The best
Ideologies & Doctrines eBooks:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Ideologies & Doctrines eBooks by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Ideologies & Doctrines eBooks:
Shapiro is worthless a thinker and his ideas are totally tainted by the fact that he is a partisan hack. Anyone who has written a book that is called How To Debate and Destroy Leftists, has exposed himself as a shill for one side. I think we would do well to dismiss people who demonstrably argue in bad faith, like shapiro.
Also I don't see how this is relevant to Harris.
Check out The Righteous Mind, a great and deep analysis of morality.
One of the takeaways I found fascinating is not that liberals and conservatives align differently on morality -- that's not really a surprise -- but that conservatives overall consider multiple different categories very important (e.g. sanctity, authority), while liberals HEAVILY consider fairness as a category that far outweighs the other moralities.
The short version is, it may feel satisfying to say that "Democrats will be fine with all that shit" and just sweep it under the rug, but I don't think that statement is true. I think the Democratic approach to leadership has plenty of its own flaws, but fairness is not one of them. I think Democrats tend to hold their own to higher expectations of fairness behavior than what we're seeing in the GOP.
(mods, please remove if my source is bad)
I like the book The Righteous Mind and its discussion of morality. One of the points it makes is that being loyal to one's tribe and obeying authority are deeply moral matters for some people - and that those are more important then being nice, or being fair. The President is the head of a group they identify with and thus they are loyal.
They know well that trans men exist and thinking they don't is exactly what they want. Their transphobia against trans men is one of the primary ways they masquerade as feminism.
They know that harassing trans women is, ultimately, a dead end. It doesn't further their ends of extermination (And don't be fooled, that's their end goal). But it does distracts activists really well.
They further their ends by poisoning the well of public opinion using trans men, claiming that patriarchal society has forced tomboys into becoming men. They use the language of feminism, but they subvert it's meaning, in order to trick the public into believing that they are feminists.
While people are focusing on the online harassment campaigns against trans women, TERFs are publishing books about (CW: transphobia) trans men.
Trans men are intentionally targeted quietly by TERFs while they loudly target trans women, in order to divide and conquer, without even having to sow division.
They know exactly who trans men are. They're pretending not to so they fly under the radar.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N39W2DI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
there you go, this is their bible.
one of the top comments:
> One of my political science professors pointed out that the Nazi party was a right wing creation. I raised my hand and asked how this could be the case if they identified themselves as socialists. My professor shut down the conversation by telling me I hadn't paid close enough attention to the reading and refused to discuss it further. Now, thirty years later, that conversation finally makes sense.
Another fantastic book in the same vein is What's The Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank. Really does a great job explaining how conservatives have gotten people in the south and midwest to vote for them based on an ever changing idea of "conservative values" despite Republican economic policy being the opposite of what they should be voting for. Highly recommended.
He created this himself, this is the book he wrote:
>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
​
And here: Youtube: Shapiro's only reason to debate the left voluntarily (timestamped)
Other than being forced to or for the unlikely chance that you've found the only honest leftist in America, here is the only reason Shapiro can find to debate someone on the left:
>Shapiro: The only other reason you should ever have a conversation with anyone on the left, is if your are in public in front of a large audience and then your goal is to humiliate them as badly as possible. That is the goal of the conversation.
>But but but libertarians tell me if there were no laws they would be double super honest! After all if the laws are already ineffective surely having none would be soooo much better...
No libertarians don't actually think that. They just think having a strong central government makes it easier for companies to do their bullshit, not harder. Just continuing to use the US as an example, as a dishonest corp you have to just bribe one central entity and they have vast powers to re-write laws to favor you and eliminate competition so you can do whatever you want. By contrast if you have a weak central government there isn't a strong entity to corrupt and you have a vast array of different groups to corrupt to get your unfettered access, such as the various independent organizations covering things like standards, ratings, reputation, credit, mediation, security, etc. And none of them have a monopoly they can be easily replaced by more reliable entities. Just as a real world example of what such groups look like see things such as UL (Electricity standards), ISO, ANSI, credit bureaus, etc.
Continuing with real world examples, with the EU parliament getting stronger every day, you can expect those consumer protections start to erode. It's much easier to bribe some MEPs than it is to bribe every legislature from every separate country in Europe. Article 13's just a preview of things to come. All countries naturally gravitate toward more government power and less freedom as seizing a nation's capital to remain in power as long as possible is the end goal of all politicians.
Honestly, I don't mind. It sucks that trans women receive so much of transphobia, but it's not like I want my AFAB siblings to receive more. We'll hold the line lol. Whenever they do talk about you it's pretty awful.
I actually get about 10 times more mad when people are transmisandrist tbh. Transmisogyny? Eh, just another day. This book? Absolutely fuming.
Ben Shapiro literally admits that he argues in bad faith. He wrote a book about it https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2
This piece of shit should never be given a platform ever again to spew his dogshit opinions, because that's all they are. Anyone that unironically listens to Ben was probably a massive loser in school.
This is all assuming a capitalist system as the basis though. I'm much more in favor of a planned economy, so these risks wouldn't even come about. We wouldn't build a bakery or ask for investments for it unless we know it would be utilized. For example, we wouldn't start a bakery in a town that already has one, instead we'd invest in a town that doesn't. Focus on human needs rather than profit.
And we already have planned economies that work amazingly well, they're just focused on profit. The People's Republic of Walmart is an amazing book I recommend to everyone.
Totally agree. Shapino possesses a fraction the intellect of, say, William F. Buckley Jr., and I already disagree with nearly everything good ol' Buckley had to say. Shapino says all the same shit but less competently and with worse packaging.
He's also got a sense of entitlement the size of a planet, which is revealed any time he comes up on someone who actually challenges him and he throws a tantrum.
He literally wrote a book about how he doesn't argue in good faith. As far as I'm concerned, just the fact that he wrote this book calls everything he says into immediate question, even without knowing that he's also lied repeatedly about statistics (especially when discussing trans people and trans rights) and misrepresented the sources he cites.
I'm always baffled by the sort of people who say things like, "I don't agree with him, but I do like watching him wreck college kids." Like, why? What does society gain from Ben Shapino going around on multi-million dollar college tours, spreading "ideas" that don't hold up to any sort of academic scrutiny, and embarrassing kids who are still trying to figure their shit out?
I guess I just don't get what's appealing about that.
e: phrasing
He wrote an e-book openly explaining that this is his strategy when arguing. There's even a lecture version you can find on YouTube where he expands further and claims that arguments with leftists should never occur for the purpose of mutual understanding or good faith discussion, but rather should only be done in public in order to humiliate them in front of as large an audience as possible.
I believe it was the same lecture where he advised conservative college students to pretend to understand "left wing ideas" taught by their professors in order to get good grades on tests and graduate. To me, this seriously calls his academic credentials into question. "Harvard grad" means a lot less to me when the grad in question freely admits to having intentionally eschewed the lessons being taught in his classes in order to preserve the pre-existing views from his upbringing. At best, it's indicative of extreme closed-mindedness.
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America (yes I know the title is a bit cringy) actually works through this in rather solid, data-backed detail.
Of course any individual has the possibility of being convinced or shifted from their position, but on a large-scale the boomer generation has caused, and are still causing, a LOT of damage due to actions of mass-sociopathy.
I know you think you're making jokes, but it's dead on the truth. There's a book by that ~~manchild that talks fast~~ ben shapiro, ~~can't rember the books name or his name but it's a manual on how to own libs~~ the book is called "how to debate leftists and destroy them: 11 rules for winning the argument". It's illuminating when you read it. One of the key points is to turn the conversation around and make yourself a victim.
edit: link to the book on amazon I can't link it, or even suggest googling for a pdf of it because that would be against site rules, but I imagine it would be very easy to find a pdf.
I recently read the book "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. He's a social psychologist and tries to answer your question: how can a rational individual vote conservative, when that vote seems to go against one's self-interest? He answers the question by analyzing people's morality systems, and goes on to say that people don't vote based on rationality (active thinking), but based on morality (feelings). The book is very well written and meticulously built up -- I strongly recommend giving it a read! Amazon link here
> By the way the only one of those categories that is a challenge to capitalism is the bleeding heart liberal.
​
This is true. The real threat to capitalism are the bleeding heart liberals, such as comrade Bono, Robert "Red scare" Redford, and Paul "little Gulag" Mcartney.
​
>The far left will get her hair dye at Walmart or Amazon
​
I recognize this rhetorical rapier well. You must be a pupil of the Shapiro method of Leftist Destruction, unquestionably. Former practitioner of the art, I am. I once found myself debating a female and I was like listen you tainted whore, you claim you are a leftist, and yet I see you are wearing shoes that where made by CAPITALISM. Heroic victory.
Entryism is a hell of a thing.
Note that now that the wokeists have enough lawyers and judges in, they're trying to make the bar exam easier. I.e., they want to open the door for an infinite number of wokeist activists to claim to be lawyers.
​
Edit: As an aside, I'm absolutely gobsmacked that book is available on Kindle.
​
https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seducing-Daughters-ebook/dp/B07YL6XK55
Some make headlines for obvious reasons but come on, most?
I don't doubt that some homophobes are closeted, but most is an exaggeration.
Read "The Righteous Mind". Our perceptions of right and wrong frequently stem from our upbringing, and they rarely make sense.
I can only suggest you read his book or his research papers at this point because you have the wrong impression about how the research was done and you are rejecting the results because of your assumptions.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0015141
I apologize I don't have free links for either.
I read this book a few months ago.
The Sociopathic Generation.
His points about how it came about applies to every generation that primarily had a top down one way communication system including mine Gen-X.
Maybe especially mine, as our original name was "the latch key kids"... but then the Boomers were known as "the Me Generation"...
Feel free to get from local store as I did..
You might want to read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion".https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion-ebook/dp/B0052FF7YM/
He explains that humans are fundamentally irrational creatures driven by intuition first then look for rationalization second.
People have an intuition about how the world should be. Religious people look for rationalization for that intuition in scripture and their faith tradition.
In conservative christianity, you're not going to convince anyone that being gay is NOT a sin unless and until they're willing to consider the possibility. They have to be willing to listen to the stories LGBTQ+ people tell about their experience. They have to meet and come to love LGBTQ+ people as individuals.
Their intuition about how the world should be has to change first.
Bruce Cannon Gibney talks about that in "A generation of Sociopaths - how the baby boomers betrayed America", basically the pension funds will run out of money sometime in the mid-2030's.
So that is another problem to consider.
>Sure, Shapiro can't be held responsible for that,
In a way he can, Shapiro's book:
>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
Also, Ben Shapiro's book:
>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
​
And here: Youtube: Shapiro's only reason to debate the left voluntarily (timestamped)
Other than being forced to or for the unlikely chance that you've found the only honest leftist in America, here is the only reason Shapiro can find to debate someone on the left:
>Shapiro: The only other reason you should ever have a conversation with anyone on the left, is if your are in public in front of a large audience and then your goal is to humiliate them as badly as possible. That is the goal of the conversation.
I absolutely love The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It is not really an intro to psychology, but it focuses on aspects of human thinking that relate very strongly to the politically divided world we currently find ourselves in. What is the foundation of our morality? How do we make decisions? How do we change our minds? Fascinating stuff.
Because they are mentally ill. Gender dysmorphia and body dysmorphia exist. If someone thinks they are another sex, they are not in touch with reality and are definitionally mentally ill, similar to schizophrenia and hallucination.
You need to learn. It is not basic biology. It is a social and moral panic. I'll give you one resource. If you actually care, you will read it rather than continuing with your grooming, which I know is your real intent.
This may make or break the Iranian government.
The world we live in is one where free, democratic counties are stable, a powerful, authoritarian dictatorships are stable. Dictators that try to become benevolent rulers and cross this gap often fall to revolutions.
​
Iran is precariously in the middle. Their citizens are much richer than citizens in dictatorships, they have a (semi) democratic parliament and President with considerable power within the government, and citizens have access to considerable rights and freedoms over many citizens all over the world. However, compared to many democracies, they lack many personal freedoms many of us in Democracies are accustomed to, and enjoy.
If protestors are successful, it could open the floodgates for reforms and a total collapse of control the Iranian government maintains. The government is in a Catch-22 situation, in trying to maintain stability, squashing protests only adds more fuel to the fire, while giving into protestors can open the floodgates of reforms that could destroy the government, lead to more protests, all which could lead to a revolution.
However, only time will tell.
​
Relevant CGP Grey video and the book it was adapted from, 'The Dictator's Handbook'
>I was talking about the market not being some perfect infallible thing which it isn't.
First you need to define what do you mean by "thing" and perfect at what? the market is close to perfect at allocating economical resources. But you dont state what is your idea of what a free market should do.
The free market goal is to allocate economical resources in the most efficent way, and it surely is the best method we have now. Whatever goal you think the market is failing at, you need to define it and answer if the market is actually designated to that whatever thing you are trying to fullfill
> The government is helpful.
In 90% of cases it does more harm than good.
> I know you need a lot of wealth to become a social democracy. The market by itself still doesn't cut it.
It does, rich countries became rich investing hard on industrializing and trading a lot. They didnt become rich by using any social democracy policy.
>I didn't say anything about the regulations in those countries. How about when FDR implemented the new deal in the USA after the great depression?
You need to learn about economy history, but theres no point of discusing this if you dont even know the most basics aspects of economics.
If you are really interested read Basic economics by Thomas Sowell, extremely easy book to read and learn the most basic things of economy. Then you can truly understand economic history of any country you decide to read about.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L4FSSTA?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_RKXE2AP83F54QHXQDGXT
Check out The Dictators handbook, fascinating and depressing take on how this works. Rewarding the minumum coalition you need, Trump was just more obvious about it