Home
By:
Filters

What book are you reading? (or just finished)

I'm working a lot on complex stuff during the day so try to read schlock as a mental relief in the evenings at bed-time- mostly science fiction, some good quality and some of the space opera variety. I like speculative fiction for a break and some of the out on the edge stuff like Neil Asher, Australian physicist Greg Egan and the classic Iain M Banks is like a shower for the mind.

Been reading the history of the Silk Road by Frankopan when I'm in the mood for something more challenging but as I say I do a lot of factual reading during the days so need to relax rather than study of an evening.
 
I just finished reading Lincoln's Last Trial: The Murder Case That Propelled Him to the Presidency by Dan Abrams, David Fisher. I rated it "4", rounded up from 3.75. I gave the other book I've recently read by Dan Abrams a "3", so I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt.

As legal non-fiction thrillers go it was quite decent. The trial it covered, murder charges against a resident of a small town near Springfield, Illinois quite clearly presaged Lincoln's greatness. At this time, 1859, he was strictly a local and statewide figure. The trial, and some finagling by the lead prosecutor, propelled him to the nomination for the Republican Party. The book well covered a less known part of his life. Less ink has been spilled about these early years than his great presidency and tragic assassination.
 
I'll start out with two quotes from The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against Progressives' War on Fun by Noah Rothman:

𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑒 35:
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒'𝑠 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑗𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒. 𝐴𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙, 𝑦𝑜𝑢'𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑤.
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑝 243
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 (𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠') 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎'𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑡 𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑡.

This book was pretty good, but could have been improved. The premise of the book is new and original; that the modern progressivist movement bears striking similarities to the Puritanism of the late 17th Century. This argument is well supported, suggesting that modern progressives are conducting a dour war on anything that is fun. Mr. Rothman gives worthy examples, such as the war on good food, calling much of it "cultural appropriation." The war on literature is another. Progressives seem to want to dump classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn, as well as much of Shakespeare, off school libraries and maybe even store shelves.

Here are my arguments about the shortcomings. Though he mentions Covid and the lockdowns glancingly, he does not mention lockdown advocates' derision of "mani pedi withdrawal rage" or public postings such as "just gimme a mani pedi and don't tread on my lawn." Well, at least "progressive" Breed London criticized the "fun police" for having some "fun" with her over her flouting her own mask mandate (link).

Similarly totally omitted from being called out were other "progressive" Puritans such as Greta Thunberg. As a result, I am giving this book a "3." The overall problem with these books is that they "preach to the choir" and are unlikely to draw many new people to their cause.

Still, it is an educating read and I recommend it.
 
Of all the millions and millions of books written, we're talking about some trash from the US culture wars?

Who's going to read it? The same saps always making themselves out to be the victim, and who spend the majority of their life online intently wound-collecting? Yes, no one else.

Look, most people abhor the Jamboi types in this country importing all this stuff from the US. So yes, on this forum we put him in the stocks and pillory him. It is all online and mostly for fun. Whereas this book apparently takes the stance that this online pillorying of these retards who deserve it is the moral equivalent of actually putting them in the stocks and pillory as the old Puritans did?

If you want to have some fun, just get out there and have it. Sure, you may find a bit of push back on your having a massive stupid Suburban for your big fat ass, and petrol for it going up all the time, but apart from that I think you'll find no one is going to stop you, out in the real world, if you ever make it out there.

Well you might come across a few that say don’t like eating meat or jokes that play on ethnic or sexual slurs, but just ignore them, or avoid them, and stick with your own redneck sort, I'm sure you'll be alright? Finally, as regards actually paying to read this type of turgid shite about the stupid yank culture wars, well you can stuff it up your arse for nothing and fuck off while you're doing it.

Love from "a progressive" (whatever the fuck that is).
 
Gore Vidal pointed out the New Puritans in the US in his essays from the 1950s to the 1970s. As PJ O'Rourke, himself a Republican, pointed out: 'People forget the US was founded by religious nuts with guns'.

If you look at the wingnut Republicans of today they were the main promotors of the Creationist lunatics from xtian colleges in the US into politics. They are also closer to the Taliban in their desire to illegally introduce wingnut religionism into US politics.

What amazes me is the number of loudmouth female wingnuts in the US who don't realise that if their male counterparts get their way it will be into the breeding camps with the bitches and they'll be removed from schooling and public life a la Afghanistan.

No point having a loudmouth when you've basically voted yourself into a western Afghanistan.
 
lol J jbg getting a crash course here on how the other posters are insufferable twats.

And yep, roc_abilly roc_abilly really hates being called what he (or she) is, hates it. And really, nothing could be truer -

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 (𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠') 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠.

That's one of roc's stand-out features, everyone should be acutely aware of it. He never will be though, he's precisely 100% self-righteous and 0% self-aware.
 
roc_abilly said:
Again, you think I'm looking to say things on p.ie that don't go down like a lead balloon, that earn me "likes"?
Click to expand...
No, what I'm saying is that behaving like an anti-social retard, as an adult, doesn't go down well, among other adults

And you're an absolute faggot for copying it
 
For example, in years gone by do you think my going around calling out large sections of the p.ie faithful as halfwitted antisemitics went down in any other way than like a lead balloon? Did I ever go around looking for approval? The vast majority who frequent these type of boards are not like adults in any case.
 
roc_abilly said:
For example, in years gone by do you think my going around calling out large sections of the p.ie faithful as halfwitted antisemitics went down in any other way than like a lead balloon? Did I ever go around looking for approval? The vast majority who frequent these type of boards are not like adults in any case.
Click to expand...
Didn't you get banned from Gaychat (the last time) for falsely accusing someone of being an anti-Semite?

Look roc, you engage in defamation here every single fucking day but it doesn't work on other sites, nor does behaving like an anti-social retard, is what I'm saying
 
Truth League said:
I know that

I believe it was concluded, by a jury of your peers on Gaychat, that your accusation was false and so you were banned
Click to expand...
Not true. In fact they refused to delete what I had written and on account of that refusal buachaill dana demanded his account deleted. I was never banned for pointing out what he was about. The only bannings I have ever had is for abusing the mods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom