'World on Fire' is something more people should read, not for it's political leanings or bias of which there is aplenty, but because there's quite a lot of info

'World on Fire' is something more people should read, not for it's political leanings or bias of which there is aplenty, but because there's quite a lot of information in there regarding trends and ideas in 'other places' i.e. 'outside America', particularly in Asia which never seem to penetrate the fairly insular American bubble. Almost all of the 'controversial' social issues in the US are fairly contextualized to the 'US experience' and this becomes a huge problem as these social ideals are exported. Outside the US bubble almost everything is completely different ... requiring a completely different context to try to start to grasp why things might be viewed differently. To the people on outside looking in, and especially to ex-pats/immigrants living in the US, all of these social issues are going to look very different in ways that are basically impossible to express without some form of contextualized understanding that just doesn't exist in most popular forums including the more intellectual spots i.e. New Yorker, The Atlantic etc. - and on campus. A 'sensitive issue' from the other side of the spectrum -> 'gun rights' is kind of a good example of this. I've had so many discussions with very intelligent Americans about the issue who didn't seem to be able to grasp how safe and normal civil society could be without open gun access. (Edit: not blaming all Americans here obviously, it's just something I've come across) Forget arguments about 'what should be done' - all of that aside - it was like there was a total inability to contemplate a different context for crime guns etc.. That's a really, really odd position to be in, debating someone who delegitimizes your own lived experience in a different country because there's some kind of 'mental block' (bad term) and they can't fathom that it could even be real - when in fact it's the literal reality for most 'rich' nations outside the US. Chua is not even close to 'radical'. She's a little populist surely, but nominally her arguments exist well within the bounds of reasonable civic discourse. I do believe that most of the OP's comments are effectively valid, in that with her 'hat in the populist ring' she becomes part of that circus and will therefore become a target / participant in the stupid, ugly, petty little feuds on campus - which it should be noted are going to be 'sided' often on the basis of 'perceived ideology' etc.. Edit: I should add, it's a little shameful that people even on HN have to resort to 'throwaway' accounts to have basic opinions on issues. To think this is actually a place where there's a lot of good discussion to be had and even this places gets petty ... is not a good sign. 'Use your words' is what we tell children, it would apply equally here and everywhere else. (i.e. not ad-hominem, casual remarks, gotcha statements, instinctive/arbitrary voting).