Important article by Lionel Shriver

She’s a very unpleasant person. Don’t bother reading her articles these days.

“Shriver is a polemicist - her writing is meant to confront and spark argument and discusion. She highlights issues by taking them to extremes.”

Back when there was more widespread uniformity of thought about societal issues, polemicists promoted new and different ideas and challenged the status quo. They encouraged critical thinking and prevented complacency by presenting alternative viewpoints.

We now have a context of highly polarised views and polemic writing just serves to further intensify and divide. The provocative style simply appeals to one side whilst alienating the other - it perpetuates conflict and does nothing to bring about better understanding or positive change.

Totally agree. I also remember seeing her talk about the book and she wrote it from such an ungenerous place (imo). I can't remember exactly, but I remember thinking that.

It is annoying that women's rights now seem to get lumped in with racism, ableism and fat phobia all of a sudden.

It is a very insensitive black and white article but it does make a few good points.

I am not sure why people think that ‘retarded’ is ablist when it literally means delayed. It is the same as saying a child has GDD.

And the problem with language is that however much we try and purify it, the new words will come to be used in an offensive context. My teen boys use ‘special’ or a bit of a ‘spec’ as an insult (from Special Needs, not wearing glasses, as I originally thought.

I think a lot of the issue of wokism is the obsession with inoffensive vocabulary as opposed to meaning and intent, almost like knowing the correct words gets you into the club. So ‘coloured’ is grossly offensive but ‘of colour’ is great, when they are synonymous!

As for her points on racism and affirmative action, that is a very complex issue which she overly simplifies, but I do think that it should only go on for so long and be based on actual privilege, not a perceived hierarchy of privilege.

Ultimately, she is neither a scientist nor a philosopher and she is quite bigoted in much of her thinking, but she does act as a counterweight to some of the liberal left people who would love to cancel people like her but can’t…

I don’t know why the book we need to talk about kevin is treated with such reverence. It’s a fun, schlocky read if you like horror, but it’s a work of fiction based on an unsubstantiated belief that some individuals can be born evil. It gets referred to sometimes as if it’s a documentary. It’s just a sensational novel

Beautifully put, thank you. She's wretched.

If there is one thing that the last few years has taught me, it is that we need diversity of thought.

The woke (for want of a better term) idea of progress regarding EDI, where everyone looks different but thinks exactly the same (and where those who deviate from the list of right-think are Nazis) is the exact opposite. The one area where diversity is not accepted at all is thought.

So, I think that for better, or in some cases for worse, we as a society need diversity of thought. We need freedom of speech so that people can articulate those thoughts.

Now, most of us agree that making a credible threat to someone's life or incitement to violence should be where a line is drawn. Once you cross that line, there should be Police involvement. However, everything before that line (including things that I would not say myself) should be allowed.

The authoritarian approach is worse. Much, much worse.

"Shriver argues that certain black women, such as Claudine Gay, were hired because of their race and sex rather than their ability, which may be true, but the same is also true of thousands of white men who have done those kinds of jobs in the past. And indeed continue to do so - can anyone truly believe that someone as talentless and dishonest as Donald Trump would have come to power if he had been black or female?"

And that is the 'gotcha' that the authoritarian left use to death to dismiss and ridicule the 'anti woke'. They, wrongly, claim that people who label policies and practices as 'woke' are those who wish to hold on to their long stranding privileges.

The term 'woke' has not been helpful. There isn't a shared understanding of its meaning and it is used by 'both sides' to try and score points against each other.

Though a lot of people who 'identify as' climate activists tend to hold to it as an article of faith, rather than as a scientific proposition. Group identities are not founded in rationalism but on emotional solidarity.

I really dislike the way that a whole bunch of disparate issues are bundled together, so that if you oppose gender ideology you are somehow expected to be a climate change sceptic, opposed to racial inclusion policies and in favour of using language such as "retarded". They are not the same thing at all. Gender ideology is entirely irrational and anti-scientific - more akin to astrology than any sensible set of ideas. Whereas climate science is rooted in evidence, and racial inclusion and diversity policies are based on a desire for fairness - even if you disagree with those policies, they're not irrational in the way that gender ideology is.

Shriver argues that certain black women, such as Claudine Gay, were hired because of their race and sex rather than their ability, which may be true, but the same is also true of thousands of white men who have done those kinds of jobs in the past. And indeed continue to do so - can anyone truly believe that someone as talentless and dishonest as Donald Trump would have come to power if he had been black or female?

That's because environmental activism, such as throwing soup over works of art and glueing fingers to road surfaces, tends to be associated with an adherence to a predictable set of views and opinions. Environmental activism as a group identity. The Green party, and what it has become, sums this up perfectly

The thing is, 'retard' and 'retarded' were still being used in the U.S until relatively recently; long after we stopped using them in Britain. Strictly speaking it means 'late development' or 'delayed development'.

Anyway - Shriver is a polemicist - her writing is meant to confront and spark argument and discusion. She highlights issues by taking them to extremes. Germain Greer used to do that too.

Pretty unhappy about the grouping of environmental concerns with all the other wokeness. This is a big unlike from me.

"Investors are suing the retailer Target for putting commitments to DEI, environmental, social and governance and Pride Month above the interests of shareholders."

Not read the article but agree with what you said here.

There was an article on the Financial Times after Trump's election victory, in which the author analysed various survey and polling data and concluded that people had not left the Democrats, so much as the Democrats had pushed them away.
Also analysis on radio 4 about french politics saying similar. French people are reacting against being told what they cannot say and that their thoughts are wrong.

The Left has become really authoritarian, does not listen to voters concerns, and voters are turning away from that.

I also raised an eyebrow at retarded and filmed in Nigeria.

I also agree that she would be fascinating to meet and she is razor sharp.

I guess this is us going back to the days where you can disagree with some things a person says without rejecting everything and without completely vilifying the person. I.e. she is a great writer, and interesting thinker, and also rude and a bit mean. Read her stuff, but don’t swallow it whole, read it as critically. Same as with everything else we read.

I agree with this.

I much prefer narratives that are precise, clear and balanced. This morning I have been reading about Pinker and Dawkins' resignation from the Freedom from Religion Foundation (I think that's what it's called). They highlight the conceptual errors and how the moral and the empirical has been confused and conflated. They highlight how it is counterproductive to force people to choose between trans rights and scientific reality because those who favor scientific reality will be alienated from the cause of safeguarding trans rights.

Many people, like me, who oppose 'wokeism' if/when it refers to positions that are built on conceptual errors and confusing moral and empirical arguments. We are happy for moral arguments to be made, we want them to include empirical and scientific reasoning also.

Many oppose 'wokeism' because they believe in 'survival of the fittest' and meritocratic approach. Some oppose it because they are bigoted (which I tend to think stems from anxiety).

Agree with PP but she's torpedoed gender politics to a completely uncomfortable and hate filled realm. Also on that one topic she's piled an awful lot of hate of the other and the different - and easy and lazily odious stance

The comments underneath her article unearth a plethora of hate - had no idea she was such a Joe Rogan rabble rouser of the right

She sounds like she ate Katie Hopkins.

This is the best description. Even if she is right about women not having penises, it doesn't mean she's right about the rest of it. I, for one, would be horrified if the word 'retarded' made a comeback.

I agree with her on gender identity, and not much else. I found her articles about the Covid pandemic very frustrating, because she seemed absolutely certain that all the restrictions to contain the pandemic were unnecessary, and a huge over-reaction to the actual seriousness of the pandemic. She seemed oblivious to the fact that epidemiologists were dealing with a large amount of complex data, and advising governments as best they could under the circumstances. You can describe her position as demonstrating "clarity of thought" but "over-simplification" would be a better description.

Yeah, I stopped reading at her comments about the word ‘retarded’.
I also can’t stand when people sanctimoniously speak of ‘British values’, especially in the context of the BBC. Meaningless dog whistle.

i think there is a massive difference between DEI (or EDI) policies that promote - rather than include - ideas about gender identity, and inclusive policies that seek to level the playing field to push back on racism and disability discrimination.

So while i can let out a small cheer on her clear language around gender identity, the idea that free speech allows us to use disgusting ableist language isn't something that i will ever be on board with any more than i am on board with the return of overt sexism and racism, and i will never stop pushing back against the covert versions of those two

Same, although as a portly person, I'd rather be called portly than "a person living with overweight" or whatever.

She's also correct re gender politics and I really hope the tide is turning at least to a point where a civilised conversation might be able to be had about it. But wonder if the very angry, violent, aggressive, genie is out of the bottle there.

I don't agree that we have to swing that far away from the left to correct the places it's gone too far.

Just because the morons identify as neuro diverse, doesn't mean all ND people should be grouped in, we do still have issues with racism that you can recognise even if you don't agree with applying conclusions from BLM and US armed police to all western countries.

It's a bit mean/wrong to call out one black woman university professor for being hired while under qualified whilst supporting Trump, who wasn't remotely qualified for politics. He's as much a result of identity politics as the left.

I don't think this is a good article, it's got as many clickbait "hymn sheet" points as the people she's criticising.