Take a photo of a barcode or cover
alisarae's Reviews (1.65k)
I think this book is a little hard to get into at the start, which is why I abandoned it a couple years ago, but the sections about the invention of money and the novelties that capitalism brought to the world are really great.
It took me a seriously long time to read this book, but it was worth it. I think I will need to read it again to absorb everything better, now that I got the main concepts down. The author is a great teacher and explains everything step by step, but it's still a lot of information. The author asks you to empathize, which I really engaged with, but it took more energy out of me than I expected.
The main concept presented here is that human morality is a combination of 6 different foundations or "tastes":
1. Care/Harm
2. Fairness/Cheating
3. Loyalty/Betrayal
4. Authority/Subversion
5. Sanctity/Degradation
6. Liberty/Oppression
Which pillars you put emphasis on, the amount of emphasis you put on each, and the expressions of how you show concern for each category will align you with broad political categories.
This chart, taken from the book, shows that people on the political left usually value the care/harm and fairness/cheating principles far above all other things. Their "moral palette" is much narrower than someone on the political right, to the point where, say, respect for authority might not be on some people's moral palette at all.
Another big difference that causes disagreements is that two people might have the same value, but that value is expressed in different ways. Let's take Fairness for example. Person A says, "It's not fair that I work so hard and 35% of my income goes to paying for someone else's lifestyle." Person B says, "It's not fair that some people don't have the same access to education and good jobs as you and I do, so we should try to close those gaps with tax-funded programs." This realization, that we actually do have core things in common with each other, opened up the empathy gate in my mind.
I think I truly gained some humility while reading this book. I hope I will continue to be mindful of different emphases on *shared values* with people I disagree with.
The main concept presented here is that human morality is a combination of 6 different foundations or "tastes":
1. Care/Harm
2. Fairness/Cheating
3. Loyalty/Betrayal
4. Authority/Subversion
5. Sanctity/Degradation
6. Liberty/Oppression
Which pillars you put emphasis on, the amount of emphasis you put on each, and the expressions of how you show concern for each category will align you with broad political categories.
This chart, taken from the book, shows that people on the political left usually value the care/harm and fairness/cheating principles far above all other things. Their "moral palette" is much narrower than someone on the political right, to the point where, say, respect for authority might not be on some people's moral palette at all.
Another big difference that causes disagreements is that two people might have the same value, but that value is expressed in different ways. Let's take Fairness for example. Person A says, "It's not fair that I work so hard and 35% of my income goes to paying for someone else's lifestyle." Person B says, "It's not fair that some people don't have the same access to education and good jobs as you and I do, so we should try to close those gaps with tax-funded programs." This realization, that we actually do have core things in common with each other, opened up the empathy gate in my mind.
I think I truly gained some humility while reading this book. I hope I will continue to be mindful of different emphases on *shared values* with people I disagree with.
This was such a good mystery/thriller. I don't think I've ever read a book with more twists.
Jesus and John Wayne argues that above anything else, an embattled, militant, patriarchal masculinity and a submissive femininity unite the evangelical identity. Indeed, it is a cultural and political identity and no longer a mere faith tradition, as historical denominational demarcations along beliefs about infant baptism, dispensationalism, election & predestination, and sacrificial atonement have been forgotten or minimized in favor of agreement on gender roles and expressions in both the public and private spheres.
One question that Silas and I have been talking about is why is there such an emphasis placed on “complimentarian” gender roles, to the point that proponents insist that it is a fundamental part of the Trinity (this traditionally unorthodox doctrine is known as Eternal Submission of the Son - ESS / Arianism)? Why the insistence, and what are the practical implications of this? Is it simply a power trip for these men? Perhaps it is simply that. But if Kobes du Mez is correct, they are defending the very essence of their identity—one that has been meticulously constructed and refined throughout the 20th century to form a uniquely American concoction of religious nationalism. If this identity is challenged, then the entire worldview about the health, greatness, and security of the nation, family, and supreme being of the universe will crumble, not to mention their privileged position of undeserved power. Considering reality in the face of this construct, it is quite the fragile identity. The author insists, however, that this was built and not the inevitable course of evangelical Christianity. “What was once done might also be undone.”
Kobes du Mez’s writing is impeccable and brought much clarity to the mosh pit that is religion and politics in America. It’s hard to get a bird’s eye view of the interactions between individuals and trends when you are on the ground in the thick of it all (especially since I was just a kid for so much of my life) so this book was a useful map to sort out my own religious past.
One question that Silas and I have been talking about is why is there such an emphasis placed on “complimentarian” gender roles, to the point that proponents insist that it is a fundamental part of the Trinity (this traditionally unorthodox doctrine is known as Eternal Submission of the Son - ESS / Arianism)? Why the insistence, and what are the practical implications of this? Is it simply a power trip for these men? Perhaps it is simply that. But if Kobes du Mez is correct, they are defending the very essence of their identity—one that has been meticulously constructed and refined throughout the 20th century to form a uniquely American concoction of religious nationalism. If this identity is challenged, then the entire worldview about the health, greatness, and security of the nation, family, and supreme being of the universe will crumble, not to mention their privileged position of undeserved power. Considering reality in the face of this construct, it is quite the fragile identity. The author insists, however, that this was built and not the inevitable course of evangelical Christianity. “What was once done might also be undone.”
Kobes du Mez’s writing is impeccable and brought much clarity to the mosh pit that is religion and politics in America. It’s hard to get a bird’s eye view of the interactions between individuals and trends when you are on the ground in the thick of it all (especially since I was just a kid for so much of my life) so this book was a useful map to sort out my own religious past.
Yes, you can definitely see the similarities with Dracula... Van Helsing 1.0 right here. I did not expect the lesbian aspect to be so explicit, considering it was written in 1871. Overall good gothic spooky read!
I liked Ropa a ton, her quips reminded me of Peter Parker. The setting (dystopian future Edinburgh) and magic system (science-based) were inventive—I don't think I've read a book that combines ghosts + dystopian future.
The audio was fun for the accent, but sometimes the narrator sounded very much like she was reading the lines.
I'm curious to read what happens next!
The audio was fun for the accent, but sometimes the narrator sounded very much like she was reading the lines.
I'm curious to read what happens next!
Hough's life growing up in The Family / Children of God cult, and subsequent young adulthood in the gay scene in DC is fascinating. Being a blue-collar lesbian in the 90s led her to many "how does this even happen??" experiences. I thought the structure of the book was great—each chapter seamlessly weaves between memories from her childhood and her adulthood experiences. Her writing style itself was too conversational for my liking, though.