>I know that many people, including a number on this list, explain their
>political radicalization in terms of something they read. I simplyu
>don't believe them. That ext that radicalized them did so only because
>their activity had prepared them to be radicalized by it, not because
>the text had an indepencent racizlizing potential.
Who said anything about independent? And reading *is* activity isn't it? How do you separate that out from other radicalizing activity?
>The Wire never generated critical thought in a single person who was not
>already beginning at least to think critically, said beginning rooted in
>his/her history.
Again, I don't get it. I don't see how you can know this and I don't see how you can separate these things out. A person's history includes what they've read or movies they've seen. And I really don't care whether something generates, pushes along, or focuses. It's all of a piece.