This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I tend to avoid popular non-fiction for this exact reason
A guideline (not a rule) I follow is to read zero political theory / philosophy / sociology etc. That is less than 30 - 40 years old.
This acts as a filter. 1) For exactly "could've been a blog post" kinds of books and 2) For well written books that are, unfortunately, just a re-hashing of an earlier theory.
A lot of value comes from those books and authors that have - to use the cliche - stood the test of time. The only downside here is that if you go really far back, the language can get a little tedious. The Wealth of Nations is as true and relevant as ever, but its a slog. Then again, Plato's Republic reads pretty easily (wait, that's a translation. Nevermind).
This isn't a hard and fast rule, like I said. Thinking Fast and Slow is legitimately amazing. But the exceptions to the rule usually tend to be obvious like that.
Some errata:
Avoid almost all books written by generalist journalists. Not only are they "could've been a blog post", they are unbearably self-indulgent. The author creates him or herself as the main character and there are dozens of totally tangential anecdotes that are meant to be "relatable" but really serve no purpose whatsoever. Specialty journalists can be hit or miss. I like reading financial histories (think Barbarians at the Gate) and John Carreyrou from the WSJ is great. If you can tell a journalist puts in real work, reporting, and research into their articles, their books might be good. If they are essentially a columnist or write with a little too much personal interjection - avoid.
I think everyone should have a stable of about 1 - 2 dozen books that they work through again and again in addition to reading new stuff. Fiction and non-fiction. These are your all time greats and you know it when you read it.
Figure out a marginalia system you like. Don't try to create some sort of personal Zettelkasten perfect system. The whole point is interacting with the text as you read it. Retention goes up but, more importantly, thoughtful synthesis skyrockets. I can remember reading Eric Foner's Reconstruction in college; gobbling it up whole in 2 days, loving it, closing it, and thinking "I have no idea what the fuck I just read but it was awesome." Now, even sloppy chickenscratch marginalia reading "I think this idea is stupid" creates more meaningful and deep understanding of a text.
In strong agreement with all of these. You can find some really good translations of Ancients from the turn of the last century that aren't too tedious. My translation of The Histories and The Republic were both done by some guy in 1898.
I'm slowly building up my reread all the time list. There are at least four in fiction: Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, The Magicians by Lev Grossman, The Lord of the Rings, and A Song of Ice and Fire (also Harry Potter but this is for language learning, not deep philosophical content). In non-fiction, the only book I have consistently reread is Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson: this is usually an annual thing. I would like to reread some of the philosophy I've read this year; Fear and Trembling, Master & His Emissary, and The Tragic Sense of Life come to mind. I'm especially excited for the second one: as I read more philosophy, learn more languages and study more history and art, McGilchrists ideas will hopefully become more and more understandable and sollid.
In terms of marginalia, I try to journal for 5 minutes after every reading session. I'm slowly unlearning my fear of "defacing" books, so with the stuff I buy, especially for philosophy book club, the books are slowly filling up with notes.
Edward Tufte, who's books are notoriously beautiful and specially printed, says that if you aren't marking up your books, you overpaid.
He is correct.
About 75% of my books come from the university libary unfortunately, so no marking up for me there. Sounds like I need to get cracking on that other 25% though.
In that case, you might want to get a small notepad (not a notebook!) and actually look into developing your own simplifed / modified Zettlekasten method.
Any suggestions on how to get started? I looked into Zettlekasten a little and it seems to be pretty impossible without some kind of digital note taking system which I don't want to do
Start with building that habit. There's a next level wherein you link different slips to one another, but it's too much to try at the outset.
Great will try this out!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link