What do you think?
Rate this book
No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage—Lessons for the Silenced Majority
We as a society are self-censoring at record rates. Say the wrong thing at the wrong moment to the wrong person and the consequences can be dire. Think that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race? You're a racist who needs to be kicked out of the online forum that you started. Believe there are biological differences between men and women? You're a sexist who should be fired with cause. Argue that people should be able to speak freely within the bounds of the law?
You're a fascist who should be removed from your position of authority. When the truth is no defense and nuance is seen as an attack, self-censorship is a rational choice. Yet, our silence comes with a price. When we are too fearful to speak openly and honestly, we deprive ourselves of the ability to build genuine relationships, we yield all cultural and political power to those with opposing views, and we lose our ability to challenge ideas or change minds, even our own.
In No Apologies, Katherine Brodsky argues that it's time for principled individuals to hit the unmute button and resist the authoritarians among us who name, shame, and punish. Recognizing that speaking authentically is easier said than done, she spent two years researching and interviewing those who have been subjected to public harassment and abuse for daring to transgress the new orthodoxy or criticize a new taboo.
While she found that some of these individuals navigated the outrage mob better than others, and some suffered worse personal and professional effects than others, all of the individuals with whom she spoke remain unapologetic over their choice to express themselves authentically. In sharing their stories, which span the arts, education, journalism, and science, Brodsky uncovers lessons for all of us in the silenced majority to push back against the dangerous illiberalism of the vocal minority that tolerates no dissent— and to find and free our own voices.
You're a fascist who should be removed from your position of authority. When the truth is no defense and nuance is seen as an attack, self-censorship is a rational choice. Yet, our silence comes with a price. When we are too fearful to speak openly and honestly, we deprive ourselves of the ability to build genuine relationships, we yield all cultural and political power to those with opposing views, and we lose our ability to challenge ideas or change minds, even our own.
In No Apologies, Katherine Brodsky argues that it's time for principled individuals to hit the unmute button and resist the authoritarians among us who name, shame, and punish. Recognizing that speaking authentically is easier said than done, she spent two years researching and interviewing those who have been subjected to public harassment and abuse for daring to transgress the new orthodoxy or criticize a new taboo.
While she found that some of these individuals navigated the outrage mob better than others, and some suffered worse personal and professional effects than others, all of the individuals with whom she spoke remain unapologetic over their choice to express themselves authentically. In sharing their stories, which span the arts, education, journalism, and science, Brodsky uncovers lessons for all of us in the silenced majority to push back against the dangerous illiberalism of the vocal minority that tolerates no dissent— and to find and free our own voices.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
Audible Audio
Published February 23, 2024
17 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
August 29, 2024
Politics Matter — What to do when the mob comes for you.
Peter Sean Bradley
Peter Sean Bradley
7 min read
·
Just now
No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage — Lessons for the Silenced Majority by Katherine Brodsky
So, this week, Americans learned something that should have ignited a political firestorm when Facebook CEO admitted — four years too late — that he was intimidated by the Democrat Party and its assets in the federal government to censor Americans and suppress news.
Also, this week, the CEO of Telegram was arrested by France for insufficiently silencing speech on his messaging network.[1]
This month, Britons learned that they could be arrested and jailed for speech that the government deems ‘incitement,” even if that speech incites nothing.
Last week, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. endorsed BadorangemannextcomingofHitler because he recognized that the Democrat Pary is the party assaulting civil liberties.
“How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate who has never done an interview or a debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answers. They did it by weaponizing government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy,” Kennedy said. “They did it by silencing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters. What most alarms me isn’t how the Democratic Party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates. What alarms me is the resort to censorship and media control and the weaponization of federal agencies.”
This is not a good time for free speech and the threats are largely coming from the Left.[2]
The most insidious thing about the new censorship is that it is a totalitarian suppression of speech aimed at not just the great, but the small as well. A person can get instant fame by saying something innocuous that is interpreted as outside the lines by someone with the result being a hate mob outside the digital doors of the scapegoat.
The great have the money to deal with their problems. The small are crushed, fired, lose their business, get excommunicated from their communities, and suffer similar losses that tear at their self-worth and self-identity.
Katherine Brodsky has written a self-help book for the small. She offers sixteen case studies of people who were canceled. From these case studies, she gleans insights into the cancellation phenomenon and devises some strategies for dealing with the mob.
One of the things I noticed is that all of the examples are former leftists/liberals who walked into a minefield. Many expected they would be given a pass because they served the movement. They have all come out wiser and more attuned to and understanding non-leftists' thinking.
Growth is good, but I find it interesting that in this book, as in so many other aspects of society, something is not real until it happens to a leftwinger. Brandon Eich, who was fired from Mozilla for giving a small amount of money against a gay marriage initiative in California, is not one of the persons featured in this book. Neither are the many conservative teachers who have been hunted down and fired by leftwing academic institutions. It seems that they don’t count, which is a sad commentary that underscores the hegemony of the left and why we are in the present situation. Monopoly is not a healthy condition.
The first case study is an example of the insane, high-strung society we live in. Maria Tusken set up an online knitting community. When one member said she was traveling to India and it felt like she was going to Mars, an SJW mob took over the site to vilify her. When Maria Tusken called for tolerance and calm, the mob turned its attention to her and managed to get her to resign from the knitting association she founded. Tusken suffered the nightmare of ostracism from her community. She received no public support from her friends, although some gave her private reassurances of support. Many of her friends had businesses dependent on staying in the good graces of the knitting community.
This cowardice is a constant in these stories and is also a historic feature of leftism. Old Bolsheviks who had withstood the Tsar’s secret police crumbled when they stood alone against Stalin. One feature of memoirs of people who left the Communist Party in the 1930s and 1940s is the fear of losing their community. Such people would twist their private opinions to accommodate the most recent party line.
Kat Rosenfeld is a writer. She opposed an effort to cancel a writer whose book was deemed racist with a simple tweet questioning creative professionals banning a book. The mob turned on her. Rosenfeld makes this comment about the personality type involved in cancel mobs:
Rosenfield believes that these sorts of pile-ons tend to attract a certain personality type — a personality disorder, even. Narcissists are particularly drawn toward using a form of gaslighting called DARVO, which stands for deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. In essence, the actual perpetrator will accuse the person they’ve victimized of doing the bad thing to them — thereby turning themselves into the victim. “It was basically like that. Something bad has happened to you, and you speak out about it, and you become the offender by speaking out about it.”
In a grotesque inversion of reality, they continue to be “powerless,” and anything they might do to you is fully justified because you are the “powerful.”
No Apologies p. 54.
Rosenfeld explains the idea of powerless bullies as follows:
There’s an interesting phenomenon in play whereby a group of people can gain quite a bit of power, as well as social and cultural capital, by claiming not to have any, Rosenfield explains. As she was witnessing in real time, it can be a rather effective strategy. People were saying that others had to listen to them and do what they demanded because they were “powerless.” It’s a cynical move, but in many cases, they truly believe themselves to be powerless — to be victims.
No Apologies, p. 52.
Daryl Davis is an African-American man who has a record of converting racists to pluralism. He finds that free speech is better than allowing bigotry to fester in silence:
“So you know, if you’re driving down the street in your car, and your car starts making some kind of weird noise under the hood … you’re not a mechanic, what do you do? You drive to the auto repair place and say: ‘Hey, can you look at my car? It’s making some weird noise.’ So the mechanic comes out and says, ‘Start your car.’ You start the car, and the noise isn’t there, of course. So he says, ‘Well, let me drive it around the block.’ He gets in the driver’s seat and drives around, no noise. He tells you: ‘Well, listen, I can’t fix what I can’t hear.’ So with racism in this country, it’s hard to fix when it’s hidden under the carpet behind the door, locked in the closet.”
No Apologies, p. 70.
This raises the question: Why did the Left lose confidence in its ability to win arguments?
Steven Elliott’s career was destroyed by an anonymous claim on the “Shitty Media Men List” that he was a rapist. His friends abandoned him. He thought his support of the Left would protect him:
Elliott was deeply political then, especially concerned with prison reform and sex worker rights — having been a sex worker himself. He raised a lot of funds for progressive candidates. “I really did my part,” he states. But none of that meant anything once his name appeared on the Shitty Media Men list. “None of the things I had done for these people and for this side of the spectrum [mattered], you know? When people came after me, nobody cared.”
No Apologies, p. 78.
Elliott came out of his experience with a new-found respect for due process and the “Blackstone Ratio”:
He cites Blackstone’s ratio, which was famously echoed by Benjamin Franklin: “It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than one innocent Person should suffer.” It’s one of the foundational ideas of this country, notes Elliott. “And you either subscribe to that or you don’t.”
No Apologies, p. 81.
On and on, it goes through the sixteen.
The book teaches us things we always knew: free speech is vital, innocence should be presumed, we should not jump to conclusions, and narcissists are either heroes or victims but never villains.
Ultimately, Brodsky advises that you should never apologize when the mob comes for you. You don’t know these people in the mob. You have no reason to respect them. They aren’t entitled to your apology. Worse, your apology will give them the incentive to continue their cruel game:
The solution is clear: stay true to yourself in the face of unreasonable people and demands, but don’t do so in a way that ends the chance of any further discussion or reconciliation. We need more conversations and less closing the door on them. In our increasingly polarized world, dissenting voices need to be heard and listened to, so it is more important than ever that we act in a careful and thoughtful manner that unifies rather than in a righteous and radical manner that divides. Model the behavior and attitudes you’d like to see. This includes always considering whether you might be wrong — no matter the situation or debate. That’s not a sign of weakness; that’s a sign of strength. But when you’re not wrong, don’t let fear silence you into submission. Always bear this in mind: when you’ve committed no wrongdoing, no one holds the authority to demand an apology from you, nor should you feel obliged to offer one. Stay firm, stay true. When your conscience is clear, don’t be coerced or surrender your voice. Set it free.
And never apologize for this.
No Apologies, pp. 220–221.
Good advice
Footnotes:
[1] Let’s not forget that this is the same month an EU bureaucrat threatened Elon Musk with arrest if he allowed too much free speech on X. The free speech in question was an interview with Donald Trump, who is favored to win the presidency. Unelected bureaucrats are interfering with American elections in a way that Putin would never dream of, but since it is directed against Badorangeman the elites are not concerned.
[2] I have been distinguishing between “the Left” and “liberals” for a few years now. Liberals believe in free speech and due process; leftists don’t. I was heartened recently when Alan Dershowitz made the same distinction.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jVO48s...
Peter Sean Bradley
Peter Sean Bradley
7 min read
·
Just now
No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage — Lessons for the Silenced Majority by Katherine Brodsky
So, this week, Americans learned something that should have ignited a political firestorm when Facebook CEO admitted — four years too late — that he was intimidated by the Democrat Party and its assets in the federal government to censor Americans and suppress news.
Also, this week, the CEO of Telegram was arrested by France for insufficiently silencing speech on his messaging network.[1]
This month, Britons learned that they could be arrested and jailed for speech that the government deems ‘incitement,” even if that speech incites nothing.
Last week, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. endorsed BadorangemannextcomingofHitler because he recognized that the Democrat Pary is the party assaulting civil liberties.
“How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate who has never done an interview or a debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answers. They did it by weaponizing government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy,” Kennedy said. “They did it by silencing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters. What most alarms me isn’t how the Democratic Party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates. What alarms me is the resort to censorship and media control and the weaponization of federal agencies.”
This is not a good time for free speech and the threats are largely coming from the Left.[2]
The most insidious thing about the new censorship is that it is a totalitarian suppression of speech aimed at not just the great, but the small as well. A person can get instant fame by saying something innocuous that is interpreted as outside the lines by someone with the result being a hate mob outside the digital doors of the scapegoat.
The great have the money to deal with their problems. The small are crushed, fired, lose their business, get excommunicated from their communities, and suffer similar losses that tear at their self-worth and self-identity.
Katherine Brodsky has written a self-help book for the small. She offers sixteen case studies of people who were canceled. From these case studies, she gleans insights into the cancellation phenomenon and devises some strategies for dealing with the mob.
One of the things I noticed is that all of the examples are former leftists/liberals who walked into a minefield. Many expected they would be given a pass because they served the movement. They have all come out wiser and more attuned to and understanding non-leftists' thinking.
Growth is good, but I find it interesting that in this book, as in so many other aspects of society, something is not real until it happens to a leftwinger. Brandon Eich, who was fired from Mozilla for giving a small amount of money against a gay marriage initiative in California, is not one of the persons featured in this book. Neither are the many conservative teachers who have been hunted down and fired by leftwing academic institutions. It seems that they don’t count, which is a sad commentary that underscores the hegemony of the left and why we are in the present situation. Monopoly is not a healthy condition.
The first case study is an example of the insane, high-strung society we live in. Maria Tusken set up an online knitting community. When one member said she was traveling to India and it felt like she was going to Mars, an SJW mob took over the site to vilify her. When Maria Tusken called for tolerance and calm, the mob turned its attention to her and managed to get her to resign from the knitting association she founded. Tusken suffered the nightmare of ostracism from her community. She received no public support from her friends, although some gave her private reassurances of support. Many of her friends had businesses dependent on staying in the good graces of the knitting community.
This cowardice is a constant in these stories and is also a historic feature of leftism. Old Bolsheviks who had withstood the Tsar’s secret police crumbled when they stood alone against Stalin. One feature of memoirs of people who left the Communist Party in the 1930s and 1940s is the fear of losing their community. Such people would twist their private opinions to accommodate the most recent party line.
Kat Rosenfeld is a writer. She opposed an effort to cancel a writer whose book was deemed racist with a simple tweet questioning creative professionals banning a book. The mob turned on her. Rosenfeld makes this comment about the personality type involved in cancel mobs:
Rosenfield believes that these sorts of pile-ons tend to attract a certain personality type — a personality disorder, even. Narcissists are particularly drawn toward using a form of gaslighting called DARVO, which stands for deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. In essence, the actual perpetrator will accuse the person they’ve victimized of doing the bad thing to them — thereby turning themselves into the victim. “It was basically like that. Something bad has happened to you, and you speak out about it, and you become the offender by speaking out about it.”
In a grotesque inversion of reality, they continue to be “powerless,” and anything they might do to you is fully justified because you are the “powerful.”
No Apologies p. 54.
Rosenfeld explains the idea of powerless bullies as follows:
There’s an interesting phenomenon in play whereby a group of people can gain quite a bit of power, as well as social and cultural capital, by claiming not to have any, Rosenfield explains. As she was witnessing in real time, it can be a rather effective strategy. People were saying that others had to listen to them and do what they demanded because they were “powerless.” It’s a cynical move, but in many cases, they truly believe themselves to be powerless — to be victims.
No Apologies, p. 52.
Daryl Davis is an African-American man who has a record of converting racists to pluralism. He finds that free speech is better than allowing bigotry to fester in silence:
“So you know, if you’re driving down the street in your car, and your car starts making some kind of weird noise under the hood … you’re not a mechanic, what do you do? You drive to the auto repair place and say: ‘Hey, can you look at my car? It’s making some weird noise.’ So the mechanic comes out and says, ‘Start your car.’ You start the car, and the noise isn’t there, of course. So he says, ‘Well, let me drive it around the block.’ He gets in the driver’s seat and drives around, no noise. He tells you: ‘Well, listen, I can’t fix what I can’t hear.’ So with racism in this country, it’s hard to fix when it’s hidden under the carpet behind the door, locked in the closet.”
No Apologies, p. 70.
This raises the question: Why did the Left lose confidence in its ability to win arguments?
Steven Elliott’s career was destroyed by an anonymous claim on the “Shitty Media Men List” that he was a rapist. His friends abandoned him. He thought his support of the Left would protect him:
Elliott was deeply political then, especially concerned with prison reform and sex worker rights — having been a sex worker himself. He raised a lot of funds for progressive candidates. “I really did my part,” he states. But none of that meant anything once his name appeared on the Shitty Media Men list. “None of the things I had done for these people and for this side of the spectrum [mattered], you know? When people came after me, nobody cared.”
No Apologies, p. 78.
Elliott came out of his experience with a new-found respect for due process and the “Blackstone Ratio”:
He cites Blackstone’s ratio, which was famously echoed by Benjamin Franklin: “It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than one innocent Person should suffer.” It’s one of the foundational ideas of this country, notes Elliott. “And you either subscribe to that or you don’t.”
No Apologies, p. 81.
On and on, it goes through the sixteen.
The book teaches us things we always knew: free speech is vital, innocence should be presumed, we should not jump to conclusions, and narcissists are either heroes or victims but never villains.
Ultimately, Brodsky advises that you should never apologize when the mob comes for you. You don’t know these people in the mob. You have no reason to respect them. They aren’t entitled to your apology. Worse, your apology will give them the incentive to continue their cruel game:
The solution is clear: stay true to yourself in the face of unreasonable people and demands, but don’t do so in a way that ends the chance of any further discussion or reconciliation. We need more conversations and less closing the door on them. In our increasingly polarized world, dissenting voices need to be heard and listened to, so it is more important than ever that we act in a careful and thoughtful manner that unifies rather than in a righteous and radical manner that divides. Model the behavior and attitudes you’d like to see. This includes always considering whether you might be wrong — no matter the situation or debate. That’s not a sign of weakness; that’s a sign of strength. But when you’re not wrong, don’t let fear silence you into submission. Always bear this in mind: when you’ve committed no wrongdoing, no one holds the authority to demand an apology from you, nor should you feel obliged to offer one. Stay firm, stay true. When your conscience is clear, don’t be coerced or surrender your voice. Set it free.
And never apologize for this.
No Apologies, pp. 220–221.
Good advice
Footnotes:
[1] Let’s not forget that this is the same month an EU bureaucrat threatened Elon Musk with arrest if he allowed too much free speech on X. The free speech in question was an interview with Donald Trump, who is favored to win the presidency. Unelected bureaucrats are interfering with American elections in a way that Putin would never dream of, but since it is directed against Badorangeman the elites are not concerned.
[2] I have been distinguishing between “the Left” and “liberals” for a few years now. Liberals believe in free speech and due process; leftists don’t. I was heartened recently when Alan Dershowitz made the same distinction.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jVO48s...
March 5, 2024
This is the kind of book that will irritate a lot of people. It is a book about cancel culture, but the interesting part is that it is written from the left. The author is liberal, and most of the people she interviews, although not all of them, are as well. They were canceled for various reasons, but the reasons are not really the main point of the book. This book focuses more on how people responded when they were canceled. It provides a variety of tips like making sure you understand what opinions you actually care about. Make sure you understand who your inner circle of true friends are. Have a backup plan if you think that cancellation might be in your future.
The author acknowledges very early in the book that you might disagree with some of the people she interviews. However, the message of the book is clear. There are many ways to get yourself canceled by deviating from ideological orthodoxy. However, a clean conscience sometimes requires taking that chance.
The author acknowledges very early in the book that you might disagree with some of the people she interviews. However, the message of the book is clear. There are many ways to get yourself canceled by deviating from ideological orthodoxy. However, a clean conscience sometimes requires taking that chance.
February 26, 2024
A fabulous motivational manifesto for anyone wondering what they can do to help fight the rampant illiberalism that has infected our society. Katherine Brodsky writes in an entertaining light hearted manner. I've read a lot of books on this topic but she still managed to present many case studies that I hadn't heard of.
Thank you Katherine for being such an inspiration.
Thank you Katherine for being such an inspiration.
March 25, 2024
As per usual, I’m sure this book has generated some controversy, and in my opinion, it has it’s pros and cons. I was canceled in 2019, but I also understand that the term “cancel culture” has been diluted due to its overuse. In this book, Katherine Brodsky splits the books into chapters that focus on different people who have been victims of online mob mentality. If this is a topic you follow like I do, you’re probably already familiar with a lot of these stories.
I will say this is a good book, and I did learn some additional details about different people in this book. The book discusses important topics like free speech as well as how some social justice movements have gone a little too far. I’m pretty far left, and a major advocate for social justice, but I do believe that some people go too far, and due to mob mentality, they’re pushing liberals to the right. This book even discusses quite a few instances of people who were leftists who moved to the right after they were the victims of online mobs.
I don’t think many people can read this book and not realize that we have a problem with some of these dog piles and accusations going a little too far. One story I was completely unfamiliar with was a gay male author being anonymously accused of raping women during the height of the Me Too movement. Although my personal situation wasn’t nearly as bad, I could relate the most. It was insane reading how not only was the allegation crazy because the man is gay and has never been with a woman, but people turned against him with zero evidence. He even ended up winning a defamation lawsuit, but his life is still ruined.
So, what didn’t I like? This book intertwines legitimate stories of how people were wronged along with others where some details are left out. I think the best example is Brett Weinstein. What originally happened to Brett was a little ridiculous, but since then, the man and his wife have become well-known conspiracy theorists. I don’t know if I’d call them grifters because they might actually believe their own nonsense. Brodsky does cover her butt a bit by mentioning a few times that she may not agree with him or he may be wrong, but she does leave out some of the crazier things Brett and his wife have said over the last few years.
Overall, it’s a great book that I think a lot of people should read. I would just suggest researching some of the stories a bit more to learn more details. While I wouldn’t wish canceling on my worst enemy, some of the people from this book are making a lot of money and doing quite well by parlaying their canceling into right-wing outrage.
I will say this is a good book, and I did learn some additional details about different people in this book. The book discusses important topics like free speech as well as how some social justice movements have gone a little too far. I’m pretty far left, and a major advocate for social justice, but I do believe that some people go too far, and due to mob mentality, they’re pushing liberals to the right. This book even discusses quite a few instances of people who were leftists who moved to the right after they were the victims of online mobs.
I don’t think many people can read this book and not realize that we have a problem with some of these dog piles and accusations going a little too far. One story I was completely unfamiliar with was a gay male author being anonymously accused of raping women during the height of the Me Too movement. Although my personal situation wasn’t nearly as bad, I could relate the most. It was insane reading how not only was the allegation crazy because the man is gay and has never been with a woman, but people turned against him with zero evidence. He even ended up winning a defamation lawsuit, but his life is still ruined.
So, what didn’t I like? This book intertwines legitimate stories of how people were wronged along with others where some details are left out. I think the best example is Brett Weinstein. What originally happened to Brett was a little ridiculous, but since then, the man and his wife have become well-known conspiracy theorists. I don’t know if I’d call them grifters because they might actually believe their own nonsense. Brodsky does cover her butt a bit by mentioning a few times that she may not agree with him or he may be wrong, but she does leave out some of the crazier things Brett and his wife have said over the last few years.
Overall, it’s a great book that I think a lot of people should read. I would just suggest researching some of the stories a bit more to learn more details. While I wouldn’t wish canceling on my worst enemy, some of the people from this book are making a lot of money and doing quite well by parlaying their canceling into right-wing outrage.
May 25, 2024
Don’t apologize if you know you’ve done nothing wrong.
This is a book about cancel culture – with interviews and tips. Cancel culture is classic Marxism – denounce, de-platform, and cancel. No discussion allowed. I’m sick of cancel culture and all the woke nonsense, hence why I chose to read this.
Here are some of my favorite quotes.
The Vocal Minority
“… when the majority remains silent, a very vocal minority can easily gain complete control of a group even if
its views are wildly unpopular. Indeed, this phenomenon not only accounts for many dark moments in history but also explains much about what’s happening in our society today.”
Staying Silent
“Before long, you realize that you’re better off not expressing any thoughts, ideas, or questions—lest you offend anyone. Of course, you don’t intend to offend, but it’s hard to tell what might offend any given person. It is in the eye of the beholder. So, you stop talking altogether or stick to the weather because you don’t want to be disagreeable or cause a fight, and you certainly don’t want to be ostracized or destroy a career you’ve spent a lifetime building. Besides, you’ve got a family to feed.”
The Literary Community
“’It’s a place of conformity … you’ll be hard-pressed to find a community with less integrity than the literary community because, by definition, they’ve sold out everything to their ambition. They’ve decided that attention and success in this world is more important than money—because you don’t even do it for the money. It’s a zero-sum game, there’s very little to go around … and you don’t even notice that you’re shedding yourself to be in this world, you know?’ Everyone in the literary world also tends to share the same political views and go along with whatever is popular among that tribe. ‘You have to compromise yourself so many times to exist as a short story writer or as a poet that you don’t even notice small compromises you make along the way.’ One might imagine that writers would have more integrity since they are living the life of an artist, but Elliott is quick to point out that there are very few ‘outsider’ artists.”
False Accusations
“’We’re reaching some kind of a critical mass where everybody knows somebody who has been falsely accused of something.’”
Pharmaceuticals
“There was a time, says Kheriaty, when there was a law prohibiting the direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. In the past, drugs could be advertised only to doctors via medical journals or conferences or salespeople. While there is a debate to be had whether greater consumer awareness of prescription drugs is good or bad, the reality is that nowadays, it’s difficult to avoid being targeted by pharmaceutical ads, with ad spending rising annually.
According to the Standard Media Index, the pharma industry spent $5.5 billion on ads for the first six months of 2022 alone. That potentially gives pharma companies a lot of influence over media organizations. ‘It doesn’t have to be overt,’ says Kheriaty. ‘It can be very, very subtle.’ He provides a hypothetical example wherein a TV show has him on as an expert, and the next week, the segment producer gets an email from Pfizer or a similar company suggesting that maybe they should reconsider having on someone like him: ‘We think you should have more credible sources on,’ the email might state. ‘Here’s a list of people that know the vaccine data better than he does. No pressure. We just wanted to flag you on this. P.S. Our Vice President for Advertising Accounts will contact you next week regarding next year’s ad buys.’ That kind of money, insists Kheriaty, can buy a lot of influence.”
COVID
“Prior to the vaccine rollout, physicians in California got a letter from the state’s medical board stating that if they were to write any inappropriate mask exemptions or other COVID-related exemptions (which doctors understood to mean vaccine exemptions), their medical license could be investigated and they could be disciplined or lose their license altogether. This had a chilling effect on practitioners. ‘They never defined what constituted appropriate versus inappropriate. So, with that hanging over our heads, basically every physician in California [was] not writing exemptions. It [was] impossible to get a medical exemption in California because everyone [was] afraid to lose their license. I had a patient who went to her rheumatologist specialist about her autoimmune disorder, and this person told her: ‘I don’t think you should get the COVID vaccine because you’re young and healthy and will be fine with COVID and I think this vaccine could worsen your autoimmune condition.’ She said, ‘Okay, can you write me a medical exemption?’ Same physician said, ‘No, I can’t do that. Because I don’t want to lose my license.’”
Journalism Today
“’Journalism has changed a lot,’ explains Curry. ‘They used to really be the ones to critically evaluate stuff, and now they’re all tribal. They all sound alike.’”
Three to Five Percent
“… this is not a policy debate about issues like universal health care or abortion—it is about authoritarianism or totalitarianism versus liberal democracy.’ ‘Either you’re actively pushing against it or you’re complying.’ She understands that people have real reasons to comply. No one wants to lose their job, for example—including her. But she sees this as only the beginning. ‘If this keeps going, it’s going to be more than a job [that we lose].’
You can’t avoid it forever. She recalls what someone once told her about the Chinese Cultural Revolution—that only 5 to 8 percent of the population believed in the ideologies that were being forced down. Everyone else just went along with it out of fear. On the other end, she says, there were [only] around 5 percent of the population who were actively fighting it. Maybe even as little as 3 percent. ‘I used to think it can’t just be three.’ But now, after everything she’s gone through and experienced, she says, ‘I think it’s three or less.’ Despite common conceptions, totalitarianism isn’t necessarily a top-down endeavor. Once a sufficient percentage of the population is effectively self-policing, then the conditions for a totalitarian regime have been met. ‘And I think the conditions have been met.’”
Don’t Apologize
“If there’s one common lesson among all those interviewed for this book, it’s this: don’t apologize if you know you’ve done nothing wrong.”
November 6, 2024
Had such high hopes for this book. It just feels like the author needs a therapist to sort out her anger before being able to steer others in a direction to make change.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews