Scan barcode
scatteredcorgi's review against another edition
2.0
Eh... it's drivel. I, too, am interested in the problems within the concept of identity politics. I was hoping for some well-researched insight. The authors set up postmodernism and critical theory as such an incomprehensible straw man that it is hard to take them seriously. Like any school of thought, postmodernism and critical theory are subject to real and serious critique. This ain't it.
jeffammons's review against another edition
4.0
This book gave me a lot to think about. I don't agree with everything the authors put forward, but I appreciated their attempt to articulate and refute some common claims. I think I better understand my own values and where I agree or disagree with the items discussed in this book, which feels like a solid win for me.
One caution: This book is super-dense. It took a lot of work to read and reread enough to comprehend it.
One caution: This book is super-dense. It took a lot of work to read and reread enough to comprehend it.
colinlusk's review against another edition
5.0
Very impressed with this. It's a stirring defence of liberalism against the corrosive effect of postmodern theory. Now, postmodern theory tends to be quite difficult to argue against simply because its so slippery and deliberately irrational, but they do a heroic job, taking each aspect of it out and examining its premises and its flaws. It's really noticeable that they do this without strawmanning. In other words, they don't dismiss the arguments by mocking them or interpreting them unfairly; instead, they express each thought they are seeking to counter in the clearest, most favourable terms possible before pointing out its flaws. This is important because too often when people counter bad ideas on the left they tend to sound a bit reactionary, as though they have just read a few scare stories about the excesses of woke students and got their knickers in a twist.
So, proceeding carefully, they build a very strong case, comprehensively demonstrating the flawed reasoning behind the fashionable bullshit that fills so much of our non-fiction bestseller lists. They clearly set out why liberalism is a better route to securing freedom, equality, and real social justice in our world. This is really important, because there are better ways for the left to defeat the right without lurching to the left and turning its back on the whole of modernity.
Best of all, it's easy to understand (quite an accomplishment in itself!) and not boring.
OK, having eulogised the book, I feel its necessary to comment on the authors. I do this not as an ad-hominem attack, but because I think it's relevant to the content: Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, together with a third academic Peter Boghossian, pulled off a very funny hoax a few years ago, known as The Grievance Studies affair, and deserve huge plaudits for having shown up the low standards of some "academic" journals. If you haven't heard about it, go andm Google it. It's great. That's what made me interested in this book.
Pluckrose is British and Lindsay American. Although they obviously both brainy AF, Lindsay was "reluctantly" advocating voting for Trump at the last election. (He didn't *seem* very reluctant though - he seemed to be enjoying the attention). He did this in the basis of some frankly laughable reasons such as having read an article by some left-wing academic who would have precisely zero power in a Biden administration, talking about abolishing the constitution. He even refers to Biden as a "Marxist" which is just ridiculous.
Now, I know when your whole schtick is criticising bad theory on the left, voting democrat would undermine your personal brand. I can see how hard it would be to save face in that situation. But I would respectfully submit that defence of reason and accuracy is the key point here. And if in defending that you have found yourself making common cause with a man who lies constantly, threatens anyone who tries hold him up to scrutiny, undermines the free press, disregards science, hates liberalism and clearly doesn't even read books, you might want to ask yourself "have I made a logical mis-step somewhere along the line?" I'm not saying he has to vote Biden, obviously, he can do what he likes, but you can't call yourself a serious defender of truth if you're in the Trump train.
This is a rare case where I think the character of the author is pretty relevant. He and Pluckrose have made a very good argument but he seems to have let his urge to own the libs guide his voting decisions instead of a clear-eyed assessment of what's best for society as a whole, and that fact takes a lot of the force out of the argument. I'm happy to say Pluckrose doesn't share his view.
So, proceeding carefully, they build a very strong case, comprehensively demonstrating the flawed reasoning behind the fashionable bullshit that fills so much of our non-fiction bestseller lists. They clearly set out why liberalism is a better route to securing freedom, equality, and real social justice in our world. This is really important, because there are better ways for the left to defeat the right without lurching to the left and turning its back on the whole of modernity.
Best of all, it's easy to understand (quite an accomplishment in itself!) and not boring.
OK, having eulogised the book, I feel its necessary to comment on the authors. I do this not as an ad-hominem attack, but because I think it's relevant to the content: Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, together with a third academic Peter Boghossian, pulled off a very funny hoax a few years ago, known as The Grievance Studies affair, and deserve huge plaudits for having shown up the low standards of some "academic" journals. If you haven't heard about it, go andm Google it. It's great. That's what made me interested in this book.
Pluckrose is British and Lindsay American. Although they obviously both brainy AF, Lindsay was "reluctantly" advocating voting for Trump at the last election. (He didn't *seem* very reluctant though - he seemed to be enjoying the attention). He did this in the basis of some frankly laughable reasons such as having read an article by some left-wing academic who would have precisely zero power in a Biden administration, talking about abolishing the constitution. He even refers to Biden as a "Marxist" which is just ridiculous.
Now, I know when your whole schtick is criticising bad theory on the left, voting democrat would undermine your personal brand. I can see how hard it would be to save face in that situation. But I would respectfully submit that defence of reason and accuracy is the key point here. And if in defending that you have found yourself making common cause with a man who lies constantly, threatens anyone who tries hold him up to scrutiny, undermines the free press, disregards science, hates liberalism and clearly doesn't even read books, you might want to ask yourself "have I made a logical mis-step somewhere along the line?" I'm not saying he has to vote Biden, obviously, he can do what he likes, but you can't call yourself a serious defender of truth if you're in the Trump train.
This is a rare case where I think the character of the author is pretty relevant. He and Pluckrose have made a very good argument but he seems to have let his urge to own the libs guide his voting decisions instead of a clear-eyed assessment of what's best for society as a whole, and that fact takes a lot of the force out of the argument. I'm happy to say Pluckrose doesn't share his view.
3batsinatrenchcoat's review against another edition
3.0
This book was alright, explained a few concepts that I was trying to get a better grasp on but I think that I would have liked to hear more of Pluckrose's opinions. As usual with theses political and sociology type books there were some concepts I agreed on and somethings that I disagreed on. I think that Pluckrose explained everything well but at times it felt like the narrative/prose were droning on and on if that makes sense. I wanted to hear Pluckrose's voice more in a manner of speaking.
wintersky95's review against another edition
5.0
I found this book very interesting and informative. My favorite was the last two chapters. It really wrapped everything up nicely. If you are curious why the current ideologies got their foothold, this is a great summary!
patricia_nascimento's review against another edition
5.0
RATING: 4.5 star
This book is an exercise in logic against woke culture. As a former 'member' of woke culture, I am happy that these books that posit that this ideology is poisonous can still be published (yes, we are that far gone).
Liberalism is now synonym with woke ideology which shames real liberals (like me). Maybe the fact that I am against the current state of identity politics will make me lose friends in here I cannot help saying that all extremisms are bad... this one included.
.
This book is an exercise in logic against woke culture. As a former 'member' of woke culture, I am happy that these books that posit that this ideology is poisonous can still be published (yes, we are that far gone).
Liberalism is now synonym with woke ideology which shames real liberals (like me). Maybe the fact that I am against the current state of identity politics will make me lose friends in here I cannot help saying that all extremisms are bad... this one included.
.
jennmora's review against another edition
4.0
When you were a kid, perhaps you had a prankster sibling. If so, picture your sibling hands you the garden hose and tells you to look inside. Then he gleefully turns it on full blast in your face. That's exactly what this book felt like beginning to end. Full force blast to the face. I'm so thankful to the authors for their careful study and explanation of Critical Theory. I want to send a copy of this to our school board and district office as they are knee deep in this junk!
dlwaugh's review against another edition
4.0
The book is a very helpful dive into critical theories with chapters on postcolonnial theory, queer theory, critical race theory, feminism and gender studies, and disability and fat studies. The authors tie all these theories to the broader postmodern theory and its "applied turn" which is helpful. One of the most problematic aspects all these theories share is that they are un-criticisable (I made that word up). Critique is simply oppression by another name.
I believe that, at points, the authors were picking the most extreme papers and case studies to make their point, which made the alarmist a bit less credible. In addition, I'm probably more open to accepting some aspects of postmodern philosophy than the authors are, which leads me to be more open to some of the insights from these critical theories. I'm glad I read a bit of Richard Delgado (critical race theorist) before reading this - it helped me understand that particular movement and then the critique a bit better.
The book helped me understand that words/phrases I use may not mean the same thing to everyone, especially those steeped in the academic world (i.e. systemic racism, social justice, etc)
In the end, I do believe these critical theories are counterproductive and will only serve to exacerbate problems related to racism, sexism, bigotry towards LGBTQ persons, etc.
I believe that, at points, the authors were picking the most extreme papers and case studies to make their point, which made the alarmist a bit less credible. In addition, I'm probably more open to accepting some aspects of postmodern philosophy than the authors are, which leads me to be more open to some of the insights from these critical theories. I'm glad I read a bit of Richard Delgado (critical race theorist) before reading this - it helped me understand that particular movement and then the critique a bit better.
The book helped me understand that words/phrases I use may not mean the same thing to everyone, especially those steeped in the academic world (i.e. systemic racism, social justice, etc)
In the end, I do believe these critical theories are counterproductive and will only serve to exacerbate problems related to racism, sexism, bigotry towards LGBTQ persons, etc.
riq's review against another edition
1.0
(Un)fortunately this book is pretty much a straw man argument.