videos
Breadtube if it didn't suck.
Post videos you genuinely enjoy and want to share, duh. Celebrate the diversity of interests shared by chapochatters by posting a deep dive into Venetian kelp farming, I dunno. Also media criticism, bite-sized versions of left-wing theory, all the stuff you expected. But I am curious about that kelp farming thing now that you mentioned it.
Low effort / spam videos might be removed, especially weeb content.
There is a cytube that you can paste videos into and watch with whoever happens to be around. It's open submission unless there's something important to commandeer it with at the time.
A weekly watch party happens every Saturday (Sunday down under), with video nominations Saturday-Monday, voting Monday-Thursday. See the pin for whatever stage it's currently in.
view the rest of the comments
I get that it's not the intention, but this post reads like praising one set of peoples as innately good and scolding another as innately bad.
I think this might indicate that they were shown or convinced in some way that reading was important for their survival. I think that's a little stronger of an understood incentive than anything we have in America.
My intuition is that giving the impression that "you should defer to someone who has read more theory than you/read X amount of theory" is a belief people who read theory have is extremely counterproductive towards building this understood incentive. I think it's an idea worth letting go of.
The point isn't that you should blindly defer to people, the point is that when people try to teach you something, you should listen to them. This isn't to say that someone saying "well I read, so i'm smarter and XYZ" is correct, it's to say that someone saying "actually, this point you made is an incorrect understanding of Lenin - when he wrote XYZ it was in the context of ABC, meaning DEF" might be worth listening to and learning from. If someone comes in with citations and disagrees with you, you have to either prove them wrong by checking the text yourself, or accept that they might be right. There's no arguing with research using vibes, which is extremely common in general (not just leftist spaces).
A related thing: I personally often do learn things from secondary sources (summaries of theory, discussions, etc.), as do many other people, which is fine. However, I accept that I probably don't understand those concepts as well as people who have studied them more closely, and when someone corrects me on them I look up the corrections in more detail in order to fill those gaps in my knowledge/understanding.
Yes, of course. The point is that "I don't like reading" isn't much a barrier considering people who couldn't read managed to learn the theory.
Reading/not reading theory doesn't make someone inherently good or bad, but I would argue that refusing to read is a harmful choice.
My point is that not being convinced that it is necessary for survival is vastly more of a hindrance than anything else we're discussing. People only have so many free hours to allocate outside of what's necessary to survive, they are not going to put a lot into something unless they've been convinced it will pay dividends. There is nothing wrong with lamenting that people don't invest time into it, but doing that with open condescension rather than with empathy for the value of their time is also a harmful choice.
I'm talking about leftists here, not random people. I wouldn't expect any random American to even know what theory is, much less read it. However, leftists refusing to read are a completely different case. They know better.
I'm saying this on a forum for leftists, to other leftists. Leftists usually get told to read theory because they're wrong about something, and the theory can correct that. I wouldn't say this to random people at a community event, obviously.