Scan barcode
A review by colinlusk
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity — And Why This Harms Everybody by Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay
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.