wake up' and choose socialism. Its a very slow buildup that changes into a very frantic political battle.
This is relevant because many USians are shockingly illiterate.
If they are a friend or otherwise convinceable, you do it by being more confident than them and generally being the person they go to for an informed opinion that they will adopt for themselves. Get them into a mindset where they might ask you how you know so many things so you can hit them with a reading rec they'll ignore for the next 4 months (but then they might actually read it!).
If they are combative, you endeavor to not take them seriously (again, confidence) and demonstrate your knowledge with specifics without suggesting that you're actually taking anything they say seriously. Your hope with these people is that they shut the fuck up and slowly internalize on their own timeline so that if they come around like 2 years later, they think it was their own idea. The other goal is that the primary audience for what you're saying is everyone else, who will see you implicitly denigrating the other person's bullshit while having a wealth of facts and confidence.
If someone is particularly bad, you can dunk on them. Some people need to be socially policed right then and there (e.g. people being racist, transphobic, classist) and a decent number will even course-correct shortly after. Keep in mind that a decent number will flip their shit, so prioritize your own safety.
It is very rare that you'll find someone that is both combative and willing to change their opinion in real time through discussion.
you endeavor to not take them seriously (again, confidence)
I recommend demonstrating respect if you want to avoid making someone feel insulted
I suppose it depends on your goal. My advice is indeed based on alienating them to some extent. If you want something from them, you'd want to change your approach accordingly.
I've seen folks go the respect route against combative people speaking from a place of ignorance. When you want something from them and it's in an isolated environment, it can work to get what you want, basically through manipulation. When it's in a more communal space, it seems to usually backfire. The person is "handled" for a while but they will be alienated anyways if your opinion holds sway. If, instead, they get a foothold, they tend to become insufferable bullies.
I've seen good leftists hounded out of spaces by people like this, liberals they were trying to be nice and respectful to. They should be thoroughly opposed unless you're trying to extract something from them.
Obviously bad actors get cast out, and I'm not saying to do civility fetishism or indeed even manipulation. Being a socialist means, to some extent, believing in people, and I think it's a better way to relate to the world to view people as generally being genuinely worthy of respect rather than merely condescending to speak gently to them to lull them to sleep. There is a lot that you can learn from people, and indeed a lot that you must learn from them if you wish to help them. Education is fundamentally a cooperative process between teacher and student wherein they resolve a succession of problems together. Simply dictating someone's new ideology to them is very unlikely to produce anything good in the long run, and viewing yourself as above them and as having the luxury to skate along at a different level while pretending to respect them is liable to get you fucked over as your superficiality and disingenuousness become apparent.
Okay but again we're talking about someone who's being combative from a place of basically complete ignorance. You don't have to throw out the concept of radicalization through education to shut down people acting in this way. They are not in a mindset to listen nor to interpret a softer touch as anything but validation. When you want something from them, you're giving them validation (manipulating them) to get it. Otherwise, they are highly likely to move ahead unchecked and fuck things up for you and those around you.
Being respectful to that person's ideas communicates to everyone what the acceptability discourse is. It communicates an extent of condoning it, even. Like, "people can respectfully disagree, that's a good point with similar validity".
I have never, ever seen that lead to good outcomes.
There is a big difference between having respect for a person and having respect for their ideas. Someone can have completely contemptible ideas and still be a good and worthy person in fact, this is common. We should neither engage in faux-respect for reactionary bullshit nor try to convince ourselves that it actually should be respected. What we should do is try to have understanding with our fellow people and make sure that we maintain an awareness that even if they are wrong and we are right in some matters, there is still a lot that they have to teach us, and though we might guess at some aspects of how their error came to be, to really understand its source probably requires hearing about it from them.
There will be no difference perceived between disrespecting a person's ideas, i.e. not taking them seriously, and them feeling disrespected. My suggestion was to not take them seriously (the person who knows nothing but is being combative). To treat them as of they're raising a point that does not deserve respect or really much engagement, and that it's important to project this so that (1) they are not emboldened and (2) your actual audience, which is everyone else, understands that it's not a serious idea to be considered.
Also, you are much less likely to learn from a person behaving this way than you are to find that you must suddenly deal with disruption and bullying because you didn't clearly set boundaries and quash the ridiculous behaviors. It's great to learn from people, but you should prioritize doing so in a way that is productive.
I see a lot of folks on the left zero in on disruptive or reactionary people, thinking they'll turn them around or that they need to give them some special attention for the sake of "resolving" contention in a given space. This ends up wasting their time and often everyone's time while the contention is prolonged and the problematic individual fails to improve (after all, they're being taken seriously). This will put a strain on others involved as well, as rather than alienating the problematic individual you are now creating more situations for everyone else to become alienated. It's also just plain the least efficient way to learn and adapt and should only be done for strategic reasons, not as a rule.
Also... there are many people that have nothing at all to teach us except that we should isolate and avoid them. You are not going to find a valuable learning moment from the cryptofascist harassing every brown woman in the office. People that choose to spend their time trying to respect the cryptofascist to empathize with them and create a better project are going to be counterproductive, full stop. Make the space workable for the brown women and police the cryptofascist's behaviors.
Hmm, I think I took Maoo to mean confident in a flippant way, I suppose that makes it disrespectful. The situation I thought it would be appropriate is like, for a person who is unaccustomed to being challenged or who very gassed up. But I think you're right generally, only in the instances where you can't be respectful it might work to not take them too seriously.
idk. It's hard.
I try to be vocally sympathetic. Like "bro you're not dumb, there's just stuff you don't know. There's way too much stuff for anyone to know everything, we all gotta keep learning all the time. Knowledge is power and I want you to be as powerful as possible. And when you tell me there's a gap in my knowledge I'll listen to you."
A lot of it comes down to the person, though. Folks have to be in the right mindset to take critiques in good faith and trust that you're being genuine.
You can also try to be like "Hey sib, so, I get what you're saying and I know this book/article/paper that talks about that, and I think you'd find it really interesting because it talks about what you're saying from a different perspective. Even if you don't agree with it you can use it to sharpen up your arguments and get a better understanding of what your opponents think"
still has the Book It! program lol
carry on
