3 ms·

I've been buying books primarily from bookshop.org. Every now and then I'll buy something from Barnes and Noble if I can't find it elsewhere. I also tend to buy

I've been buying books primarily from bookshop.org. Every now and then I'll buy something from Barnes and Noble if I can't find it elsewhere. I also tend to buy directly from these publishers: https://www.nottinghilleditions.com https://www.nottinghilleditions.com https://press.uchicago.edu https://press.uchicago.edu http://gaspereau.com http://gaspereau.com (specialty titles, letterpress) But one thing that annoys me across the board, and especially with bookshop.org, is the constant display of social justice reading lists. I was checking out recently and the whole page was plastered with Robin DiAngelo, X Kendi, Hannah Jones, and a bunch of other "celebrating blackness" titles. As if I am going to add these garbage books to my cart. I wish bookstores would stop cramming the "reading guides for white people" down our throats. There are so many books out there, so many authors, so many topics you could promote! Let's talk about writers, not just "black writers." Show me some new literature, not just "black literature." Point me to the book shop that doesn't constantly promote this nonsense and they'll have my money.

j_0 5y ago
cherrywood, they aren’t garbage books they are just garbage recommendations.
- zero102 5y ago
  In fact, both Di'Angelo and X Kendi have written opinionated, arguably racist (reverse racist?) hot takes that both boil down to the self-flagellation of one race. The premise of both books (and yes, I have read them) is that white people are born with an original sin that cannot be cleansed, but only fought against, and the only way to do this is accept the (false) premise that you are intrinsically a racist and you must actively fight against this. By "you", I of course mean "white people". Ascribing negative traits to someone based on their race is racist, QED. They are both textbook examples of a false premise. Extremely difficult to refute because by design it's created to immediately incriminate people opposed to it. So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know. They qualify as garbage. If not because the authors have a clear agenda other than (social) science, but because their cases are based on demonstrably false premises that lead to wild, racist, and absurd conclusions. There is very little difference between these books and the racist books of 100 years ago except the premise was altered and the colors changed. They might belong as a times best seller in today's social battlefield but there is no substance in them besides their inflammatory titles and racist conclusions.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know. Aren’t you “opposing” in your comment? Wasn’t the first person “opposing” in their comment? Is Fox News, American Thinker, NY Post, The Federalist, and the National Review “opposing” when they write countless articles about this idea and these people? I think we found the real “false premise”.

j_0 5y ago

cherrywood, they aren’t garbage books they are just garbage recommendations.

zero102 5y ago
In fact, both Di'Angelo and X Kendi have written opinionated, arguably racist (reverse racist?) hot takes that both boil down to the self-flagellation of one race. The premise of both books (and yes, I have read them) is that white people are born with an original sin that cannot be cleansed, but only fought against, and the only way to do this is accept the (false) premise that you are intrinsically a racist and you must actively fight against this. By "you", I of course mean "white people". Ascribing negative traits to someone based on their race is racist, QED. They are both textbook examples of a false premise. Extremely difficult to refute because by design it's created to immediately incriminate people opposed to it. So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know. They qualify as garbage. If not because the authors have a clear agenda other than (social) science, but because their cases are based on demonstrably false premises that lead to wild, racist, and absurd conclusions. There is very little difference between these books and the racist books of 100 years ago except the premise was altered and the colors changed. They might belong as a times best seller in today's social battlefield but there is no substance in them besides their inflammatory titles and racist conclusions.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know. Aren’t you “opposing” in your comment? Wasn’t the first person “opposing” in their comment? Is Fox News, American Thinker, NY Post, The Federalist, and the National Review “opposing” when they write countless articles about this idea and these people? I think we found the real “false premise”.