Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.49 AVERAGE
3.49 AVERAGE
Brutally honest takedown of emotive politics and the problems of virtue signalling. Saad writes from a libertarian-centerist perspective. This is not the same as my views but it was very valuable to read and consider. This also means that the majority of progressives will hate this book.
I can understand why some would find the book offensive. but for me it doesn't take from the facts that it was a catching audiobook to listen to, and he is being logical about many new ideas that are present.
Yes, it does seem his personal views are being projected in the book. still doesn't take away from it being a good book
Yes, it does seem his personal views are being projected in the book. still doesn't take away from it being a good book
I’ll try to summarize.
While there are plenty of ideas and concepts that I at the very least find intriguing, the author failed to abide by his own claim against people justifying falsehoods regarding their beliefs when he did just exactly that. He decided to use definitions and ideas that suited his own beliefs while claiming those that contradicted were just (SJW nonsense) or some other claim against it.
It appears to me that the author kept trying to put himself as the one others should measure against. While he did admit to some faults of his, the majority of references to himself appeared to me as self praise and him putting himself on a moral pedestal above others just for not believing or acting in how he believes is the right way.
This book had potential, the author wasted it.
While there are plenty of ideas and concepts that I at the very least find intriguing, the author failed to abide by his own claim against people justifying falsehoods regarding their beliefs when he did just exactly that. He decided to use definitions and ideas that suited his own beliefs while claiming those that contradicted were just (SJW nonsense) or some other claim against it.
It appears to me that the author kept trying to put himself as the one others should measure against. While he did admit to some faults of his, the majority of references to himself appeared to me as self praise and him putting himself on a moral pedestal above others just for not believing or acting in how he believes is the right way.
This book had potential, the author wasted it.
El autor presenta algunas buenas ideas, pero deja que su opinión personal por la religión musulmana protagonice largos trozos del material.
This makes me very, very happy I don't live in the West.
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Weak arguments and just overall poorly written. Meant for an echo chamber, will not change anyone's mind or make them think deeper.
I heard about this book a couple months ago, and it sounded interesting since I love reading about the irrationality of people. Previously, I never heard of Gad Saad, so I followed him on Twitter and checked out his YouTube channel. Within about a week, I unfollowed him. I'm 100% for debating and the sharing of ideas, but like many of the current SJW-bashing "intellectuals", they seem more interested in arguing than having a debate. Nevertheless, I still purchased the book on release day.
This book definitely falls into the category of books I'm reading of people I disagree with, but not by much. If I had to break it down into percentages, I'd say I disagree with about 60% of what Gad Saad has to say, but I agree with 40%. But when it comes to his overall argument that we should be able to have logical, rational discussions without people becoming outraged, I 100% disagree.
While Gad Saad uses quite a bit of research to back his arguments, it's only on specific subjects. For people like Gad Saad, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, and others, I feel there are some low-hanging fruit subjects that they love capitalizing on. When it comes to implicit biases, they avoid discussing the research because they either A) know the research isn't on their side or B) are afraid of what the research shows. Rather than looking at the research of people like Dr. Jennifer Eberdhardt, they try to simplify the message of the book White Fragility. Personally, I'd love to see someone like Gad Saad go head-to-head with Dr. Eberdhardt or Keith Payne to discuss biases and inequality.
Lastly, I gave this book a 3-star rating because there's a group of these authors that don't really present anything new in their books, but they know they'll make money off of the echo chamber they've built, so they figure "why not?".
This book definitely falls into the category of books I'm reading of people I disagree with, but not by much. If I had to break it down into percentages, I'd say I disagree with about 60% of what Gad Saad has to say, but I agree with 40%. But when it comes to his overall argument that we should be able to have logical, rational discussions without people becoming outraged, I 100% disagree.
While Gad Saad uses quite a bit of research to back his arguments, it's only on specific subjects. For people like Gad Saad, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, and others, I feel there are some low-hanging fruit subjects that they love capitalizing on. When it comes to implicit biases, they avoid discussing the research because they either A) know the research isn't on their side or B) are afraid of what the research shows. Rather than looking at the research of people like Dr. Jennifer Eberdhardt, they try to simplify the message of the book White Fragility. Personally, I'd love to see someone like Gad Saad go head-to-head with Dr. Eberdhardt or Keith Payne to discuss biases and inequality.
Lastly, I gave this book a 3-star rating because there's a group of these authors that don't really present anything new in their books, but they know they'll make money off of the echo chamber they've built, so they figure "why not?".
3.66 ;)
Normally I round up but I’m going to start rounding down. It doesn’t earn 4 stars from me so I’ll not mark it as such.
Alright, what was good? He presents a lot of information and presents it mostly in a logical manner. His analysis of the issues today are not without fault but they definitely give the reader something to consider. He says to not be silent and this goes for everyone who sees/hears/knows of something ‘wrong.’
I actually really appreciated his evolution arguments for what progressives attack as social constructs. These were backed by relevant scientific research.
What I did not like at times was his sarcasm. There’s facetiousness- poking fun for the fun of all involved; then there’s sarcasm. Sarcasm is intentionally meant to cause some kind of discomfort or pain. I find there is too much sarcasm in the world.
The use of the “f” word. Cannot stand when people can’t come up with better words to express themselves. Personal hangup.
My personal thoughts: If you aren’t silent you had better not demand others to be! We should all be able to have conversations about the issues, not blacklisting, not shunning, not blocking, etc. If you can’t have a conversation, it is a problem that begins with you, not the world. You need to deal with that before you attempt to ‘fix’ the world.
Normally I round up but I’m going to start rounding down. It doesn’t earn 4 stars from me so I’ll not mark it as such.
Alright, what was good? He presents a lot of information and presents it mostly in a logical manner. His analysis of the issues today are not without fault but they definitely give the reader something to consider. He says to not be silent and this goes for everyone who sees/hears/knows of something ‘wrong.’
I actually really appreciated his evolution arguments for what progressives attack as social constructs. These were backed by relevant scientific research.
What I did not like at times was his sarcasm. There’s facetiousness- poking fun for the fun of all involved; then there’s sarcasm. Sarcasm is intentionally meant to cause some kind of discomfort or pain. I find there is too much sarcasm in the world.
The use of the “f” word. Cannot stand when people can’t come up with better words to express themselves. Personal hangup.
My personal thoughts: If you aren’t silent you had better not demand others to be! We should all be able to have conversations about the issues, not blacklisting, not shunning, not blocking, etc. If you can’t have a conversation, it is a problem that begins with you, not the world. You need to deal with that before you attempt to ‘fix’ the world.
challenging
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced