Scan barcode
mcleary's review against another edition
5.0
Refreshing voice of reason. Says all the things you kind of thought you couldn’t say anymore. The most valuable lesson here is to think for yourself and take a moment to consider what people are saying instead of what you blindly assume they are saying. Social media has robbed debate of nuance. Hopefully this book will help redress things.
quenchgum's review against another edition
2.0
I’m stunned. This would have been a thoughtful, well-argued, and often convincing book if the premises it assumed and relied upon -- that, in general, subconscious bias doesn't materially cause certain groups to be discriminated against -- were well-founded. But Murray, frankly kind of unbelievably, seems to mostly think that we basically do live in a society that’s grown past discrimination based on race, gender, and sexuality. If you assume those issues away then the book is fantastic. But if you don’t, and I don’t think we should, then you’ll see that the book fundamentally declines to engage with the necessary conversations. Many of its logical conclusions seem irrelevant when they aren’t wrestling with what I see and have lived as a reality.
I took a ton of notes and at many points I wanted to engage at a more specific, minute level, but it got too overwhelming. Maybe at some point I will. FWIW - in a shock - I think his section on the transgender rights movement was his most compelling. You shouldn’t have to be worried about losing your job because you questioned whether it makes sense for a 10 year old to start HRT (though I will say that I think the admittedly often kind-of rabid liberal response to any arguably transphobic comment is so rabid in large part *because a ton of people are often actually transphobic* (in ways that are actually hateful and not just.. raising logical questions about how to handle children with gender dysphoria)). I also think Murray’s obviously right that liberal cancel culture online can be insane (although nobody really disagrees with this) and that we’d all benefit from more thoughtful dialogue. But I think Murray completely misunderstood the liberal POV on the vast majority of points he addressed. Among MANY other topics, I think he completely misunderstands intersectionality and the tensions that exist within it: those tensions don’t delegitimize it but rather are an acceptable and expected result of having honest discussions about the ways our “identities” lead others to treat us certain ways. For example, the fact that black people with darker skin on average face more discrimination than black people with lighter skin doesn’t prove any meaningful contradiction in the way Murray seems to think it would, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t speak thoughtfully about the ways that subconscious bias manifests itself.
I took a ton of notes and at many points I wanted to engage at a more specific, minute level, but it got too overwhelming. Maybe at some point I will. FWIW - in a shock - I think his section on the transgender rights movement was his most compelling. You shouldn’t have to be worried about losing your job because you questioned whether it makes sense for a 10 year old to start HRT (though I will say that I think the admittedly often kind-of rabid liberal response to any arguably transphobic comment is so rabid in large part *because a ton of people are often actually transphobic* (in ways that are actually hateful and not just.. raising logical questions about how to handle children with gender dysphoria)). I also think Murray’s obviously right that liberal cancel culture online can be insane (although nobody really disagrees with this) and that we’d all benefit from more thoughtful dialogue. But I think Murray completely misunderstood the liberal POV on the vast majority of points he addressed. Among MANY other topics, I think he completely misunderstands intersectionality and the tensions that exist within it: those tensions don’t delegitimize it but rather are an acceptable and expected result of having honest discussions about the ways our “identities” lead others to treat us certain ways. For example, the fact that black people with darker skin on average face more discrimination than black people with lighter skin doesn’t prove any meaningful contradiction in the way Murray seems to think it would, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t speak thoughtfully about the ways that subconscious bias manifests itself.
djmcewen's review against another edition
5.0
Intersectionality is covered in decent depth through the use of historical and anecdotal evidence. The ultimate conclusion is that it's destructive to humanity rather than helpful. Shades of gray are all but gone in exchange for black and white, with outrage coming from the Left over everything. Be sure to understand that "Left" is not the same as "Liberal".
A lot of assertions are made in this book and I largely agree with them, with one big disagreement. I do not for a moment believe straight men are threatened by gay men for holding a "secret" that only straight women have. It's silly.
A lot of assertions are made in this book and I largely agree with them, with one big disagreement. I do not for a moment believe straight men are threatened by gay men for holding a "secret" that only straight women have. It's silly.
anadriga14's review against another edition
3.0
some interesting points were made but overall it is a tiring rant
I had some expectation for at least some sort of solutions to all the situations presented, something that can sort of bring some sort of conclusion, or open a conversation for the left and right to see each others point of view. Instead this book just does what the far left does, points the finger
I had some expectation for at least some sort of solutions to all the situations presented, something that can sort of bring some sort of conclusion, or open a conversation for the left and right to see each others point of view. Instead this book just does what the far left does, points the finger
codosbankarena's review against another edition
4.0
This book gets 4 stars on the sheer ability it had to make me think and form my own opinions on the vast and diverse range of subjects it covered.
It feels a bit ironic for me to find ways to disagree with Douglas Murray's views on gay people as "always being the people - especially the men - who know way too much." Murray's conclusion in chapter one argues that there will always be a "strange and threatening" aroma surrounding homosexuals, which is perceived by me as an opinion driven by fragile masculinity. I find it hard to agree with the said statement having learned some valuable emotional lessons from gay people, and having attempted to be an ally to the LGBTQI+ community. Murray highlights the extremist consequences in a way that seems to blame the entire group of people when a lot of them seem to just want to get by.
An interesting point I do agree with is: rather than meaning "men are trash" when said, what it really means is "masculinity is in transition, and it is not moving fucking fast enough." But who knows if men, as a collective group, will ever be what women want them to be? The last century's idealism for manhood no longer retains any purpose in this day and age, and the lack of evolution caused by the undeviating transmission of behaviourisms from parent to child is causing dissatisfaction and harm to many citizens. Society is playing to the percentage who fuck it up for everyone, hence the recent movements. We are not allowed to say "not all men" for political reasons, and the current rules of the patriarchy mean that a man is far more likely to get "cancelled" for an unspeakable and unforgivable act rather than a woman, which ironically touches on the book's theme of relearning the art of forgiveness.
I believe in letting the voices of those who are disabled, of a different ethnic background, or in the LGBTQIA+ community be heard and legitimised, but the evident paradox is that a certain amount of people will not choose to listen, thus the movement of people being offended on behalf of others and taking a stand for something that they do not understand themselves, in attempts to be a rally partner and an ally. However, extremists take this too far and become a nuisance on behalf of those trying to do good and be genuinely passionate for their cause. Much like Facebook vegans and their impact on veganism.
Concluding my braindump review is the truth that suffering in and of itself does not make one a better person. I'm not sure if Murray's views on retaining an interest in politics in order to distance yourself from the madness of crowds are the best idea, even if you do not rely on it as a source of meaning. To commit an entire life trying to learn and understand identity politics would be misspent., in my opinion. For gender, race, and sexuality to mean nothing would be ridiculous; for it to mean everything would be fatal. A two-hundred-page paradox of a book has caused me to think to this extent. You're welcome to take it on if you wish.
It feels a bit ironic for me to find ways to disagree with Douglas Murray's views on gay people as "always being the people - especially the men - who know way too much." Murray's conclusion in chapter one argues that there will always be a "strange and threatening" aroma surrounding homosexuals, which is perceived by me as an opinion driven by fragile masculinity. I find it hard to agree with the said statement having learned some valuable emotional lessons from gay people, and having attempted to be an ally to the LGBTQI+ community. Murray highlights the extremist consequences in a way that seems to blame the entire group of people when a lot of them seem to just want to get by.
An interesting point I do agree with is: rather than meaning "men are trash" when said, what it really means is "masculinity is in transition, and it is not moving fucking fast enough." But who knows if men, as a collective group, will ever be what women want them to be? The last century's idealism for manhood no longer retains any purpose in this day and age, and the lack of evolution caused by the undeviating transmission of behaviourisms from parent to child is causing dissatisfaction and harm to many citizens. Society is playing to the percentage who fuck it up for everyone, hence the recent movements. We are not allowed to say "not all men" for political reasons, and the current rules of the patriarchy mean that a man is far more likely to get "cancelled" for an unspeakable and unforgivable act rather than a woman, which ironically touches on the book's theme of relearning the art of forgiveness.
I believe in letting the voices of those who are disabled, of a different ethnic background, or in the LGBTQIA+ community be heard and legitimised, but the evident paradox is that a certain amount of people will not choose to listen, thus the movement of people being offended on behalf of others and taking a stand for something that they do not understand themselves, in attempts to be a rally partner and an ally. However, extremists take this too far and become a nuisance on behalf of those trying to do good and be genuinely passionate for their cause. Much like Facebook vegans and their impact on veganism.
Concluding my braindump review is the truth that suffering in and of itself does not make one a better person. I'm not sure if Murray's views on retaining an interest in politics in order to distance yourself from the madness of crowds are the best idea, even if you do not rely on it as a source of meaning. To commit an entire life trying to learn and understand identity politics would be misspent., in my opinion. For gender, race, and sexuality to mean nothing would be ridiculous; for it to mean everything would be fatal. A two-hundred-page paradox of a book has caused me to think to this extent. You're welcome to take it on if you wish.