Scan barcode
ageorgiadis's review against another edition
4.0
“You cannot tell people simultaneously ‘You must understand me’ and ‘You cannot understand me.’”
-p240, quoting Mark Lilla
This is a powerful indictment of a type of societal groupthink in the areas of intersectionality and identity politics. While not overtly political in his approach, Douglas Murray touches three primary domains (race, gender, identity) which are inherently political.
The text is not scholarship, but a rather a polite entreaty for us to think more carefully about: our rapid acceptance of gender fluidity or sexual transitions, claims of power in intersectionality, and other sources of power beyond that of old white men. This is particularly effective in his discussion of gender transitions in children, of elevating race to the apex of any conversation that it touches, or of deliberately misrepresenting others’ views on race and gender in bad faith.
All of these controversial themes are at heightened tension because of a toxic social media cancel culture that is ascendant and unchecked. There are countless stories of those who have been burned at the stake by what Murray describes as “tomb-raiders” of “retribution and vengeance”, meaning those who will archaeologically dissect a Twitter profile for grounds for outrage and hysteria in the here and now. The lines between personal and professional speech are nonexistent.
There is a detailed recounting of the most visible campus free speech controversies: Evergreen College, Claremont McKenna, Middlebury, Yale. Many of those dis-invited or assaulted speakers were victims of groupthink at residential top-tier liberal arts schools. Many of the students acted monstrously. And fear prevented the encroachment of sanity in all cases:
Because the knowledge could be used by bad people the enquiry cannot proceed or it must be denied.
-p172
Murray argues very strongly that a new hierarchy is being constructed on the fly, and quickly. Bad faith reigns, and this is particularly evident online. We must confront this together, if we are to survive together. That will be difficult for everyone. DM states rather plainly:
This is not about mishearings or misunderstandings. It is more likely an example of people deliberately and lazily adopting simplified misrepresentations of what other people are saying in order to avoid the difficult discussion that would otherwise have to take place.
-p76
-p240, quoting Mark Lilla
This is a powerful indictment of a type of societal groupthink in the areas of intersectionality and identity politics. While not overtly political in his approach, Douglas Murray touches three primary domains (race, gender, identity) which are inherently political.
The text is not scholarship, but a rather a polite entreaty for us to think more carefully about: our rapid acceptance of gender fluidity or sexual transitions, claims of power in intersectionality, and other sources of power beyond that of old white men. This is particularly effective in his discussion of gender transitions in children, of elevating race to the apex of any conversation that it touches, or of deliberately misrepresenting others’ views on race and gender in bad faith.
All of these controversial themes are at heightened tension because of a toxic social media cancel culture that is ascendant and unchecked. There are countless stories of those who have been burned at the stake by what Murray describes as “tomb-raiders” of “retribution and vengeance”, meaning those who will archaeologically dissect a Twitter profile for grounds for outrage and hysteria in the here and now. The lines between personal and professional speech are nonexistent.
There is a detailed recounting of the most visible campus free speech controversies: Evergreen College, Claremont McKenna, Middlebury, Yale. Many of those dis-invited or assaulted speakers were victims of groupthink at residential top-tier liberal arts schools. Many of the students acted monstrously. And fear prevented the encroachment of sanity in all cases:
Because the knowledge could be used by bad people the enquiry cannot proceed or it must be denied.
-p172
Murray argues very strongly that a new hierarchy is being constructed on the fly, and quickly. Bad faith reigns, and this is particularly evident online. We must confront this together, if we are to survive together. That will be difficult for everyone. DM states rather plainly:
This is not about mishearings or misunderstandings. It is more likely an example of people deliberately and lazily adopting simplified misrepresentations of what other people are saying in order to avoid the difficult discussion that would otherwise have to take place.
-p76
magnalia's review against another edition
5.0
This book made me at times laugh hard at the absurd examples of acceptabel social norms and behaviors in modern western societies, and at times - feel angry, almost hopeless.
“The Madness of Crowds” aims, in a rational way, to examine four topics - gay, feminism, race and transgender, and how the public views and messaging around these topics have developed in the past few decades. The result, as Murray points in the beginning: "We are going through a great crowd derangement. In public and in private, both online and off, people are behaving in ways that are increasingly irrational, feverish, herd-like and simply unpleasant.”
“Us versus them” mentality, unforgiving Internet where nothing can be forgotten and anything can be used against a person, not being able to celebrate achievements only focusing on negatives, shutting down different opinions (even if just few years ago they were a norm) - the book dives into possible rationale behind these “angry” trends.
The books is full of examples worth discussing and debating: Google search results for “white couples” or “white inventors” (try it for fun, you will be surprised); a photo tweet of Ellen DeGeneres standing next to her girlfriend and jokingly looking at Katy Perry breasts or “big balloons”, as Ellen refers to them in the tweet (imagine any man instead of Ellen); teenage kids advised and supported for sex reassignment by the schools and doctors, even if parents object; opinions being labeled as “hate speech” just because someone disagreed with them; conflicting ideas that women should be simultaneously sexy but never sexualized (at least not by men). These things are possible, even - welcomed or cheered for, in the world where we claim equality, free speech, search for ultimate truth, care for people etc, etc.
Sometimes silly, sometimes tragic, this is a timely and refreshing book. If you are open to criticism of leftwing groups, read it.
“The Madness of Crowds” aims, in a rational way, to examine four topics - gay, feminism, race and transgender, and how the public views and messaging around these topics have developed in the past few decades. The result, as Murray points in the beginning: "We are going through a great crowd derangement. In public and in private, both online and off, people are behaving in ways that are increasingly irrational, feverish, herd-like and simply unpleasant.”
“Us versus them” mentality, unforgiving Internet where nothing can be forgotten and anything can be used against a person, not being able to celebrate achievements only focusing on negatives, shutting down different opinions (even if just few years ago they were a norm) - the book dives into possible rationale behind these “angry” trends.
The books is full of examples worth discussing and debating: Google search results for “white couples” or “white inventors” (try it for fun, you will be surprised); a photo tweet of Ellen DeGeneres standing next to her girlfriend and jokingly looking at Katy Perry breasts or “big balloons”, as Ellen refers to them in the tweet (imagine any man instead of Ellen); teenage kids advised and supported for sex reassignment by the schools and doctors, even if parents object; opinions being labeled as “hate speech” just because someone disagreed with them; conflicting ideas that women should be simultaneously sexy but never sexualized (at least not by men). These things are possible, even - welcomed or cheered for, in the world where we claim equality, free speech, search for ultimate truth, care for people etc, etc.
Sometimes silly, sometimes tragic, this is a timely and refreshing book. If you are open to criticism of leftwing groups, read it.
gabbuz's review against another edition
3.0
“Words – even provocative or repugnant ones – are not violence. The answer to speech we do not like is more speech.”
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.