People who don't read

Thank you based OP.

Since it seems that people didn't understand what I said too well, here's an example.

Someone will make a post that they clearly put a fair bit of time and effort into trying to make a serious, constructive post. And then someone else comes by and does this

fucking anarkiddies. The fucking illiteracy on this board I swear. Go read phenomenology of spirit

It's not a constructive post. It's not helpful. It doesn't even fucking make an argument. It doesn't educate anyone. It's a book name-drop and run.

Now, if you want to reference a book and either quote or paraphrase it, maybe helping people understand the more difficult to understand parts of it? Sure, that's fine. In fact some people do that, and I think it's great when they do. I think they actually help make some of the best of this board (even if I've disagreed with them at times).

I just question how the fuck anyone intends to educate people about socialism by namedropping books and throwing insults at people who don't know the theory inside and out.

...

...

One of these is not like the other, OP.
You can be like Muke and not read at all, yet have at least some understanding of leftist theory through secondary knowledge.

Aren't you just getting defensive?

GAS THE CUMSKINS!

oh and you evidently have time to make shitty blogs like this, so why don't you spend that time reading instead?

That's… not what the author is saying at all tho, projecting much?

I think it was just banter comr8

Not an argument.

The author is dead and the depiction of a historical progression will liberate the reader from domination by the author!

...

...

My gott, this.

Agreed.
READ AUTHOR niggers are some of the worst shitposters in here. Worse yet is most of the time they don't even give the exact book or citation they "want" you to read; they just try to dispell whatever by vomiting a name.

I'm tired of people who have never read leftist theory either claiming to be leftists (when they're at best center left liberals) or attacking leftism while claiming that communism is just a large welfare state.
Then you try to discuss theory to point out the flaws in their arguments and they just put their fingers in their ears and start screaming like fucking mongoloids.

I don't disagree with your point on the whole, but this does come across as you arguing on behalf of idiots. It is tiring to debate against the same tiresome arguments used by the many tankies, anarkids, nazis and dogmatists on this board. And as we know from these countless efforts, explaining why their views are bullshit does not convince them. People are not convinced that they are wrong through the use of 'facts' or 'reason' no more than they are knowledgeable through sheer common sense, it ultimately comes down to their willingness to learn new things and be educated, and how well you can spin your rhetoric to them, which is a category most of the world just doesn't fall into, including places like Holla Forums. However, we should still be willing and able to educate those who are capable of learning.

That all being said, I do agree with you that people like Rebel who just meme certain theorists as soon as they latch onto them and don't bother to explain anything to prospective learners are foolish and detrimental.

The point there that I addressed later on is that you are going to run into this, a lot, if you actually want to spread socialist theory. I agree, it is tiring, but if you are serious about "educate, agitate, organize", this is going to be a norm. You are going to hear arguments for the hundredth time and you are going to need to walk people through it just the same as you did the first time.

Like I said, if you get sick of it, it's better to copypasta or screenshot something introductory to an idea that you use multiple times, the same way you might end up using pamphlets or the like to help people.

The whole reason people do this is so that you could actually, you know, read it in a few minutes to get some groundwork, and not "read this entire 800 page book full of dense theory and references you probably won't understand so you understand this one point".

Yui, you rarely """""debate""""" even when it isn't your personal bogeymen. Fuck off back to your circlejerk in the dubtrack room or IRC already.

I like to make some infrograph's and videos on Stirner but the more i get to know by study the more i realise that i know barely anything. Most subjects are mutch more complex then they appear to be and making information based on surface level understanding (Wikitier) can cause alot of mis-interpretations from the illiterate people who can rape the actual message to some weird ass shit.

Its kidna ironic that you slightly defend the people that dont read and get suprised that they barely read what you wrote down.

Also check this video.
youtu.be/f1womYO7GNQ

I agree that its a shitty argument, its like Holla Forums dropping a website to support a claim and not pointing out what quote or data supports his rhetoric.

Thats alot shitty, blame idealogy.

DUMB

AND

PROUD

Fair point. It's unfortunately very possible for people to read all the way through these books and still fail to understand key points though. It's very possible that a lot of people are applying things they read and simply doing it poorly.

Yes it is a bit ironic and I should have seen that coming but c'est la vie.

I don't know about you guys, but at least 50% of the replies I recieve are just just condescending "you havent read irrelevant book X? wow i cant even". Its literally the same as normies arguing "i read this in an internet article from buzzfeed, that makes me enlightened, go read it".

If you cant explain your point in simple terms it means you yourself do not understand it.

Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of it, since none of you have really read right wing literature.

right-wing don't have any theory, only eclectic of everything reactionary that is on the table in any given moment

Also if i'm making an argument in defense of not reading, then it's this, and only this.

Like I said, leftypol is not a philosophy book club. It's a bar. Not a nice one, it's a seedy bar where people get drunk on their memes while they talk depressedly about their problems that they are kind of aware of, but don't have any way of fixing. Some people talk about it in video games, or politics, or whatever. And there are people who want to look really closely at these problems and see what they are at their core. Now, you know, that's fine. But when these same people come to other people's tables and butt in with "That's not really what the problem is, read this technical manual," it's not being helpful, or educational; or even useful. Even if you're right about your book detailing exactly the nuances of what money is in a society, what does it even matter? It's not like I'm going to be free from financial woes if you enlighten me on the precise relation of money to value and commodity. Pointing out that most people are only aware of their meme-tier leftist philosophy? Congratulations, you pointed out that a lot of people in the bar are drunk.

I'm not saying that you can't have a table in the bar to discuss the ins and outs of it, I'm just saying to stop being fucking obtrusive smug self-assured intellectual elitist assholes in a dive bar.

It's not in the best interests of everyone to explain everything to everyone.

This is true. Memes should be responded to with memes, and tripfags/namefags/flagfags should be ignored.

So if I post as I should not be ingored, but like I do now, I should.

Ok..

...

...

It will tbqh.

Not true.