Do you have anything on jubilee and the chronically online debates? Seriously thinking of getting this and writing a review, I very much enjoyed your piece on the Ezra Klein/Harris exchange, I would probably get a lot out of this book, but would be unable to discuss it with friends.
I bought the book and skimmed it on the strength of your articles from the 2010s. I honestly couldn't figure out if it had any big thesis, or if it was trying to tell me anything I didn't already know. Personally I would benefit a lot from a more concise explanation of what you think you've figured out that isn't commonly known.
It’s not about having figured anything particular out. As discussed in the beginning (perhaps missable if skimming) there’s nothing “new to the world” in it, it’s point or thesis lies in synthesis of range of ideas that many or most understand implicitly, but that takes on greater value (imo) when articulated and made common knowledge. Integrating them into a whole structure, where all parts reinforce each other, helps this. The intro was supposed to explain this but perhaps it needs even more.
The very short summary is that our common sense, shared, *articulated* understanding of public discourse and debate is lacking, especially now compared to the past, and it would be better if we had a more explicit shared understanding of how what these dynamics actually are.
But then again, it may simply not resonate with you, or explicit articulation might not be valuable to you either. Such differences exist (that’s also part of the thesis)!
Do you have anything on jubilee and the chronically online debates? Seriously thinking of getting this and writing a review, I very much enjoyed your piece on the Ezra Klein/Harris exchange, I would probably get a lot out of this book, but would be unable to discuss it with friends.
I bought the book and skimmed it on the strength of your articles from the 2010s. I honestly couldn't figure out if it had any big thesis, or if it was trying to tell me anything I didn't already know. Personally I would benefit a lot from a more concise explanation of what you think you've figured out that isn't commonly known.
It’s not about having figured anything particular out. As discussed in the beginning (perhaps missable if skimming) there’s nothing “new to the world” in it, it’s point or thesis lies in synthesis of range of ideas that many or most understand implicitly, but that takes on greater value (imo) when articulated and made common knowledge. Integrating them into a whole structure, where all parts reinforce each other, helps this. The intro was supposed to explain this but perhaps it needs even more.
The very short summary is that our common sense, shared, *articulated* understanding of public discourse and debate is lacking, especially now compared to the past, and it would be better if we had a more explicit shared understanding of how what these dynamics actually are.
But then again, it may simply not resonate with you, or explicit articulation might not be valuable to you either. Such differences exist (that’s also part of the thesis)!