User Profile

I like how Brooks engages intellectually with the people he criticizes, this is something I think is priceless - there's nothing worse than reading shallow criticism intended for people to just parrot. I feel like the idea of convincing people something/someone is bad as more important than actually making them understand why it's the case is a genuine "political pathology" and is actually very unethical: it treats people as a means to an end, rather than empowering them to be intellectually autonomous political agents capable of thinking and reaching conclusions for themselves. To me unsubstantiated critique intended for mere parroting is the recipe for disaster, because if people don't actually understand what's wrong with, say, a public intellectual, it's easy af to be lured into p r o b l e m a t i c ideas and movements whose tactic centers around casuistry and emotional rhetoric. We shouldn't take people's desire to be in for granted... it might work sometimes but it's dishonest. So this is a nice short book, a good example of a substantive critique in a sea full of trash talking passing as political commentary.

hell is full of good intentions, and no criticism in this book is new, so i'm left with the book's form, that is, what its "performative" intention is: cringy lefter than thou content. i'm very skeptic of left criticizing left when it's indistinguishable from right wing talking points. also not sure if calling fellow militants hobbyists is actually... inviting for other people to fight with you? it makes you sound judgemental and unable to constructively criticize things. i can understand the criticisms but i don't think how they're conveyed is very... politically wise. if we apply the criticisms he makes to hobbyists and PeRfOrMaTiVe RaDiCalS to the author himself and consider writing a book full of right-wing talking points to sell books as PERFORMATIVE RADICALISM i think not much is left, the message is self-contradicted. but maybe i'm missing context again. much of what he says is really important, but not new. so i'm not sure writing a book phrasing thing as.. ahem controversially as in this one is actually helpful. it's funny because it's the second book in a row i read that is left-wing but sounds strangely right-wingey. maybe i'm seeing things? dropping this for now.