What books are you reading?

[kickazz]

Madness of Crowds - Douglas Murray
I agreed with some of it but found it hard to shake what appeared to be a rather thinly veiled conservative agenda.

Just finished this and I tend to agree.

I liked how he presents the problematic absolutism seen in identity politics these days, how the message is not being listened to and only the messenger (and where they appear on the "oppression hierarchy") matters.

The misused power of outrage culture and social media is well highlighted in sooner truly disturbing examples.

The absurdity off intersectionality could have been explored more.

And yeah, on repeated occasions he comes across simply as a conservative who is hoping the waves of reform we've seen will hurt up and conclude so we can put it all behind us.

All in all, some well researched examples are presented, but I didn't clean any great insights on the topic more broadly.

 

[Nikita Blue]

Given recent events going back to one of my all time favourites The Stand.

 

[Kram]

'How to Handle a Bear Market'
'Asterix and the Cauldron'

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

'How to Handle a Bear Market'
'Asterix and the Cauldron'

Are they good?

 

[medusala]

Combine your 2 interests - historical fiction and detective stories.

There is lots of historical detection available these days, set in a wide range of historical eras - Rome, Byzantium, Medieval England, you name it - and ranging from serious (characters inserted into fully factual historical events) to humorous and light-hearted

Some good ones around WWII

SSGB
Frederick Troy series
Bernie Gunther series

Alan Furst rather good too I reckon if you are in to spy related books.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Some good ones around WWII

SSGB
Frederick Troy series
Bernie Gunther series

Alan Furst rather good too I reckon if you are in to spy related books.

Yes, historical spy books are a whole big field on their own; Denis Wheatley's Roger Brook (French Revolution & Napoleonic Wars), Duc de Richlieu (WWI/11) and Gregory Sallust (WWII, but also WWI) are good yarns.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Just finished this and I tend to agree.

I liked how he presents the problematic absolutism seen in identity politics these days, how the message is not being listened to and only the messenger (and where they appear on the "oppression hierarchy") matters.

The misused power of outrage culture and social media is well highlighted in sooner truly disturbing examples.

The absurdity off intersectionality could have been explored more.

And yeah, on repeated occasions he comes across simply as a conservative who is hoping the waves of reform we've seen will hurt up and conclude so we can put it all behind us.

All in all, some well researched examples are presented, but I didn't clean any great insights on the topic more broadly.

I think Murray does a good job of highlighting areas of quite recent, and fairly radical change that society has not set rules around. If that makes him a conservative then that's not a bad thing.

Eg. His discussion of misused power of outrage culture and social media was well presented. It's a topic that is becoming an increasing area of concern but it's not clear what the solutions are.

I liked his arguments that some social and political viewpoints can only be expressed by those who are seen as the victims or minority in a particular discussion. e.g. opposition to gay marriage has some extra credibility when argued by a gay person but could be dismissed as homophobic when spoken by a heterosexual. He also highlighted where black people who argued a certain view were told they were not really black. It's a bizarre situation in our modern world where blackness is about your political opinion not the colour of your skin or your ancestry.

 

[kickazz]

Madness of Crowds - Douglas Murray
I agreed with some of it but found it hard to shake what appeared to be a rather thinly veiled conservative agenda.

Just finished this and I tend to agree.

I liked how he presents the problematic absolutism seen in identity politics these days, how the message is not being listened to and only the messenger (and where they appear on the "oppression hierarchy") matters.

The misused power of outrage culture and social media is well highlighted in sooner truly disturbing examples.

The absurdity off intersectionality could have been explored more.

And yeah, on repeated occasions he comes across simply as a conservative who is hoping the waves of reform we've seen will hurt up and conclude so we can put it all behind us.

All in all, some well researched examples are presented, but I didn't clean any great insights on the topic more broadly.

I think Murray does a good job of highlighting areas of quite recent, and fairly radical change that society has not set rules around. If that makes him a conservative then that's not a bad thing.

Eg. His discussion of misused power of outrage culture and social media was well presented. It's a topic that is becoming an increasing area of concern but it's not clear what the solutions are.

I liked his arguments that some social and political viewpoints can only be expressed by those who are seen as the victims or minority in a particular discussion. e.g. opposition to gay marriage has some extra credibility when argued by a gay person but could be dismissed as homophobic when spoken by a heterosexual. He also highlighted where black people who argued a certain view were told they were not really black. It's a bizarre situation in our modern world where blackness is about your political opinion not the colour of your skin or your ancestry.

Yeah. I've been quoting MLK and his "colour of skin vs content of character" for a while now, as it seems identity matters more than character these days. I like how he keeps coming back to that, and by extension, who you are matters more to the woke than the substance of what you say.

I guess I wish that he didn't harp on about "equality now almost finally being achieved" so much, because I think this is debatable, and it is an unnecessary distraction from his main message on the madness of crowds and how broken public discourse currently seems to be.

 

[CazC30]

Given recent events going back to one of my all time favourites The Stand.

Is this Stephen King?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

The Devils Chessboard

How the CIA became an arm of the US Government

 

[Nikita Blue]

Is this Stephen King?

Yep. One of his best.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I think Murray does a good job of highlighting areas of quite recent, and fairly radical change that society has not set rules around. If that makes him a conservative then that's not a bad thing.

Eg. His discussion of misused power of outrage culture and social media was well presented. It's a topic that is becoming an increasing area of concern but it's not clear what the solutions are.

I liked his arguments that some social and political viewpoints can only be expressed by those who are seen as the victims or minority in a particular discussion. e.g. opposition to gay marriage has some extra credibility when argued by a gay person but could be dismissed as homophobic when spoken by a heterosexual. He also highlighted where black people who argued a certain view were told they were not really black. It's a bizarre situation in our modern world where blackness is about your political opinion not the colour of your skin or your ancestry.

I am fairly certain Murray identifies as a neoconservative, or at least advocates for it:

Neoconservatism: Why We Need it : Murray: Amazon.com.au: Books

Neoconservatism: Why We Need it : Murray: Amazon.com.au: Books

www.amazon.com.au

What puzzles me about the phenomena you described (from Murray's book) is that, while there is no denying that it is happening (e.g., gay people being accused of 'not being gay enough', black people being accused of not being 'really black') it's hard to get a handle on the extent to which it happens. e.g., I see some loony stuff like this on Twitter from time to time, but I don't see much of it in everyday life. If it's just a couple of wackos then I don't think it is as big of a problem as Murray makes out. There are wackos everywhere, and Twitter/FB/Reddit give them a global voice.

 

[kickazz]

I am fairly certain Murray identifies as a neoconservative, or at least advocates for it:

Neoconservatism: Why We Need it : Murray: Amazon.com.au: Books

Neoconservatism: Why We Need it : Murray: Amazon.com.au: Books

www.amazon.com.au

What puzzles me about the phenomena you described (from Murray's book) is that, while there is no denying that it is happening (e.g., gay people being accused of 'not being gay enough', black people being accused of not being 'really black') it's hard to get a handle on the extent to which it happens. e.g., I see some loony stuff like this on Twitter from time to time, but I don't see much of it in everyday life. If it's just a couple of wackos then I don't think it is as big of a problem as Murray makes out. There are wackos everywhere, and Twitter/FB/Reddit give them a global voice.

Yeah reading Madness of Crowds you are quite taken aback by the examples he presents. But like you say, the world is a big place and you are certain to find examples of some pretty loopy stuff if you want to.

It's not all that prevalent. Even in so called "woke" strongholds like academia there are plenty of normal people like you and me who see the bullshit for what it is. I think what has changed though, is that the fringe voices are getting publicity way out of proportion, like never before. Those voices always existed before but they were just people at home shouting at the TV so it didn't matter because nobody heard them.

It's worth keeping an eye on, lest this disproportionate publicity change behaviour more generally.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yeah reading Madness of Crowds you are quite taken aback by the examples he presents. But like you say, the world is a big place and you are certain to find examples of some pretty loopy stuff if you want to.

It's not all that prevalent. Even in so called "woke" strongholds like academia there are plenty of normal people like you and me who see the bullshit for what it is. I think what has changed though, is that the fringe voices are getting publicity way out of proportion, like never before. Those voices always existed before but they were just people at home shouting at the TV so it didn't matter because nobody heard them.

It's worth keeping an eye on, lest this disproportionate publicity change behaviour more generally.

I agree that it's hard to know whether at times he is picking atypical examples. But the woke culture certainly goes beyond academia. It doesn't matter if there are a few people who see the bullshit if the policies come from the top of the organisation and the 'People and Culture' department.

The black identification issue is mainstream in Australia. We have seen Indigenous Australians with an incorrect view deemed as coconuts - brown on the outside white on the inside. Whereas we have a white guy winning Indigenous literary awards who can't find an Aboriginal descendent in his ancestry. We have extensive government legislation and other processes that discriminate on the basis of claimed race.

His highlighting of search engine results is not subjective and by finding obscure examples. Search for 'european art' on Google. The top result shows a black woman, as do five of the top 20 images. There's a black African king. There's Honecker and Brezhnev kissing each other. Search for 'black men' and you get photos of black men. Search for 'white man' and first up you get a woman of colour followed by photos of white males criminals or taken from articles critical of white men, plus a few other pics of black men and women. Try other searches such as 'straight couple'. Murray goes on to say that this type of bias might not be viewed by some as harmful but ultimately it sacrifices truth in the pursuit of a political goal. I don't think that is a good thing.

 

[kickazz]

Yeah I tried some of the Google searches too, results were as the book predicted.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Yeah I tried some of the Google searches too, results were as the book predicted.

I'd be inclined to interpret some of that with some caution, as there may be other mechanisms at play within the algorithm.
For example if you search for "pregnant woman", you get mainly pictures of white women that are pregnant. This suggests that people who are looking specifically for pregnant women that are white don't normally bother to add the word "white"; the "whiteness" works kind of like a 'default setting' for the search. In other words, an addition of the word "white" to the search is tautological if what people are after is pictures of pregnant white women.

On the other hand, if you want pictures of white pregnant women in interracial couples, then you won't find them just by typing "pregnant woman". You'd need to type "pregnant white woman" and add something like "with Asian man". Over time, the algorithm learns that people who type "pregnant white woman..." are not clicking on the images of pregnant white women by themselves, or with white men - because the people that want those images just type "pregnant woman", or "pregnant couple". Eventually, "pregnant white woman" leads to what you get today.

 

[Marcel Proust]

The storm before the storm - Duncan. Very good.

Boy swallows universe. - pretty good Australian, quite funny

History of Ukrainian tractors - again not bad. A bit funny