10% in “conflict is not abuse” and I don’t think I like it? My personal rule generally is not to read books published in the past 15 years by “speakers”-type personalities who allude to some psychoanalytic vagueisms and/or have high net worths (lol). And I broke it for this? Mmm.

“Braving the W!lderness”, “The Velvet Rage”, “The Tipping Point” and other books are also examples of bad books that are at the frontlines of the repackaging of self-help books from the 80s/90s but this time with “psychoanalytic” backing, “scientific” studies babble. Still bull.

This genre overlaps with the wildly popular anti-racist reading lists this summer. Largely driven by non-profits and agencies buying these in bulk for employees. Typically a major node for white women in counseling or in non-profit work. It allows them a journey that stays still.

Readers of these books share a script so they do not have to think either. “This is powerful and necessary.” “This ” “I am always learning.” “It was uncomfortable to read but I needed this.” “Powerful.” “Truly important.” “Thought provoking (but rarely share what thoughts).”

Skimmed through a recently-published (within 5 years) popular book about social change. It had the energy in this thread. A hyperfocus on “healing” but no interest in developing a cautious methodology of analysis. Sloppy and all over the place with vague projections.

One thing about projects like that is they don’t do the reading yet show up loud. They assume socialists and communists have not yet written about the exact things that they are writing: healing, alienation, or even spirituality and love. Just read socialists instead tbh.