booktok, brainrot, and why it’s okay to be a hater [alisha not alihsha]

[Linkard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3v6aY8LSXo

I am NOT a huge reader nowadays (apart from reading One Piece), and I don't even have Tiktok on my phone.

This is a great video regardless. It talks about the fanaticism that we see on booktok, the anti-intellectualism of some in response to criticism ("let people enjoy things") and how all this is encouraged and makes a lot of sense in our current capitalist structure (mindless consumerism>self reflection and criticism). It's measured, intelligent, uses interesting sources and citations, and is simply very insightful.

It's also visually interesting and unique, I haven't seen much of this aesthetic on youtube. Highly recommended.

[rejectconvenience]

This was a really interesting watch, I was almost entirely unaware of this movement, and it was interesting to see the arguments made against it. I love the nuance of "let people enjoy things" and "it's okay to be a hater", as both can absolutely be true, just depending on the context.

[Sooshi]

I think this is one of the best videos I have ever seen

[Linkard]

I think this is one of the best videos I have ever seen

I think you'd love my Youtube feed then

[kamp]

This was an interesting watch—as someone who is fully outside of tiktok, it was novel to be introduced to the "bookishness as commodity" scene from an insider perspective. I think she raises a lot of interesting points, particularly about reading as being an extension of thinking. I don't do a lot of reading in my leisure time, and I now wonder whether that's an unconscious response to it truly being a lot of work

That said, I found her points to be muddled in a few places. She seemed to use the terms "educated" and "intellectual" interchangeably while also determining at other points that they are distinct from each other and from elitism. Ironically, it ends up coming off as elitist despite her intention. I also found the conclusion of the video to be less impactful than I think she intended—the four-minute reading of her letter felt at least three minutes too long to sway a politician, and the segments from interviews and Ted talks just felt like a proclamation that other people agree with her (imo, obviously correct) take that book bans are dangerous. I'd be curious to hear what y'all think about this, since I could easily have just misinterpreted things or missed trains of thought

It was certainly thought-provoking and well worth the watch!