Anton Jäger has been lauded for his exceptional ability to make sense of these strange political times – and he’s only 32. The writer and academic explains why we’re living in an age of hyperpolitics
The book is Anton Jäger’s Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization without Political Consequences, for those of you who also hate bullshit click bait headlines.
The article is a short summary of the book. It’s the summary that’s worth reading. You will get way more out of it than just the title of the book. It’s not “click here to see the title” type of an article so not really a clickbait.
I’d say the article is a summary of someone with very polarized political options trying to milk quotes from a book meant for an academic context. Especially the part where they attempt to define the far right (MAGA) as “not fascist”. Which, in the context of the original author is not a fair summary. The author is using very specific language to point to the differences of historical ideas of fascism and a modern day fascism that is not reacting to a popular working class consciousness.
I haven’t read the book myself. But even reading the context of the quotes the article uses. Or literally looking up the definition of the specific categorization the author used (in the quotes) tells me this obvious flaw in the articles implied message.
The article is attempting to use this to “blame” any rise in working class resistance to fascist tactics as a cause of escalation. That if, “the left didn’t keep pushing” we’d remain in this other thing. A word people find less scary. So it has this implied “it’s actually the resistance to blame that we won’t return to “normal” after Trump.”
It’s very typical pseudo intellectual though. It’s not a criticism I have of the author of the book. Because I’d have to read it entirely. It’s a criticism of the article that I feel is misrepresenting the author in a very specific way that is vague enough that only the average reader of “the guardian” would be perfectly persuaded into its narrative of anti “far left” propaganda.
Edit: you said you read the book yourself. So, I’d love your analysis. I think you may be missing the articles purpose because you have more connection to the source material that is filling in its purposeful gaps for the average reader. But, having only read the article. I feel like it doesn’t seem to do the book justice. It glosses over definitions and appeals to an emotion of “not fascism”. I’d appreciate your perspective though. I will add it to my reading list.
It’s surprising how much the word “clickbait” has changed over the years. On lemmy today, the word “clickbait” just means “the article tried to get me to click through, rather than only reading the title.” It used to be that if you put everything you had into the title, we’d call it “clickbait” because you were baited into clicking to see more when there was none.
I’d say “click bait” originally is a “joke without a punchline”. You are baiting the user into something that is very interesting and promising the click will give them an instant satisfying conclusion. Not that EVERYTHING is in the title. I definitely find your definition true but a little too specific. The entire point is the promise that the click will instantly satisfy the missing dopamine of a conclusion.
The click bait reveals just enough to be interesting but doesn’t give you the satisfaction of a conclusion.
The “bait” is that it’s not satisfying. It’s actually a boring story that you had to read several paragraphs to figure out. The title was misleading and the conclusion actually didn’t align with it in reality.
You got “baited” into reading a boring article that implied something exciting. The 75 lb housecat in the thumbnail was just a boring photoshop and they spent 5 paragraphs talking about cats diets and exercise before telling you that.
The book is Anton Jäger’s Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization without Political Consequences, for those of you who also hate bullshit click bait headlines.
The article is a short summary of the book. It’s the summary that’s worth reading. You will get way more out of it than just the title of the book. It’s not “click here to see the title” type of an article so not really a clickbait.
I’d say the article is a summary of someone with very polarized political options trying to milk quotes from a book meant for an academic context. Especially the part where they attempt to define the far right (MAGA) as “not fascist”. Which, in the context of the original author is not a fair summary. The author is using very specific language to point to the differences of historical ideas of fascism and a modern day fascism that is not reacting to a popular working class consciousness.
I haven’t read the book myself. But even reading the context of the quotes the article uses. Or literally looking up the definition of the specific categorization the author used (in the quotes) tells me this obvious flaw in the articles implied message.
The article is attempting to use this to “blame” any rise in working class resistance to fascist tactics as a cause of escalation. That if, “the left didn’t keep pushing” we’d remain in this other thing. A word people find less scary. So it has this implied “it’s actually the resistance to blame that we won’t return to “normal” after Trump.”
It’s very typical pseudo intellectual though. It’s not a criticism I have of the author of the book. Because I’d have to read it entirely. It’s a criticism of the article that I feel is misrepresenting the author in a very specific way that is vague enough that only the average reader of “the guardian” would be perfectly persuaded into its narrative of anti “far left” propaganda.
Edit: you said you read the book yourself. So, I’d love your analysis. I think you may be missing the articles purpose because you have more connection to the source material that is filling in its purposeful gaps for the average reader. But, having only read the article. I feel like it doesn’t seem to do the book justice. It glosses over definitions and appeals to an emotion of “not fascism”. I’d appreciate your perspective though. I will add it to my reading list.
It’s surprising how much the word “clickbait” has changed over the years. On lemmy today, the word “clickbait” just means “the article tried to get me to click through, rather than only reading the title.” It used to be that if you put everything you had into the title, we’d call it “clickbait” because you were baited into clicking to see more when there was none.
I’d say “click bait” originally is a “joke without a punchline”. You are baiting the user into something that is very interesting and promising the click will give them an instant satisfying conclusion. Not that EVERYTHING is in the title. I definitely find your definition true but a little too specific. The entire point is the promise that the click will instantly satisfy the missing dopamine of a conclusion.
The click bait reveals just enough to be interesting but doesn’t give you the satisfaction of a conclusion.
The “bait” is that it’s not satisfying. It’s actually a boring story that you had to read several paragraphs to figure out. The title was misleading and the conclusion actually didn’t align with it in reality.
You got “baited” into reading a boring article that implied something exciting. The 75 lb housecat in the thumbnail was just a boring photoshop and they spent 5 paragraphs talking about cats diets and exercise before telling you that.