You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.49 AVERAGE
3.49 AVERAGE
Self indulgent. He preaches diversity in learning, then makes joke in chapter one about how you'd have to have a brain parasite to take up women's studies. Stopped reading.
Yikes. I knew this book was written to blast progressives like me. But having had a handful of family members read this, I was curious.
I'll start off by saying I'm extremely leery of anyone who claims to be the only voice of reason or have all the answers. But when that person claims in the INTRODUCTION of his book that social justice warriors pose just as much danger to society as the TERRORISTS WHO FLEW PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS... Sorry guy, you just lost all appeals to being a moral authority or voice of reason before you even got to Chapter 1.
I'm extremely unimpressed with this book. Absolute rage bait for the right wrapped in sizable vocabulary and pseudo-academia. About a third of his "citations" in the book are just his own tweets and psychology today articles. He constantly quotes himself from Twitter or podcasts... I guess he likes to show off his quippy, albeit unoriginal remarks like "fuck your feelings" and wanted to find any excuse to work them in. It feels pretty stale and lazy. He also vehemently defends his right to block people on Twitter for their "anti-intellectualism" and yet admits to throwing a hissy fit when others block him for their same assessment of him. Again. Yikes.
He is also about the biggest drama queen I've ever read who calls himself an academic. Comparing DEI initiatives to swearing allegiance to Saddam Hussein... Or if you see a liberal psychiatrist, they'll blame your schizophrenia on climate change and Donald Trump.... Bro. Calm your tits.
His examples from people who were "cancelled" also left a lot to be desired. Like the guy who wore a shirt with bikini clad women on it who's career was supposedly ruined. Or the other guy who made a sexist remark and his career was ruined. He stated they were "forced to resign" but gives no details. WHO forced them to resign? The board? The university? Or did they just get an onslaught of "wow, maybe you should have thought twice" emails and couldn't handle the criticism and FELT forced by public opinion?
The trouble with his stance on freedom of speech is twofold. First, he spends an exorbitant amount of time ridiculing progressives, insulting them, and boiling all their arguments down to the "don't hurt anyone's feelings" argument. As if there's a single braincell in every progressives head and thats all they can think about. He then goes on to say that living in a society with other people means you WILL be offended. Put your big girl pants on and deal with it. But then he cites multiple examples throughout the book where in HE was offended by the political correctness of others. Let's just say his own reaction to these instances appeared less than mature. Very inconsistent attitudes at best, hypocritical at worst. "Compassion for me, but not for thee" since HE is the voice of reason and progressives are all "hysterical" (don't get me started on his constant use of this word and the misogynistic connotations he's clearly trying to not-so-subtley conjur).
Second, and this is the issue I take with most freedom of speech arguments I hear from the right, is that many folks on the right seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes we have a constitutional right to be vocal about our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs free from persecution from the government. That does not mean, however, that all ideas, people, and beliefs deserve the right to be platformed and/or financially compensated. Nor does it mean people won't think differently of you because of those beliefs. Yes you can think and say almost anything you want and should not fear arrest, incarceration, or fines. That doesn't mean a university must invite you to speak or a private company must platform and pay you for your sarcastic diatreibes on their website.
Yes technically you have the right to propagate ideas like the earth is flat and Hitler wasnt such a bad guy, but NO ONE ELSE, human, company or institution, has any responsibility to help you dessiminate your bad ideas. Yes you have the right to make sexist jokes, but I also have the right to call you and asshole for making those jokes. Which brings me to my other major issue.
Folks like Mr. Saad never seem to account for the ever-shifting Overton Window. As a society, the threshold for what is suitable and appropriate conversation, politically or otherwise, is ALWAYS in flux. A hundred years ago, racist and sexist rehoteric were much more prominent than they are today. Why? Because we evolved as a society, reluctantly gave women and POC more rights, and decided we should treat all humans equally. Is it illegal to still be racist or sexist? No. You can spew racism, homophobia, sexism, etc almost all you want. But as a society, we've deemed that inappropriate and despicable behavior. It's not the responsibility of society to coddle you for your gross language and beliefs that may at one time have fallen within the Overton Window that is now considered offensive and antiquated. Times change. Learn or get left behind.
Folks like Mr. Saad are constantly stating that they're being targeted for their beliefs. Maybe. But more accurately, they're putting a target on their own back because they refuse to actually learn more about alternate ideas and instead dismissing them for their most outlandish takes. The thing about simply asserting one's self as inherently reasonable as the author does in this book is that the assumption becomes that you no longer need to prove or justify your views. You just ARE reasonable. And when someone defends their own view and asks you to learn something new, you can reasonably and stubbornly declare like a toddler swept up in tantrum "you can't make me"!!
No Mr. Saad. I can't make you learn something new, or make you see the benefit of interacting with people in a less overtly offensive way. You do in fact have the freedom to wear what you like, say what you think, and propegate outdated and largely cherry-picked research. You have the right to be an insufferable prick with a palpable distain for progressives and viewpoints you very clearly do not understand. And I retain the right to wholeheartedly write you off as a disingenuous fearmonger.
I'll start off by saying I'm extremely leery of anyone who claims to be the only voice of reason or have all the answers. But when that person claims in the INTRODUCTION of his book that social justice warriors pose just as much danger to society as the TERRORISTS WHO FLEW PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS... Sorry guy, you just lost all appeals to being a moral authority or voice of reason before you even got to Chapter 1.
I'm extremely unimpressed with this book. Absolute rage bait for the right wrapped in sizable vocabulary and pseudo-academia. About a third of his "citations" in the book are just his own tweets and psychology today articles. He constantly quotes himself from Twitter or podcasts... I guess he likes to show off his quippy, albeit unoriginal remarks like "fuck your feelings" and wanted to find any excuse to work them in. It feels pretty stale and lazy. He also vehemently defends his right to block people on Twitter for their "anti-intellectualism" and yet admits to throwing a hissy fit when others block him for their same assessment of him. Again. Yikes.
He is also about the biggest drama queen I've ever read who calls himself an academic. Comparing DEI initiatives to swearing allegiance to Saddam Hussein... Or if you see a liberal psychiatrist, they'll blame your schizophrenia on climate change and Donald Trump.... Bro. Calm your tits.
His examples from people who were "cancelled" also left a lot to be desired. Like the guy who wore a shirt with bikini clad women on it who's career was supposedly ruined. Or the other guy who made a sexist remark and his career was ruined. He stated they were "forced to resign" but gives no details. WHO forced them to resign? The board? The university? Or did they just get an onslaught of "wow, maybe you should have thought twice" emails and couldn't handle the criticism and FELT forced by public opinion?
The trouble with his stance on freedom of speech is twofold. First, he spends an exorbitant amount of time ridiculing progressives, insulting them, and boiling all their arguments down to the "don't hurt anyone's feelings" argument. As if there's a single braincell in every progressives head and thats all they can think about. He then goes on to say that living in a society with other people means you WILL be offended. Put your big girl pants on and deal with it. But then he cites multiple examples throughout the book where in HE was offended by the political correctness of others. Let's just say his own reaction to these instances appeared less than mature. Very inconsistent attitudes at best, hypocritical at worst. "Compassion for me, but not for thee" since HE is the voice of reason and progressives are all "hysterical" (don't get me started on his constant use of this word and the misogynistic connotations he's clearly trying to not-so-subtley conjur).
Second, and this is the issue I take with most freedom of speech arguments I hear from the right, is that many folks on the right seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes we have a constitutional right to be vocal about our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs free from persecution from the government. That does not mean, however, that all ideas, people, and beliefs deserve the right to be platformed and/or financially compensated. Nor does it mean people won't think differently of you because of those beliefs. Yes you can think and say almost anything you want and should not fear arrest, incarceration, or fines. That doesn't mean a university must invite you to speak or a private company must platform and pay you for your sarcastic diatreibes on their website.
Yes technically you have the right to propagate ideas like the earth is flat and Hitler wasnt such a bad guy, but NO ONE ELSE, human, company or institution, has any responsibility to help you dessiminate your bad ideas. Yes you have the right to make sexist jokes, but I also have the right to call you and asshole for making those jokes. Which brings me to my other major issue.
Folks like Mr. Saad never seem to account for the ever-shifting Overton Window. As a society, the threshold for what is suitable and appropriate conversation, politically or otherwise, is ALWAYS in flux. A hundred years ago, racist and sexist rehoteric were much more prominent than they are today. Why? Because we evolved as a society, reluctantly gave women and POC more rights, and decided we should treat all humans equally. Is it illegal to still be racist or sexist? No. You can spew racism, homophobia, sexism, etc almost all you want. But as a society, we've deemed that inappropriate and despicable behavior. It's not the responsibility of society to coddle you for your gross language and beliefs that may at one time have fallen within the Overton Window that is now considered offensive and antiquated. Times change. Learn or get left behind.
Folks like Mr. Saad are constantly stating that they're being targeted for their beliefs. Maybe. But more accurately, they're putting a target on their own back because they refuse to actually learn more about alternate ideas and instead dismissing them for their most outlandish takes. The thing about simply asserting one's self as inherently reasonable as the author does in this book is that the assumption becomes that you no longer need to prove or justify your views. You just ARE reasonable. And when someone defends their own view and asks you to learn something new, you can reasonably and stubbornly declare like a toddler swept up in tantrum "you can't make me"!!
No Mr. Saad. I can't make you learn something new, or make you see the benefit of interacting with people in a less overtly offensive way. You do in fact have the freedom to wear what you like, say what you think, and propegate outdated and largely cherry-picked research. You have the right to be an insufferable prick with a palpable distain for progressives and viewpoints you very clearly do not understand. And I retain the right to wholeheartedly write you off as a disingenuous fearmonger.
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
medium-paced
I absolutely loved this one. I’d been waiting to read it for ages and Gad Saad did not disappoint. I felt he put into words so much of what I’ve been thinking.Would 100% recommend this,perfect balance of sarcastic humour & pulling no punches in calling out ridiculousness
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
A great book, but might be polarizing to some. The author's hope is that once one frees their mind and uses common sense, it'll all make sense.
informative
reflective
fast-paced
In this literary contribution, Gad Saad makes an array of assertions targeting what he deems "parasitic" ideas, warranting their eradication. One such assertion resonates with me due to my scholarly exploration of the same concept in my current doctoral thesis: biological essentialism. Saad identifies this concept as the "recognition of evolved biological realities." Therefore, to be anti-essentialist is to inevitably not be about recognition of evolved biological realities. However, it becomes evident that his definition neither encapsulates the essence of biological essentialism nor engages in a comprehensive debate.
Biological essentialism presents the thought that all members of a specific kind share a unifying, intrinsic essence or traits. Nevertheless, most Darwinist philosophers I am acquainted with express a marked rejection of essentialism, largely grounded in the lack of universal essential properties — characteristics shared unequivocally by all species members. Even Linnaeus, a pre-Darwinian essentialist, struggled to pinpoint the essence of species. Evolutionary science even explains this difficulty, citing factors like mutation, recombination, and genetic drift, which can potentially result in the loss of an essential trait in subsequent generations of a species.
Having been perturbed by this misrepresentation, I found it difficult to continue reading the book, so I stopped. For anyone interested in biological essentialism, I highly recommend the "Species" section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a more enlightening exploration of the subject by one of my mentors, Dr. Marc Ereshefsky.
It appears that Saad is highlighting what he perceives as parasitic concepts, such as biological essentialism, instead of unmasking truly parasitic ideas. Disappointingly, he makes no significant strides to evaluate his own so-called parasitic ideas critically, nor does he candidly classify himself as a conservative, a position evident upon analyzing his logic. You may find this book to your liking if you hold conservative views. However, I recommend looking elsewhere if you seek a book that presents well-reasoned arguments. Thank God I borrowed it from the library and could return it without a fuss.
Biological essentialism presents the thought that all members of a specific kind share a unifying, intrinsic essence or traits. Nevertheless, most Darwinist philosophers I am acquainted with express a marked rejection of essentialism, largely grounded in the lack of universal essential properties — characteristics shared unequivocally by all species members. Even Linnaeus, a pre-Darwinian essentialist, struggled to pinpoint the essence of species. Evolutionary science even explains this difficulty, citing factors like mutation, recombination, and genetic drift, which can potentially result in the loss of an essential trait in subsequent generations of a species.
Having been perturbed by this misrepresentation, I found it difficult to continue reading the book, so I stopped. For anyone interested in biological essentialism, I highly recommend the "Species" section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a more enlightening exploration of the subject by one of my mentors, Dr. Marc Ereshefsky.
It appears that Saad is highlighting what he perceives as parasitic concepts, such as biological essentialism, instead of unmasking truly parasitic ideas. Disappointingly, he makes no significant strides to evaluate his own so-called parasitic ideas critically, nor does he candidly classify himself as a conservative, a position evident upon analyzing his logic. You may find this book to your liking if you hold conservative views. However, I recommend looking elsewhere if you seek a book that presents well-reasoned arguments. Thank God I borrowed it from the library and could return it without a fuss.
informative
medium-paced