The best Politics & Government books: Reddit reviews

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

According to the dictators handbook: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

You should always pay your military.

Edit: if you are like me, then you will read this book and think HTF is Trump president when he is a complete idiot to these rules? Well, sadly, it all makes sense if Trump isn't the 'real' leader here..

You can't directly help, but there are things you can do: Learn. Understand why this is happening and how to fight it. Then, teach.

The book "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (Amazon link (non-affiliate)) completely changed how I process information about these kinds of things. It talks at length about protests in dictatorships, why they happen, and why they sometimes don't happen. How governments fight them. How and why our own governments sometimes help and sometimes don't.

I really, really highly recommend it.

Folks should read and remember "3 Felonies A Day". Amazon link..

When everyone is guilty of something, selective enforcement is what lets inequality disguise itself as equality.

> people get thrown in jail for unpaid fines/fees and other minor violations in 13 states,

So is this a space where we can discuss the excellent book The New Jim Crow because it seems highly relevant.

Understanding what leads to political polarization is a first step in building bridges. The moral psychology research exploring the moral differences between political and religious ideologies is explored in the book <em>The Righteous Mind</em> by Jonathan Haidt, and it is often used by non-partisan citizen groups (such as Citizens' Climate Lobby) as a model for building multipartisan coalitions.

eta: links, author of book

Read this.

Or just Chomsky's essays on Vietnam, widely available for free online.

The US were the aggressors in a war of imperialism at first to maintain French colonial control of Indochina and then excused their Holocaust of Vietnamese civilians and combatants defending their homeland from bombs and genocide and torture with unverified notions of "domino theory" as part of a larger ideological war repeatedly used to excuse imperialism, torture, surveillance, genocide, repression, and domestic wealth disparity.

They engaged in widespread, consistent carpet-bombing, torture, repression, chemical and biological warfare, environmental destruction, Roman Plowing, and massacre on the people of South Vietnam. They installed a puppet regime and eliminated democracy and purged dissidents and civilians alike. They marched through destroyed villages and massacred the survivors after bombing them with millions of tonnes of bombs, far greater in a few years, than all the bombs dropped during WWII. Their environmental destruction is still devastating and lead to widespread famine and starvation and poverty.

Some reliable historians estimate 2 million Vietnamese died, or some figures have it at 1.5M. A great, great many were civilians and the combatants were defending their homeland against these atrocities, so they were also innocent. The war accomplished nothing but a communist victory in Vietnam and the US repeatedly broke their own peace agreements concluding the war. They pushed Vietnam into systemic, long-lasting poverty thereafter. The only thing the war accomplished was widespread suffering.

This comes from the video, &quot;Why girls become boys,&quot; which is filled with entirely false claims about transitioning and transgender people. If you are trans or think this video would be triggering to you... IT WILL. PLEASE do not watch. This is one of their worst videos on sex and gender.. I can't believe people actually believe this? At the end of the video, the woman speaking says it's okay to disagree with your child's gender identity and take away their social media because "you're the adult."

The woman interviewed was Abigail Shrier, who wrote a book called &quot;Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.&quot;

For a deeper understanding of the War on Drugs as it pertains to the U.S. putting more of its citizens in prison than any other nation: The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.

>More specifically, it's Disney lobbying very hard

Yes but lets not mince words here, there has been many times the government has been able to protect the public interest but didn't.

Our governments do not work like we think they do because we've been mis-educated.

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/

Public attitudes are shaped and driven by the media. If the public doesn't care, it's because we've spent years conditioning them not to care. If the public in general can't name many middle eastern cultures beyond "Muslim", that is very much the fault of the media.

If prominent newspapers started giving front page headlines to the plight of the Kurds, you'd certainly see a considerable public reaction, but right now the cycle is dominated by the anti-communist Hong-Kong protest coverage because it serves an agenda for the United States. Kurds being killed because the American government made the decision to abandon them? That's a bad look on America and the media won't give it nearly as much attention. See Manufacturing Consent on this dynamic.

I’ve got politics, and almost only politics, on my mind. This is the last weekend before midterm elections on Tuesday. I am feeling a little freaked out.

I think many people are placing all of their hope on a blue wave. I know I am! But I’m worried we’ve been lulled into this false sense of security about how realistic a blue wave is. When in reality, voter suppression and gerrymandering and general lack of political involvement is going to make it REALLY hard for progressive candidates to actually win.

I think it’s really important to spread the word about voting, but merely telling people to vote can quickly turn into gaslighting for minorities (see: voter suppression, gerrymandering). A lot of people are touting the old sentiment that if you don’t vote you can’t complain, which totally glosses over the fact that for a lot of people, it’s really hard to vote. Progressive candidates are often working for those minority groups that face high levels of voter suppression, so I’m worried... We need the votes of the people that have a difficult time voting.

I really encourage everyone to take some active steps this weekend to engage in the election. I signed up to phonebank. I hate talking on the phone but it’s too important to sit back and let others do the work, so I’m making calls on behalf of Beto all day Saturday. If anyone else wants to take action, I suggest connecting with indivisible. I’m a person who posts political articles and memes on social media but is otherwise kind of quiet about politics... but moving into the last few days of the election, that feels like it is nowhere near enough.

Also I am currently reading this book and omg, I want every white person I know to read it. I am learning so much.

It's not just a matter of being exposed. Three Felonies a Day is a great book about how it's almost impossible to not break the law on a daily basis.

I think you pretty much got your answer from previous commentators. It is largely symbolic but it does also mean Richmond would have to rely on State Police and not local police or sheriffs. That means, for example, you'd need VSP to witness something or someone would have to report it VSP, not the local police. You also wouldn't have courts in that county issuing warrants either. It's not that you can't enforce it, it's that it makes it difficult/annoying to do so. (Lots of laws on the books fall into this category btw. You likely commit felonies every day without realizing it.)

Honestly it's not that different from say state Marijuana legalization. The big difference here is scale, it's just one state vs the country. But for example, there's literally nothing stopping the DEA right now from going in themselves and rounding up marijuana business owners in Denver for violating federal law. DEA did it to medical marijuana dispensaries in CA for years. The reason they don't do this now is it's unpopular so politicians don't want to help fund it and burn local bridges to do it.

Actual source: How to Talk to Your Cat About Gun Safety: And Abstinence, Drugs, Satanism, and Other Dangers That Threaten Their Nine Lives https://www.amazon.com/dp/045149492X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ee0XDb7M2H58A

>Indulge me in the systemic injustices of the black community from the last 40-50 years after the civil rights movement ?

There are entire books you can read about this. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

&#x200B;

And then the rest of your post is just taking your incorrect premise and running with it.

This is not about thinking. There have been studies showing that education can make you better at defending incorrect information.

We spread and defend incorrect information because it reinforces a pre-existing bias, often subconscious. Information that is shared virally tends to align with one of humanity's trigger points:

• Tribalism (racism, they tuk me jobs)
• Authority (support for police, borders, force)
• Purity ("dirty" immigrants, "bleeding from her whatever")
• Sexual dominance ("I just didn't like Hillary", "Pelosi is a bitch")
• Fairness ("Republicans are hypocrites", welfare queen myths)
• Loyalty (ok for my guy to break the law)

When we focus on intelligence, we are demonstrating the Democratic bias toward rules. Education = competence = success. The Republican brain wants to reward personal exceptionalism. "I succeeded, not because of how hard I worked, but because of who I am."

If we don't understand these triggers, we will continue to be manipulated by them.

Edit: thanks very much to my anonymous gilder, but the ideas are cribbed from Jonathan Haidt's work. Highly recommend you check out either his book or his TED talk.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=asc_df_0307455777/

It would be naive to assume he's actually killing drug dealers. I recommend The Dictator's Handbook before making any assumptions about why a dictator is allowing violence against a group.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

For example, let's say an earthquake hits your country and affects 100,000 people on the verge of starvation. Let's say 50,000 support you and 50,000 don't. Guess who isn't getting a single dollar of relief regardless of how much money streams in from Western charities.

You might be interested in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which has to do with the moral psychology of the left and right.

The main gist of the book is that people have several different hard wired foundations for morality... things that we are predisposed by human psychology to see as good vs. evil. He tentatively identified five of them as: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation (and he later added another: Liberty/Oppression). He ran a variety of studies to get people to rank how important each of these foundations were to them and discovered that people on the left prioritized Care/Harm over all others (Fairness/Cheating was also important to leftists but less so... the other three were not important at all). The right surprisingly was almost as compassionate ranking Care/Harm only slightly lower than the left did but they ranked all others much higher to the point where all five (and later six) moral foundations are ranked roughly equally in the right wing world view. In instances where left and right disagree there is almost always one or more of the other moral foundations which the right is balancing against compassion and which the left is disregarding as unimportant.

The book is of course much more involved that that discussing where and how he came up with his thesis, the experiments he did and his speculation about the social utility of each of the moral foundations and why they appear to be hard-wired in our heads and changes he made to his theory along the way. It's definitely worth reading.

I really really recommend reading Manufacturing Consent to anyone who hasn't. Its as relevant today as when it was written. One of its focuses is on New York Times: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 or however the heck you read books. I don't think Noam would give a crap if you pirate it.

Actually don't need to be tech-savvy, just economic-savvy(and if you're in this sub without knowing basic economics, you get McNuked :3).

Bitcoin mining can use various types of hardware to mine(including Graphic Processing Units/GPUs, such as the GTX 1080s in the OP).

Thus, demand for GPUs has increased. What happens to prices when demand increases?

That is why OP is butthurt about Bitcoin.

^(or the shortages in case there wasn't a price increase)

I absolutely respect your position.

Laws changing is a very slow process, which is why we rely on courts to constantly test their application. What happens when we know the written laws are harming people but the legislative body is slow to act? Should the justice department knowingly hurt those people for years just because of a technicality? Studies and lit have alleged that the average American commits three felonies a day. I think I would rather live in a world where the justice department used their discretion colored by their humanity and empathy for its application over robotic enforcement. After all, what is the justice department for if not to help provide an environment of health and safety for the community?

Edit: just as an afterthought there’s also the issue of budget. Trial, investigation, and storage of criminals is a very expensive business. Would you rather courts, prisons, and jails be overloaded with pot smokers or be able to quickly and efficiently process people who have actually hurt others in their crimes? Discretion is very important.

The scam of the federal reserve system is explained most clearly in the book from G Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island. This is an amazing book: if you don't believe me, look at the rating on amazon with 1400+ reviews.

Hey, no problem: Here's a couple I really enjoyed that helped me learn how to really articulate what I think and understand what others were saying about politics in those sorts of discussions:

1. The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. This contrasts how liberals and conservatives think about politics in a way that I think makes sense of what can often be really frustrating arguments.
2. Justice by Michael Sandel. This walks you through different ways you can reason about politics so that you can develop sharper and more consistent opinions.

Prof. Chomsky literally co-wrote the book on how the media is used by the ruling class to get the public to buy into the establishment narrative.

Give this book a read. https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499

> The net is that the article isn’t really about DC or the protesters, but rather to raise awareness about the reliability of video as a medium and how we should be critical consumers in this viral video age.

And take it one step further, with a sprinkling of Chomsky salt: the media has an agenda and they will do their best to exploit cherrypicking of video, text, audio, etc. to tell their own narrative. Viral videos are certainly dangerous since there's no level of editorial oversight. But even editors at large corporate media see their "wall" between content and business broken down to spin stories a certain way. The most common tool is "lie by omission" since it technically isn't lying or dirty. In fact, it's even similar to the original Lincoln Memorial video.

edit: I realize a book isn't the most accessible source for /r/neutralnews, but the wikipedia article does a decent enough job summarizing the main topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

> Colton said he didn't view it racially

Using racially charged terms and then saying, "No, I didn't mean it in a racist way," is the hallmark of racists (SEE: Donald Trump). No one self-identifies as a racist. They see their views as justified because they aren't against a particular race; they're against crime, poverty, drugs, etc. The main problem is, they overlook that behavior in the majority groups they belong to. White frat boys doing coke at a college party are just kids having fun, but black people doing crack in a poor neighborhood are violent criminals. Colton wouldn't have labeled a struggling white stand-up comedian as ghetto, so let's stop pretending like him calling Bill ghetto isn't racist.

tl;dr Colton is a racist.

EDIT: If anyone's interested in looking into this topic more, The New Jim Crow is a great book about how racism has evolved since the days of "Whites Only" water fountains and segregated schools.

If you really want to get technical, the average American commits 3 felonies a day due to some ridiculously vague laws (like CFAA, which for example is so broadly written it allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute you merely for violating the TOS on a website). But the thing is those ridiculously vague and broad laws that everyone violates on a daily basis are almost never enforced, except as a way to prosecutors extra leverage in plea bargains.

But I highly doubt that this was what the person quoted was referring to. They sounded like they were talking about serious crimes, not stuff that shouldn't even be illegal.

Trump has learned a lot from authoritarian, corrupt leaders throughout history. His playbook is literally from stuff like this https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

It's incredibly rare for people to be reasonable nowadays, especially on the internet.

Being reasonable and measured makes it very difficult to feel/signal virtuous and self-righteous and better than anyone else - and people do seek that sort of reward, especially in increasingly emotional societies. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Prof. Jonathan Haidt addresses this and why that addictive feeling of self-righteousness often drives people to zealotry and extreme positions - they want to be seen as "pure" and "uncompromising". It used to be typical adolescent/teenager behaviour but it's becoming increasingly generalized in adults.

I see you have read some Harvey Silver in your past.