End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free

by Mary Katharine Ham (Author, Narrator), Guy Benson (Author, Narrator)

They want to shut you up. But don’t let this be the End of Discussion.

In this fresh and provocative new book, Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson, dynamic Fox News and Townhall Media duo, expose how the Left exploits fake outrage to silence their political opponents—in public, on social media, at work, and even in their own homes. End of Discussion encourages all Americans who value the open exchange of ideas to fight back against this strategic effort to make America less free, less feisty, and less fun.

Ham and Benson demonstrate just how dangerous the outrage industry—a coalition of mostly liberal blowhards and busybodies—is to democracy. This media frenzy is designed to disqualify opposing viewpoints on everything from health care to infrastructure to education by labeling them racist, sexist, and evil. They punish speech that makes them uncomfortable, demanding boycotts, firings, regulations, and other economic costs for the sin of disagreeing with them. Instead of engaging in discussion, they seek to win the debate by preventing it from happening.

And if you think this behavior is relegated to political fights or politicians, think again. A network of well-trained operatives, nonprofit groups, PR firms, universities, politicians, and “thought leaders” exists to foment outrage over your association with the “wrong” fried chicken joints, Internet browsers, breast cancer charities, pasta, children’s toys, Halloween costumes, TV shows, schools, and even comedians’ jokes.

With Ham and Benson’s help, readers can cut through the noise and find their voices again, fighting back against the rampant self-censorship and hair-trigger apologies that always make things worse, not better. With fresh reporting and insightful, occasionally tongue-in-cheek, analysis, End of Discussion is a timely handbook for anyone who wants to make sure debate doesn’t meet an ugly death during the 2016 election. Despite President Obama’s frequent declarations to the contrary, the time for debate is not over.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Cultural, Society, Audiobook

Audible Audio

First published June 9, 2015

Reviews

[Negin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a wonderful read and an important one. There were many parts that got me extremely frustrated – those were the parts that were truly eye-opening. The authors are intelligent and have a great deal of common sense, which is quite refreshing in today’s world. As with anyone, I didn’t agree with them on every single issue and they don’t expect you to. We’re never going to agree with anyone on every single issue, although it would be nice if we did! Their chapter on rape culture was fabulous and enlightening, as was most of the book. I loved the “co-exist” part (quoted below).
The authors also have a lovely sense of humor, making it an entertaining read as well. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, those who need to read this the most, probably won’t. I really like these authors and am going to look into their blogs/articles. This book is definitely a must read for everyone.
There are so many great quotes in this book.

“We must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.” —C. S. Lewis, Preface to The Screwtape Letters, 1960

“Let’s talk about ‘Coexist’ bumper stickers for a second. You’ve definitely seen them around. They’re those blue strips with white lettering that assemble a collection of religious icons and mystical symbols (e.g., an Islamic crescent, a Star of David, a Christian cross, a peace sign, a yin-yang) to spell out a simple message of inclusion and tolerance. Perhaps you instinctively roll your eyes at these advertisements of moral correctness. Perhaps you find the sentiment worthwhile, but you’re not a wear-your-politics-on-your-fender type of person. Or perhaps you actually have ‘Coexist’ bumper stickers affixed to both your Prius and your Beamer. Whatever floats your boat, man; far be it from us to cast stones. But we bring up these particular morality minibillboards to illustrate a bothersome dichotomy. If we were to draw a Venn diagram of (a) the people who flaunt their socially responsible “coexist” values for fellow motorists, and (b) the people who believe that, say, an evangelical Christian who owns a local flower shop ought to be sued and shamed for politely declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, the resulting circles would more or less overlap.
The coexist message: You people (i.e., conservatives) need to get on board and start coexisting with groups that might make you uncomfortable. It says so right here on my highly enlightened bumper sticker. But don’t you dare ask me to tolerate the ‘intolerance’ of people with whom I disagree. Because that’s different.”

“If you start having a society where people are policing their own thoughts, now we’re back in Salem, Massachusetts, where literally, they didn’t do anything for fun, and then that pressure built up and they all went nuts.”

[Jeff Raymond · Rating 4 out of 5]

I mean, this one's obvious, right?

If you've spent any time on the internet lately, you know the types. They shut down discussion before it starts, they're trying to keep things from being discussed at all, and it's getting to the point where college policies, government rules, and so on are being dictated by a sort of heckler's veto. End of Discussion is a book that sort of charts that recent rise and provides some examples along the way.

The book is far from perfect, but it is necessary. The problem, as is with a lot of books in this sort of subgenre, is that there's no way the people who need to read this will see it. The result, instead, is a sort of preaching to the choir as opposed to being a vehicle for the necessary change in this area before it's perhaps too late.

As a political conservative, though, it's interesting to see a lot of these stories compiled into one place. I just wish I knew how to get this into the hands of the people who need to read it.

[Jim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Freud taught the defense mechanism of projection, in which people defend themselves against their own bad qualities by putting them on other people instead. I think that’s what this book is about. Is it possible that conservatives are so disgusted by themselves that they have to take their own worst qualities and pretend that's what liberals are like? The subtitle of this book perfectly describes the right.

This book actually does what it accuses liberals of doing. It completely shuts down any sort of (liberal) response. First, it stops liberals replying to these accusations by accusing liberal of what conservatives do. And second, it spends so much time on liberal outrage that to react to any of the boldface lies, offensive statements, and downright insults will look like you're just sharing what they say is run-of-the mill liberal outrage. I applaud the mind fuck which is this book. Being Orwellian while calling your detractors Orwellian is most impressive.

What a glorious fiction. A perfect primer on how the right / Republicans / conservatives spread lies in creating a liberal opposition. How they can effectively shut down reasoned and factual opposition to their arguments. To turn the intolerance of intolerance upside down is truly a feat.

Or is this how conservatives are being lied to? By leaders and spin doctors and media pundits who have a financial stake in this thing?

Yes liberals get outraged - over treating people like shit.

These people - political pundits, right wing politicians, and anyone who makes money off of being on the right are lying to their constituents. They're painting a false view of the world to get people to have "conservative outrage" and side with them.

It's this kind of thinking that makes people say things like "I like Bill O'Reilly because he's fair and shows both sides." I find it hard to fathom something less true. And I want to question the intelligence of people who say such things. (I actually heard someone utter those words live.)

But you can see from the beginning how these writers are using words to attempt to make their point before they've made it. In the first chapter alone there's the "increasingly aggressively thought police" and "Outrage Circus" the "right's mythical war on women”.

Consistent use of words that make liberals look like liars and oppressors and lunatics without actually calling them that, or without actually giving evidence for it. It's very effective.

They also make liberals look like they make a concerted effort to control people's thoughts by creating a conspiracy to get people to think in a certain way. But that's what conservatives actually do! It's the wealthy .1% who are controlling media, taking people's freedoms, and getting them to think in a certain way. Google Grover Norquist and find out how he has organized the right wing and re-written conservative dogma. Liberals and progressives don't have a similar institutional effort. These authors suggest that conservatives are individualistic and are Liberals are institutionalistic. The exact opposite is true. These authors are boldface lying.

End of discussion: How the Right's bullshit industry shuts down debate, manipulates voters, and makes America less American.

But deep down, these authors are tone-deaf to real life. They don’t care that not allowing gay people to marry is actually using a religious opinion to take away rights other people take for granted. They don’t care that people of color are targeted by the “War on Drugs”. They think that “dog whistles” don’t exist, that racism is a thing of the past, and that no one has privilege. Rape culture doesn’t exist, sexual assault isn’t as prevalent as feminists say.

This book continuously uses double-speak to make it sound like things that are documented facts don’t exist. How do you argue with that? They coin so many derogatory terms that are intended to make anyone on the left sound and look stupid, and put in quotes phrases the left might use to make them look like they’re not really things that exist. They often refer to general leftist outrage that they don’t quote it.

Now, they do quote some - and I won’t suggest that the left doesn’t have their issues. But to suggest that the left as a whole has a concerted effort is trying to shut down discussion is laughable.

They continually refer to unsubstantiated stories to prove that Democrats are liars and hypocrites - that they don’t live by the same laws they tout. Like suggesting that Elizabeth Warren definitely forwarded her career by claiming she was part Native American, even though she definitely is not. (Neither of which can be proven.)

And great statements like, “Exactly zero conservative or Republican politicians have attempted to ban birth control anywhere in the United States of America.” Maybe on the surface that sounds great - but trying to shut down organizations that provide birth control, allowing corporations to decide whether or not insurance covers birth control seem dangerously close to it. And actually, some do try to ban certain types of birth control (and I’m not talking about pills that perform abortions).

Let us repeat: abortion and gay marriage are not linked in the public’s mind, except, apparently, among the pundit class. Wow - so I guess all the people that I know that base their voting primarily on these two issues must all be pundits.

At the end they have some advice.

To their fellow conservatives: “Ask yourself, “Might I fit the lefty stereotype of a close-minded conservative?” I’m sorry, but I was conservative most of my life, and even though everybody tends to be “some kind of political hybrid”, the number of conservatives I know personally that tailor their media consumption habits such that they almost exclusively consume viewpoints with which they’re heavily disposed to agree and that believe their idealogical canon is infallible and think their ”side” is right about everything is pretty extensive. And maybe we all have a bit of echo chamber going on in our consumption of media. But to suggest that this is merely a “lefty stereotype of a conservative” is kind of crazy - I know too many conservatives whose sole source of info is FOXNews and conservative talk radio. And who think that since the Bible has framed all their opinions they are infallible and right about everything.

I guess in the end, it really seems like they suggest that many of these issues have two sides. But, does racism have two sides? Does sexism have two sides? Does homophobia have two sides? Does the problem of denying the prevalence of sexual assault have two sides? Does white supremacy have two sides? Does hate have two sides?

Because some people (like the authors) are claiming these are the actual issues - by trying to say that racism doesn’t exist, sexism doesn’t exist, hate for gay people doesn’t exist, sexual assault doesn’t exist (ok, it’s rare), that white supremacists can be fine people. I’m sorry. These issues don’t have two sides. And books like this that try to deny these issues even exist are what we’re outraged about. Because if we deny they exist, we can’t fix them.

[Scott Rhee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, frequently gives lectures to packed houses. A conservative and a strong critic of political correctness in general, Peterson also has issues with “gender identity”, especially in regards to transgender people and their preferred pronouns. He seems to feel that, for example, a woman who identifies as a man shouldn’t “force” him to refer to her as a “he” or “him”. He believes that it is a form of “compelled speech” and has taken it to court as a violation of free speech.

Regardless of where one stands on this issue, Peterson has every right to make his case. I may not agree with it fully, and there are certainly aspects of Peterson’s “anti-P.C.” argument that I disagree with, but he has a right to express his opinions. Unfortunately, there are some rather vocal opponents who, ironically, feel that Peterson should be silenced. They believe that he is a bigot and a transphobe and that his views are wrong, therefore he should not be allowed to express them. They somehow claim that they are protesting for free speech, which doesn’t make any sense.

I don’t recall anywhere in the First Amendment where exemptions are made to speech and expression that makes people angry, confused, upset, or uncomfortable. Or speech and expression that is diametrically opposite of one’s political or religious views. If this were the case, no speech or expression would be allowable anywhere, anytime, because someone, somewhere will inevitably be offended.

Fox News writers Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson tackle this subject in their thoughtful, funny, and disturbing book “End of Discussion: How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun)”.

While both ends of the political spectrum in this country occasionally engage in a kind of heightened sensitivity and “fake outrage”, Ham/Benson argues that that those on the Left engage in it far more frequently (and loudly). Given the fact that the book was written in 2015, long before the Drumpfster Fire was elected president, Ham/Benson’s argument is debatable.

Still, as an admitted and proud liberal, I have to agree with Ham and Benson. I’m not alone in this, either. Many rational-minded liberals are also making the case that the Left seems to be stoking unnecessary fires of moral outrage and trying to stop discussion of issues that need to be discussed more fully.

It doesn’t help that this alarming perversion (for want of a better word) of First Amendment rights is happening on American college campuses and in the American media, both of which are, inarguably, predominantly liberal.

Today, the best way to shut down an argument is to simply accuse your opponent of something that will suddenly make his or her argument lack credibility or lose any moral foundation. Through the use of certain words and political “dog whistles”, as Ham/Benson refer to them, liberals can shut an argument down in seconds.

Conservatives who criticize Barack Obama are “racist”. Pro-lifers are “anti-women”. People who don’t approve of same-sex marriage are “homophobic”. You get the point.

Unfortunately, the people who make these accusations---almost always a liberal---don’t get the point of what free speech is all about.

In order to make social changes, both sides of an issue must argue it out, sometimes endlessly. It does no good to silence one side of an argument because when that happens, one side has used coercion to get their way, and that is the path to totalitarianism.

It’s sad to think that many of my fellow liberals would never think of picking this book up, for several reasons. A few, for example: Ham/Benson work for Fox News; the book has the audacity to criticize liberals; the book cover is yellow. (Okay, that last one is arbitrary, but it makes about as much sense as the other two.)

It’s sad because these so-called “liberals” (people who claim to stand for values such as “open-mindedness” and “tolerance”) are quite intolerantly closing their minds off to some valuable constructive criticism.

[Corinne Wasilewski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disclosure: I had absolutely no interest in the 2016 American election until the results were announced. It wasn’t Trump’s victory that piqued my interest, although, that was certainly intriguing. No, it was the reaction of the left to his victory; the way the left demonized Trump supporters by labeling them “racists”, “rednecks”, etc; the way the left tried to shut out the voice of Trump supporters via ridicule and the maligning of character rather than through the debate of actual ideas; the self-righteousness of the left and the way they seemed to perceive themselves as the voice of absolute moral authority; and last, but, certainly not least, the extreme intolerance of the left for anyone who doesn't think the same way they do. These were my impressions, post-election results, and they inspired me to dig a little deeper into present day American politics.

End of Discussion is the first book on my list. It was published well before the American election and there is not a single mention of Trump in the book. Nonetheless, it would appear the left-wing tactics I listed above are not new as they are clearly described in this book with specific examples and in great detail. Even when the information presented is taken with a grain of salt, there is more than enough material here to tip the political scales and restore some credence to the right. I finished this book thinking I have a more balanced view when it comes to America and the rights of women and minorities. I also have a better understanding of the issues around health insurance and political correctness.

The book raises some interesting points including concerns around the limits of free speech, freedom of religion and where the reasonable protection of one’s person’s rights cross a threshold into the trampling of another’s.

You might think a book like this would be boring, but, I found it quite entertaining. The writing is conversational and often amusing, the tone always respectful. There are always two sides to every story and this book contributes to the conversation. Recommended.

[Vladivostok · Rating 4 out of 5]

That the modern Left avoids the toils of genuine discussion by employing expedient and hyperbolic verbal embroidery is a surprise to nobody. Those who find themselves beyond the ballooning sphere of progressive demagoguery and its psychological resentment are aware of the manufactured hysteria that has come to dominate our cultural milieu. And while the frequent and frantic appeals to racism, sexism, etc. are often attempts at peremptory delegitimisation, it's difficult for most to pinpoint how we've reached a point in which any hashtag activist can contribute to the collective hyperventilation. End of Discussion traces, in detail, dozens of such instances. Subject matter ranges from the faux-outrage of Democrats in their pretend quest to reduce monetary influence in politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list...), to the insufferable hypocrisy of Senate Democrats during the filibuster of Miguel Estrada's nomination and their subsequent steering of media narratives during Sotomayor's ascent. End of Discussion is a simple, straightforward book by two young Conservative upstarts, whose tongue-in-cheek writing offers a look at the front lines of political punditry. However, if you are looking for a book on why the Left is particularly fond of logical fallacy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affir...), or hoping to dive deeper into the origins of their perpetual philosophy of aggrieved conceit, I would advise that you look elsewhere.

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five stars. The two authors are people I immediately want to hang out with. Why? Simple: they would let me talk, and even when we disagree they would still listen.

This book is laugh-out-loud hilarious, wonderfully written, significant, astute, and I could go on. My takeaway is pretty to the point: the civic discourse in America has become too fraught with divisiveness, rancor, and political correctness to the point that people are no longer speaking to each other. Even on social media the slightest provocation can unleash a torrent of manufactured outrage that nowadays half the country has more or less been cowed into keeping their opinions to themselves.

Just this week, one week before Halloween, the thought police are telling us that white girls dressing up in Moana costumes -- yeah, that Moana the character from the Disney movie -- is "cultural appropriation" and to do so is insensitive and harmful.

Whatever.

There is a reason the polls, the punditry, the media, and just about everybody in between was wrong about predicting the election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president, something that occurred after End of Discussion was written. As this book demonstrates, because of the shaming, blaming, and intimidating tactics of the Left, a whole lot of people are not speaking up for themselves anymore and are tired of the oppressiveness of liberal bullies. But that doesn't stop them from acting out and voting for a bully, their own bully. Indeed, voter anger over this phenomenon fueled the election of a Bully in Chief who vowed to fight fire with fire.

Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Benson recount example after example of how actors on all sides of the political spectrum (but mostly the Left) participate in shutting down the other side rather than discussing important issues calmly and civilly. The media is perhaps the biggest player in purveying smear campaigns giving voice to the loudest bullies and silencing those who disagree. Again, this helps to explain the Trump presidency. Half the country is fed up with it, and that is having dire consequences, namely a reality TV-based leader whose most prominent qualities include crassness, vulgarity, and a petty willingness to indulge in personal insults and intimidation tactics. And he gets away with it "because he's a fighter," meaning people have given up on civility if it means perpetually losing.

Fight fire with fire, who cares if we all get burned in the process.

Hence this book's message is more timely and more needed than ever before. At least in my lifetime. I'll probably read it again, if for no other reason than it's really, really funny, and again, it's really, really well written.

MK and Guy, give me a call next time I'm in D.C. Let's hang out.

[Mama K · Rating 5 out of 5]

confirmed exactly what I've thought all along--everyone in this country whether democrat, republican, independent, or whatever, needs to grow up and put their big boy/big girl pants on and (as the authors succinctly said) "chill the hell out." we've given power to the offended in this country, so this country is now replete with people FINDING things to be offended by. What's happening is that our freedom of speech is being overtly eroded by all the hoopla over every PERCEIVED (emphasis on "perceived") offense. Though this is heavily right-wing, I have to confess though I lean slightly to the right, I really have very little political affiliation. The only vote I cast every year is the vote of confidence to myself that I can get through this life by being as fair to everyone as possible without giving up my own freedom of speech and my own belief system. But what has happened, and it has happened mostly due to extreme leftists, is that people with their own agendas don't want only to have their side acknowledged; they want us all to think THE SAME as they do. It's not enough for us to "accept" them; we have to "applaud" them. Any time we say we "disagree" with something, they start name calling, getting people fired for having/expressing an opinion, and refusing to acknowledge anyone else's opinion. While they're SCREECHING for their rights and demanding "tolerance", they want to take away everyone else's rights.....yet, interestingly, they see NOTHING wrong with their INTOLERANCE for others' opinions, nor do they see anything wrong with their taking away everyone else's rights. Whatever happened to "agreeing to disagree"? Whatever happened to the United STates of America where you were allowed to have dissent with discussion? instead, now we have attacks, firings, violence because of differences of opinion. Our freedom of speech is being eroded daily by those who sit at home, or those who work in the media, and FIND reasons to be offended and create a firestorm where one doesn't really need to exist.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

"With Ham and Benson’s help, readers can cut through the noise and find their voices again, fighting back against the rampant self-censorship and hair-trigger apologies that always make things worse, not better."

I took that to mean that the book was going to instruct its readers how to respond to the opposition's charges.

"The correct approach entails striking an appropriate balance, wherein the Right declines to cede the playing field altogether without needlessly escalating the outrage wars, which would threaten to officially push our national conversation over the “beyond repair” Rubicon."
That was the payoff! The entire book was to impart that advice. Sad.

The book walked the reader through the outrages of the last several years and how the political left manipulates the issues to extract political points from the right. Ham and Benson spin unabashedly from the right. Many of the notes I took throughout were about their feigned outrage.

"While both major political coalitions have their respective chains of outrage, Democrats have mastered the process."
Again: both parties do it, but the Democrats are better at it so deserve our wrath.

Another familiar note was:
"Rockefeller and his ilk"
More loaded language. Wouldn't the argument be stronger absent the cheap shots?

Of course, there was plenty I agreed with.

In the end, I was left disappointed. Three hundred-plus pages rehashing crappy politics with no practical solutions. This book is just more noise, I am afraid.

[Jim Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

CALLING IT LIKE IT IS!

This is a great read if you are a political Independent, Conservative or Republican. It is also a great read if you are a Liberal or Democrat with an open mind. It really does tell it like it is and regardless of your political affiliation you are probably not going to like what you read about. I happen to believe it is the truth. The book clearly demonstrates how political debate in America is being diminished by people (the Left primarily) who call people who think and speak contrary with what they believe in as racists, women haters, anti-immigration, etc even before they actually hear what is being said. This country was founded on political debate as compared to arguments and when that debate is stifled regardless of the reason our Democracy is in jeopardy. The book gives example after example of the attempts to stifle debate/discussion about politics on the main stream news media, print, public speaking, essays, and especially on college campuses. I love this book, maybe because I agree with what was written but more importantly because it provides a ray of hope that the one-sided political debate in America may be at a tipping point and may in fact be changing. Let's hope so.

[Doichin Cholakov · Rating 1 out of 5]

The ways social media changes the quality of the political debate is a fascinating topic. A partisan perspective could be quite refreshing as it potentially does neither need to establish highbrow credentials nor to drown in political correctness disclaimers. Much like the marketing tell-it-all opus Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator.
But there could also be a temptation to use an already popular topic as a vehicle for partisan attacks and in this case – also as a catalogue of the authors' and supposedly house speaker Paul Ryan‘s breed of tea party positions on a variety of topics. Which again was not necessarily a bad thing, if only it was imaginative or at least as funny as the authors insistently and intensely claim throughout the short volume.
Actually you can see all of it coming already in the title. I just wanted it to be a more meaningful contribution to a topic which will soon loom large.

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'll start this review saying I'm on the left politically, so this book was not written to me, necessarily. That said, I agree with the message to a certain extent. I do think that many people shut down discussion too quickly because they take offense. And I do agree that behavior leads to self-censorship.

However, this book was not written as an analytical discussion of this behavior. It was written in a propagandist style, like a talk show speaking to the choir. I wish it had been a more serious discussion of how the tendency towards outrage and resulting self-censorship is damaging our political debate and traditional defense of free speech. Instead, it was right-wing outrage at a stereotyped image of liberals. Rather than seriously looking at the problems caused by this worrying tendency, this book spent too much time pointing out inconsistencies. It was basically a book equivalent of a conservative John Oliver episode.

[Veselin Nikolov · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a book about American politics and how some activists, mostly left, use manipulative and unfair tactics to end the discussion instead of win it. It covers multiple examples of personal attacks by outraged activists that ended with people being fired or forced to surrender their beliefs.

The book helped me understand some of the clashes in the US society that don't exist in my country. There is no pro-life or pro-choice debate in Bulgaria. Nobody cares about firearms or about twitter flash mobs. Racial issues here are completely different. That part I enjoyed.

I didn't like the overall spirit that it's no longer safe to be conservative.

[Tuna · Rating 5 out of 5]

End of Discussion is an excellent chronicle of the Outrage Industry which has worked well to try to shut down anybody that disagrees with their viewpoints. Though they come from the Left and have often been ones to embrace people of diverse backgrounds who may not have had an opportunity to have their chance to have a voice it seems the ones who are on the Left now, probably the far left are using it as their excuse to why they are the only ones that deserve to be heard and not anyone else. I found it most interesting when popular mascots for them were at times also targeted by the same Outrage Circus for saying something they didnt agree with. The chapter on checking their privilege was highly enlightening as it showed that something created by that side could also harm others there since no one has gone through every type of situation. I was also disturbed that that Outrage Circus carries so much weight they they are even trying to get Trigger Warnings placed in college syllabi. One of the points briefly touched on was sometimes the people in these areas are not even ever finding the things offensive, or in one extreme example in which someone complained about the Cards Against Humanity game and they taking offense to one card, they found themselves baffled when they received comments from others asking why they werent offended by the other cards.

In any case the book probably can be best be summed up by be not wise in thine own eyes. When people are like this, or rather, taking the position of the Absolute Moral Authority, they end up throwing all logic and reasoning out the door, end all forms of discussion and work hard to ignore anyone else. Some of the people even seemed to follow faulty logic and reasoning or worst saying statistics that were calculated incorrectly (for example the White House Male Female Wage ratio, and always saying that number when the one who calculated it said it was problematic and took too many assumptions). It was interesting in that scenario to at least hear from people that wage is not everything to a job or that not everyone aspires to be a CEO or work in an office. What was most important was that they did say people ought to negotiate to ensure they are earning a fair amount for the position they are in. Personally, knowing more of the truth helps people be open minded and see through things that some people are trying to force them to believe. If you are knowledgeable then one is able to establish a position and hopefully debate reasonably about it.

Many examples in the book are well known and probably sad to see that there are times when people with differing and respectful opinions are shut down and silenced even by the government. Though perhaps when there is a President that touts "The Time for Talk Is Over," we get numerous court orders saying that people are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives, which is the cost of citizenship (Elane Photography taken to court for not agreeing to take photos of a gay wedding), and in the other situation of the Giffords not willing to let a Gay wedding take place on their own home ground, that is the court ruled that they deserved a warning to the intolerant fanatics who continue to labor under the ludicrous misconception that theyre free to live out their religious beliefs within the confines of their own personal homes. Surely they could have entertained some debate about this issue. Other examples were people on the Left interrupting numerous functions of elected officials and trying to impede or block voting, impede other functions by shouting to drown out the leader speaking, or even the Occupy movement in which they illegally stayed in places to try to get their point across (while the Tea Party ones had to painstakingly follow the laws for how to do a protest). Of course no one from the Occupy movement had to pay the same fees.

All in all really interesting read. The writers are great and personable, the footnotes were often hilarious and inquisitive, and often the points made were at times not just focused on perpetrators of the Left but also those on the right, so it was nice to see that they attempted to focus on both sides. A few points were weak such as the transexual chapter, though that seemed more on people just being confused ultimately on how to handle the situation with terminology and even transgenders in the spotlight shutting down any sort of discussion from people trying to understand what they go through when interviewed on TV (Katie Couric interview for example). Some chapters were also short but they did get the points across fast (people being misled by the loud noise over gun issues in America, but we have like over 200 pages of Federal laws on it and crimes involving guns have been their lowest since 1920s, followed by the voting issues chapter, and that voting fraud is real, when 13000 people who are deceased are still voting...something is still wrong)

[Dachokie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Preaching … Not Only to the Choir …

This book was reviewed as part of Amazon's Vine program which included a free copy of the book.

While I reached a degree of “political burnout” years ago, I’m still temped to dip my toe in the political book pool from time-to-time when lured by the promise of intriguing (salacious) scandals or reasonable (non-sycophantic) debate. Authors Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson may be labeled as “conservatives” or even “right-wingers”, but they present a rather convincing argument how “freedom of speech” is gradually being shaped by one voice that demands to be heard over everyone else. What I found enjoyable about END OF DISCUSSION was that Ham and Benson make their point in a humorous, relaxed manner … sans the bitterness. In other words, they offer their take on issues in a way that most sensible people can appreciate.

Sure, many of the issues presented in END OF DISCUSSION are nothing new to those who’ve grown accustomed to the rantings and ravings of the “us vs. them” mentality that dominates every facet of political discussion these days: the “war against women”, same-sex marriage, Islamophobia, racism … and the list goes on. These are provocative in that they involve people, which tends to make things personal and emotional ... the essential ingredients needed for rage. Rather than focus on the topics themselves and take sides, Ham and Benson take a step back to examine how and why these issues have become so volatile. Their conclusion is that the sensible manner of resolving differences using rational debate is being usurped by one side’s effort to silence the other by employing the same tactics kids use on a playground (fear, shame, finger-pointing and yelling louder). The authors claim this lack of debate has amounted to a one-sided argument in which a minority opinion ultimately controls the national discussion because anyone taking a different viewpoint must be a (insert derogatory label). In other words, we’re gradually losing our civility and the authors simply want to show us how and what can be done to improve things.

I caution those who may dismiss the book simply because the authors are labeled as “one of them”, because both authors express their open-mindedness on many of the issues at hand. Ham and Benson manage to offer candid opinions and solutions without being bitter or emotional … humor and simple common-sense make the book a relaxing and enjoyable read. They provide plenty of examples and evidence to convincingly back their points and never stoop to ranting. In many ways, END OF DISCUSSION reads a lot like Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” in that it manages to present one side’s perspective in a manner that is easy to digest by all. Like “Rules”, readers may not ultimately agree with the book’s message, but can appreciate the manner in which the message is delivered.

I enjoyed END OF DISCUSSION because I appreciate political books that make points using common-sense and humor. I also see value in the book because regardless of what side of the political aisle we belong, it illustrates how we should be cognizant of the dangers associated with one side controlling the national discussion. Inevitably, the other side will have its day at the helm …

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Since goodreads provide no parameters for this box, I'd thought I'd offer a personal reflection rather than an actual review, albeit a reflection related to one of this book's themes, that developed in Chapter Five--on policing speech at college campuses.

There, the two authors, blogress pundit Mary Katharine Ham and the fetching Guy Benson address the issue of "Triggers," "Words, phrases, or topics that may offend an observer's sensibilities". Unbeknownst to the two, the included some anecdotes which opened up an old (and still festering) wound. I cringed as I felt the pain, but then manned up, bore it, read on in the book and moved on with my life.

But that is the nature of life, that oftentimes something someone else says can trigger a memory (or series of memories) without knowing that that will prove painful to their interlocutor. And nowadays, it seems some of us are (for basically good reasons) trying to prevent people from feeling pain.

But, doing that often curtails the things one can say. Now, to be sure, we should discourage people for saying truly hateful things, but some people define "hate speech," as speech as odds with their views.

Now, I don't find the book's "triggering" paragraphs "hateful," just (momentarily) painful. I know it was not their intent to wound. Indeed, I would dare say neither imagined those particular paragraphs could wound. But they did. Through no fault of their own.

In short, what I am saying is that anything can (given the right* circumstances) trigger someone else's pain. And the only way to prevent that from happening would be to require all of us to be silent.

And if you take some of (what the authors call) the outrage industry's arguments to their logical end, that's what you'd end up doing, silencing us all.

So, accept the fact that some people are going to disagree with you--or might say things that trigger a painful memory--learn to argue with your ideological adversaries and to articulate the reason certain "triggers" prove painful.

Or you could just read this book and consider the very smart "advice sort of" (as the authors put it) they offer at the end.


----
*or should I say, "wrong."

[Judith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am uncomfortable reviewing this book. I was uncomfortable reading this book. But the authors are too self-aware, too smart, and too obsessed with statistics to ignore. Their assessment of the Left's "outrage industry" eerily mirrors my own conclusions after listening to my parents live through the recent NODAPL protests and contrasting it with the mainstream news' coverage of the same.

I have this longstanding confusion after listening to NPR and reading NYT or WIRED: their stories all fit together like pieces of a puzzle to present me with a coherent picture. Isn't that wrong? Shouldn't their journalists be different and true enough to their inherent biases or espoused beliefs to offer up puzzle pieces that just don't fit? Smart people shouldn't agree that beautifully. It feels...coerced. If Ham and Benson are accurate about the outrage industry and the homogenization of media in order to toe the line and avoid the "Outrage Circus," it certainly does explain my confusion.

So, although there's much in the book I was shaking my head over, it was certainly eye-opening. And incredibly freeing. They said to not shy away from, within reason and after reflection, posting what I actually want to say on Facebook. Ha, if even. But it still makes me feel good to imagine a reality where I would.

Among their other conclusions after hitting hard hard social topics like gun control, feminism, the radical/violent Right, gay rights, and campus speech policies, is to create a "Coalition to Chill the Hell Out"; to "stop narcing on each other"; "don't allow yourself to be coerced into silence"; and "don't be afraid to NOT have an opinion on something" (for, as they deftly explained, we are not all politicians, we don't all make a living by having opinions, and we don't all need to take a stance on everything).

Now really, aren't those words to live by?

[Ruth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many thanks to Crown Publishing and Netgalley for the ARC!

I don't generally enjoy reading about modern partisan politics, and this would have been regular a three-star read if not for the fabulous turns of phrase appearing throughout: describing a political figure who hung up during an interview as "having run out of intellectual runway"; describing Beyoncé as "a tour de force of preternatural pipes and stems, a stunning combination of bodacious body and businesswoman"; recalling when Robertson supporters "melted down social media"; relating a legal story and then referring to a "sad conga line of similar cases snaking its way through the courts"; and--perhaps my favorite--after recounting a particularly hysterical media circus, commenting, "We're all the way through the looking glass, guys."

Whether or not the authors are completely fair in their overall assessment, I don't know, since I don't keep up with American politics as well as I should. I will say, though, that they build a logical argument and deliver it with flair, making for an entertaining and stimulating read.

[Derek Neighbors · Rating 4 out of 5]

I ran across Mary Katharine Ham watching an episode of Politically Incorrect (Don't ask). I really like her style and her humor. I put the book on my list. A friend read it and mentioned it was good so I moved it up to the top. It was well worth the wait. I listened to the audiobook and it felt more like a podcast between the two authors than book. I was sad when it came to an end. The content is SO relevant to the world we live in and coming election cycle. We seem unable to actually have conversations anymore. Any meaning discussion gets shut down, often before it is started with name calling and mud slinging. The book certainly has a conservative bent, but I think it can be stomached by a moderate liberal on a good day. The criticisms from the authors certainly spare no party from guilty behavior. I encourage you to pick it up and read if 1. Political posts on your facebook stream are pissing you off. 2. You want to stay sane through the coming election cycle.

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I know, I know, this is a conservative pundit book about free speech. But I know MKH's late husband, Jake Brewer, so I've spent some time with her as well. She seems lovely and reasonable so I was dying of curiosity and had to read this book. In a sentence, this book is about why free speech is important and how America has let that principle slide lately. Of course I didn't agree with all the ideas or examples cited. Of course those examples are hilariously biased. But this book is funny, sarcastic, and made me think more about gray areas of free speech (like insensitive remarks by politicians/execs) and the resulting punishments. Next time I would probably choose a neutral issue-based book, rather than a polarizing political candy, but I have to admit that I was excited to read a book from the other side that challenged some of my less considered ideas. 3 stars for how much I enjoyed listening to this, especially considering my low expectations.

[Dwayne Roberts · Rating 3 out of 5]

Moderately light reading with occasions of humor. Lots of good examples of suppression of speech. My biggest complaint is that often the standard of good is considered subjective, including being based on polls and surveys; that it isn't based on man's nature as man. What in man needs freedom of speech? Why, when his speech is suppressed, is he less than human? The book starts with the assumption that freedom of speech is important, but why is it so?

[Josh · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is always frustrating to read a thoughtful, but pointed ideological polemic that maked arguments and uses criteria that could just as easily be applied to any ideology. Though their critiques of contemporary social/political rhetoric are cogent, only a fool would suggest or agree that these tactics are primarily associated with the left (or the right).

[Catherine Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have so many pages ear marked in this book; great read (and one of the author's is a conservative gay man). It's a really well written with tons of real-life examples where the outrage industry shuts down debate and illegitimatizes anyone who doesn't agree with them. In some instances it even has those who started the outrage apologize after the fact (usually after they ruined someone's life) saying they regret what they did and that it was based on emotion (basically they should have not set off the internet fury). Apparently there is an app (BuyPartisan) you can buy that lets you know the political implications of every product that you buy (if you shop at Whole Foods you are in some way supporting the Republican Party..ironic ain't it smile emoticon ). We live in a world where pretty much anything you do can be considered a micro-aggression towards someone who is non-white and our college students are requiring trigger warnings on all course work for their ever delicate psych. Colleges are designating 1% of the campus as a free speech zone....forgetting that the USA in it's entirety was designated as such with the First Amendment. At St. Thomas University (a Catholic university) the student's had an on-campus event called "Hump Daaaaaay!" on Wednesdays. During this time a live camel (trained for special events) would come to campus and students could have their photo with taken with it.....discontinued because it was a micro-aggression towards Middle Eastern cultures (because of all the Muslims at the Catholic university?). The Vagina Monologues are now deemed offensive because it does not represent those "women" without vaginas (for real?). There were a couple of guys who invented nail polish that women can wear to dip in their drink while out. If it changes color the drink contains the date rape drug.....sounds like an awesome way for women to protect themselves? Nope. The outrage circus says they were empowering rapists by not teaching them not to rape (we should be teaching people not to steal instead of telling people to lock their windows and doors). Tolerance is a one way street (MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart). It is OK to fire people from a job due to their personal political opinions/contributions regardless of how it doesn't affect their work or how they treat people (see Mozilla and Eich). It's happening more and more in colleges where students demand something of their professors and the professors refuse and the student leaves in tears (because that is what one does when one doesn't get one's way). Comedians can no longer perform on college campuses because people cannot take a joke; even the traditional TV shows come under fire. I miss Joan Rivers! She knew how to tell the outrage circus to "go fuck yourselves!" To quote "Life is tough, darling. Life is hard. And we better laugh at everything, otherwise we're going down the tube."

[Coyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The central argument of End of Discussion is obvious from the subtitle—it's about how modern liberalism would rather shut down opposition than engage it. The authors suggest that a tendency on the left has been "not to declare our words or actions offensive, which would be preposterous enough... but to slowly and steadily declare our very existence offensive." (pg 6) Rather than have an argument about—to use an example mostly from the 90s that doesn't turn up much in the book—the merits and demerits of affirmative action, the left has begun taking pernicious position of simply declaring opponents to the program to be 'racist' and hence not worthy of being engaged in public discourse.

Now, there are obviously groups we do that with all the time—no one is going to seriously invite the Klan to send a representative to a public debate on race relations. But even that's not the same thing as saying that we're going to use political or social power to punish someone for their beliefs, particularly someone who is in the mainstream (like conservatives) and not on the fringes of society (like the Klan). Ham and Benson quite rightly point out that this aggressive argumentation is not just a new form of speech, it's actively destructive to a core American freedom.

End of the Discussion is structured loosely like this:

Introduction to the book and to leftist outrage (Chapters 1-3)
Specific topics and places where we see this outrage, including:
o Race (chapter 4)
o University Campuses (chapter 5)
o Feminism and gender issues (chapter 6)
o Media (chapter 7)
o Homosexual issues (chapter 8) Full props to one of the authors for having the courage to come out publicly in this chapter—in a footnote. And I say "courage" not because I think it's particularly courageous to come out these days. For that, you've got to look back to Andrew Sullivan and Ellen Degeneres who came out before it was culturally acceptable. But coming out as a homosexual conservative? That takes courage and, from what I understand, is one of the ways to get yourself shunned in the LGBT community. And of course, there are those on the right who will hear that one of the authors is homosexual and that will be for them, well, the end of the discussion."

Read the whole thing here: http://coyleneal.blogspot.com/2015/08...

[Brett T · Rating 3 out of 5]

End of Discussion was published in roughtly the same time frame as Kirsten Powers' book on the deliberate drying up of political discourse, Silenced. Powers contended that instead of defending positions and winning debates in the marketplace of ideas, too many folks were interested in simply shutting up their opposition. Although she self-identified as a liberal person politically, Powers didn't hesitate to call out people who shared her positions but who lacked her commitment to robust debate.

Being conservatives, Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Benson also take aim at more liberal folks who are more interested in silencing their opponents than persuading them, but like Powers they point out how some conservative folks have done the same thing when they have the power to do so. They touch on a few cases where they actually agree with the position being argued by the silencers -- they too support same-sex unions, for example -- even though they completely reject the labeling and forced acquiescence sought by people who also favor that position

Discussion ranges more widely than Silenced; Ham and Benson touch on some of the same incidents Powers relates but add several others outside the political arena. They also aim some well-deserved mockery at folks who operate on the "'Shut up,' they explained" model. The goal of getting a laugh makes their work a little breezier than Silenced, and its connection with current events means it will sound dated before long. But its central argument against the idea that shutting down debate is preferable to engaging in it remains timely, and unfortunately new examples will make certain that this is a subject that will bear repeated visits in the future, by Ham and Benson or others

Original available here.

[Anya Weber · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Instead of engaging in the rich American tradition of a loud, raucous, messy free speech free-for-all, we have begun to spend a disturbing amount of our speech just flagging the speech of others," write Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson. Their wonderful book examines what they term the "Outrage Circus": the seething hordes of self-righteous "woke" (mostly white, mostly left-wing) people who spend their energy blocking dissenting voices from the public square.

Ham and Benson look at everything from media coverage of politics to self-censorship online to riots on college campuses, with a wit that cuts across ideological borders. They're both center-right conservatives (I'm center-left myself), and I was blown away by the passion and mischief that they bring to such a thorny topic. They offer tons of examples of how our democratic discourse is being undermined because we're afraid of exposure to people who express ideas we find offensive.

My own political beliefs don't mesh with the writers' at every turn, but I am 100% in their camp that more speech is better speech, and that the current atmosphere online and in classrooms discourages honest conversations--which are essential to our democracy.

As someone who was raised very liberal/progressive, it's also fascinating to hear about people on the other side of the political spectrum who find themselves labeled haters or bigots for simply holding conservative beliefs.

The best thing a book about political discourse can do is make you laugh and think. This one does both, over and over. Anyone will enjoy this who's interested in our country's political system, or wondering how to navigate communicating with a world that seems constantly poised on a hair trigger of fury.

[Wayne McCoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

'End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free {and Fun)' by Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson has a title that's sure to provoke, but it makes a good case for getting us back to a place where we can hold differing opinions and have civil discourse.

We live in a time when some people with opposing views can't seem to hold a conversation without either side digging in a refusing to listen. It starts at the top and goes right on down to social media. One way this happens is when one side shuts down the conversation by pulling some sort of real or imagined outrage card. It's in the news even as recently as I write this.

The authors are definitely from one side of the political spectrum and they work for Fox news. The book does tend to skew toward examples from the left, but the right isn't safe from being targeted by the authors. It's all told in a pretty great style and makes a point about how far we've come in a short time. We used to be able to agree to disagree. Now we just want everyone to agree with us. We need to change that. Maybe this book can help.

I received a copy of this ebook from Crown Publishing and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. Thank you for allowing me to review this ebook.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is perhaps the most frustrating book I have read in recent years. In it, the authors document the extensive lies that politicians and their allies in the liberal "news" media have told (and presumably will continue to tell) about their conservative enemies. I almost came to a complete stop when I read what the Democrats did to Paul Ryan in their "throwing Grandma off a cliff" analysis of his proposals for reforming Social Security and Medicare. One would be hard pressed to understand that Ryan was attempting to save these social safety net programs, not to destroy them.


It is too bad that the Supreme Court approved of political lying as critical components of free speech, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Surprise! Did you think that slander and libel were illegal assaults upon a person's character? Character assassination is now the Court-sanctioned method de jour of destroying your opponents.


If you want to be assaulted by a tidal wave of documentation about how the Left is destroying our political system, then this is the book for you. If you prefer to rest in a cocoon, assuming that all is well with our "leaders," then pass this one up. When misinformation undergirds the actions of a government, then we have reason to believe that we are on a road not paved with good intentions, but covered over with lies and distortions.

[Naomi Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the title, Ham and her coauthor Gary Benson actually DO talk about conservative puffing and spitting and threatening as well; they simply contend (I think correctly) that liberals are more likely to ask that a dissenting point of view be shut down outright, rather than engaged on a level of argument or logic.

All the hot topics of the day are taken up, from gender identity and "safe space" on campuses, to racism and personal attacks on the president. The book is stuffed with transcripts and quotations, so you can see the evidence for yourself.

I would especially like to point out to my friends likely to disbelieve this is possible, that the book features smart and witty conservatives with articulate arguments FOR same-sex marriage.

I did find a general lack of citations to be mildly annoying; the authors seem to think if you want to look something up for yourself, you know how to use a search engine. Also, I'm astounded that the authors could talk about being shut down by dissenting voices without a peep about Dr. Laura and her departure from broadcast radio. Not sure whether it was old news by their standards (few incidents in the book are more than 3 years past) or if their own differences with her got in the way here. It is a good book without this, but I found the omission odd.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strong Concept, a little too weighed down by contemporary politics

The authors begin with an important point and issue: the modern tendency to attempt to silence speakers and writers one disagrees with rather than to engage them. However, I found the book to be a little heavy, especially in later chapters, on relating recent news stories over examining the long-term trend.

This is especially true insofar as the later portion of the book is organized on an ideological issue-by-issue basis. What this intrinsically does is link the primary issue that the book means to address - suppression of speech - with narrower positions on issues.

In other words, I'm very interested in reading about current issues relating to free expression, but not that interested in paying to re-read standard culture war positions that Have been endlessly litigated over the course of decades.

Still, that objection aside, I think that the authors have done a good service in bringing this issue to the attention of a wider audience. Even I was taken aback by, to pick one example, the statistics on the number of college commencement speakers forced to withdraw as a result of political pressure and how that has increased in recent years.