Books you recommended for people who disagree with you?

[Hirota]

Is this really a thing? You disagree with someone over something so you suggest they read a specific book?

Alright, fine. The collected works of Chuck Tingle. Anyone who reads "I'm Gay For My Living Billionaire Jet Plane" will reconsider their obviously abhorrent beliefs and agree with you wholeheartedly. Remainers and Brexiteers alike will find common ground after reading "“Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union"" and the sequel follow up"Slammed By The Substantial Amount Of Press Generated By My Book “Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union""

Holy shit, I didn't think those would be real things.

Happy to enlighten you Cekoviu. A whole new world of Gay Parody erotica is just waiting there for you!

[Technoscience Leftwing]

I would recommend 4 books.

1. Soviet textbook of Marxism-Leninism of the 1960s. With all the naive self-confidence of the authors, with all the distortions in favor of the party bureaucracy, there was a lot of useful things there. Firstly, a scientific look at the development of nature and society: changes do not occur at the will of the gods and politicians, but because of the development of matter, economy and technology. Secondly, sympathy for the oppressed strata of the population, revolutionism, ideas of egalitarianism and concern for the poor, instead of fierce competition. Thirdly, an indication to dangers posed by state-monopoly capitalism - dictatorship of billionaires and the bureaucracy, imperialist war, impoverishment.
2. The book of J. Orwell "1984". This is a criticism of fascism or of the bureaucratic fake of socialism. This is not a fantasy, but an encyclopedia of real methods of oppression, which must be fought against.
3. Trotsky’s book, "The Betrayed Revolution". There, not in the form of dystopia, but on a documentary basis, the bureaucratic, conservative, imperial and traditionalist decline that occurred during the Stalinist period is criticized. The collapse of the USSR and the emergence of the reactionary dictatorship of monopolists in Russia are predicted.
4. The book "Sovetia", one of the modern authors. The idea of ​​technicalism is interesting in this book: the desire to solve problems not by exploiting people, but by conquering inanimate nature using technology, including nanotechnology, 3D printing and space exploration. The thesis about the dangers of excessive prohibitions and excessive regulation of human behavior, about the benefits of aesthetic, scientific and political pluralism within the framework of the progressive paradigm is also useful.

[Cekoviu]

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand to those who oppose free-market capitalism.

Such a fucking slog to get through, that one. Couldn't get through the whole thing. It really just made me hate capitalism.

1984 by George Orwell to those who support socialism and the banning of "hate speech".

Have you read 1984? Because it doesn't have that message at all.

The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton to those who don't realize that those in the "upper-class" can easily fall into poverty by being irresponsible.

...A fictional work demonstrates a concept in reality?

[Cekoviu]

Holy shit, I didn't think those would be real things.

Happy to enlighten you Cekoviu. A whole new world of Gay Parody erotica is just waiting there for you!

I'm so happy

[Strahcoin]

Nevertheless, 1984 was able to show the terrible aspects of socialism. (Low productivity, lying to the public, murdering dissenters, etc.)

Perhaps it is due to confirmation bias (I have yet to hear of socialism that doesn't involve starvation or suppressing dissent), or perhaps there was a part in the book that I haven't read that fundamentally changes the plot.

It's your confirmation bias. You, like many, don't know what you're talking about when you say "socialism" — you think it's a synonym for "totalitarianism" because you, as OP warns, have only ever heard it talked about by people who are trying to dissuade you from it through exaggerated scare tactics. What is it actually? In the most boiled down and basic sense, it is simply the process of some function of society being owned/maintained by the people of that society as a whole instead of a private entity, like a person, company, group, etc. There are many ways to apply socialism, including in genuinely evil and totalitarian ways, but pretty much no one besides the most ruthless of anarchists fails to believe in some form of socialism — it's not a matter of do or do not, but how much and in what ways.

Literally anything you pay for with your taxes is technically socialism, because that's how it is maintained as a public facility as opposed to being considered a private property, organization, establishment, etc. Your sig says you support "strong national defense" — the U.S. military is paid for with taxes because it's designed to serve the people as a whole. Congratulations, you support socialism.

Socialism: An economic system in which basically, private property doesn't exist. (Not the actual dictionary definition, but close enough.) Having the U.S. military is hardly "socialism". (And let's not forget that unnecessary welfare spending drains more money down the drain than military spending does in the U.S.)

1984 by George Orwell to those who support socialism and the banning of "hate speech".

Not only was Orwell a socialist, but the banning of "hate speech" as it exists in most contemporary democratic societies is not even remotely close to similar to how the totalitarian dystopia Orwell envisioned handled dissent.

This constant conservative misappropriation of Orwell's work almost makes me wish it'd never been printed.

Except... there's no formal, objective definition of "hate speech". That means that governments of nations that ban "hate speech" could just ban speech they don't like.

While the novel may have exaggerated this, the concept stands.

I wasn't joking. I was listing books those who disagree with me should try reading with an open mind.

Also, let's try keeping this thread polite and cool-headed. We will all be better off that way.

Then don’t suggest Ayn Rand, because that’s an argument against Free Market capitalism.

Explanation needed.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand to those who oppose free-market capitalism.

1984 by George Orwell to those who support socialism and the banning of "hate speech".

Understanding Trump by Newt Gingrich to those who think Trump is not a good president.

The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton to those who don't realize that those in the "upper-class" can easily fall into poverty by being irresponsible.

You must really hate people who oppose capitalism

I don't understand those who oppose capitalism, the best (and likely only) economic system that has lifted millions out of poverty.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand to those who oppose free-market capitalism.

Such a fucking slog to get through, that one. Couldn't get through the whole thing. It really just made me hate capitalism.

1984 by George Orwell to those who support socialism and the banning of "hate speech".

Have you read 1984? Because it doesn't have that message at all.

The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton to those who don't realize that those in the "upper-class" can easily fall into poverty by being irresponsible.

...A fictional work demonstrates a concept in reality?

1. Just because the book is long and dull does not necessarily mean that its message is bad.
2. I read most of it. (Granted, I didn't read all of it.) Maybe a difference in interpretation?
3. Good works of fiction convey messages applicable to the real world.

[Kowani]

Then don’t suggest Ayn Rand, because that’s an argument against Free Market capitalism.

Explanation needed.[/quote] You know how the best argument against something is a bad argument for it?

[Chernoslavia]

Basic Economics for those who think Socialism is the way to go.

[Strahcoin]

Explanation needed.

You know how the best argument against something is a bad argument for it?

No. The best argument against something is taking the best/strongest/most popular argument for it and disproving it.

[Rojava Free State]

The Bible - anyone who actually reads it has to know it's stuffed with bullshit.

There's a lot of people who read the Bible and believe it.

you'd believe anything if you were brought up in an authoritarian system that condemns criticism and seeks blind obedience and mental slavery. The bible promotes unquestioning servitude to a God who likely doesn't even exist

[Mushet]

Columbus and other Cannibals by Jack Forbes was a fairly uncanny depiction of the way I see the world. Disappointing in how it didn't really challenge me when I read it, but I appreciate that aspect of it, and it had some cool insights. If there was an exiting book to round up my views it would be this one.

Hearts and Hands Creating Community in Violent Times by Luis J Rodriguez is another favorite of mine about that's more focused on youth and how they're treated.

We Talk You Listen by Vine Deloria Jr was written in the 70s but still very applicable today as far as I'm concerned. It's unfortunate how little has changed. A lot of it is about the importance of community empowerment. It's indian focused but speaks on problems facing us all as a society.

A relatively recent addition to my most important books since all the other ones I first read in my teenage years is The End of Power by Moises Naim. It challenged me to see so much of what is happening in the world as a result of a downward diffusion of power which made the status quo feel threatened. And the devil you know isn't always wore than the devils you don't.

[Cekoviu]

Such a fucking slog to get through, that one. Couldn't get through the whole thing. It really just made me hate capitalism.

Have you read 1984? Because it doesn't have that message at all.

...A fictional work demonstrates a concept in reality?

Just because the book is long and dull does not necessarily mean that its message is bad.

It does, however, mean that the author is or was bad at writing and that the book is bad. The point is, there are much better books in favor of The Free Market^TM that you could've picked. Rand's is just edgy masturbatory navel-gazing disguised as a terribly boring work of fiction.
Also, relevant xkcds abound.

I read most of it. (Granted, I didn't read all of it.) Maybe a difference in interpretation?

The book describes an over-the-top totalitarian dictatorship which happens to be socialist and has insane restrictions on free speech, even inventing a language similar to Esperanto in syntax/morphology and English in vocabulary and requiring people to use it. It does not make an argument against socialism (which would be odd, since the author was a socialist), nor an argument against bans on hate speech (which didn't exist at the time, and are very different than mandating the use of an oversimplified constructed language). It was a satire of the bureaucratic authoritarian states of the time, particularly the USSR.
The only people against which it could be used as an argument would be tankies, and even then, it's not particularly convincing. It's a book that only appeals to people who already dislike authoritarian socialism.

Good works of fiction convey messages applicable to the real world.

Sure, but just a work of fiction can't be used to demonstrate that something exists. It can explain what the potential ramifications of that type of thing are, but you first have to demonstrate that the non-trivial base point is real.

[Cekoviu]

Basic Economics for those who think Socialism is the way to go.

What's the author's name? ISBN?

[Kowani]

You know how the best argument against something is a bad argument for it?

No. The best argument against something is taking the best/strongest/most popular argument for it and disproving it.

Not quite sure how you managed to miss the point that badly, but there we go.

[Crysuko]

The conquest of bread by Peter Kropotkin, for a deep look into the inherent flaws in capitalism as well as describing an alternative

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, by same. describes how human nature tends towards mutual support, and how capitalism twists and corrupts it. contains comprehensive arguments against social darwinism and survival of the fittest based mentalities. overall a good base for libertarian socialist theory.

God and the State, by Mikhail Bakunin. A criticism of christianity and theological institutions from an anarchist, individualist and materialist perspective.

all of these I own, and are easily acquirable by literature sellers. they provide an approachable and relevent criticism of capitalist and religious institutions, as well and proposing a reasonable and attainable alternative.

[Cekoviu]

The conquest of bread by Peter Kropotkin, for a deep look into the inherent flaws in capitalism as well as describing an alternative

I think you said "capitalism" when you meant to say "yeast-based food products"
Ciabattalists will never truly suppress the cause!

[Crysuko]

The conquest of bread by Peter Kropotkin, for a deep look into the inherent flaws in capitalism as well as describing an alternative

I think you said "capitalism" when you meant to say "yeast-based food products"
Ciabattalists will never truly suppress the cause!

[Cekoviu]

I think you said "capitalism" when you meant to say "yeast-based food products"
Ciabattalists will never truly suppress the cause!

I legitimately can't tell if this is good or bad

[Forsher]

Is this really a thing? You disagree with someone over something so you suggest they read a specific book?

It's not that different to people whose response to questions is lmgtf.

This constant conservative misappropriation of Orwell's work almost makes me wish it'd never been printed.

As Liriena so astutely points out, what people are expected to learn from a book (or an internet search) is very plausibly not going to be what they actually get from it. That Orwell, the democratic socialist, is one of the best authors to read to get anti-communist talking points is a wonderful demonstration.

(Of course, whether or not it's a sensible to write books condemning ideologies (or interpretations thereof) similar to your own is an important subsidiary question to which I suspect the answer is "no". But I think the point stands. Although, it's not entirely Orwell's fault that society is so neoliberal these days his own politics are not even remotely mainstream.)

...A fictional work demonstrates a concept in reality?

Not being able to draw such conclusions from fictional texts is the easiest means of failing English at school.

Contrast Classical Studies (or, indeed, History... but we never did this at school) where instead you draw the conclusion that the audience at the time imagined such concepts to be part of reality.

You know how the best argument against something is a bad argument for it?

No. The best argument against something is taking the best/strongest/most popular argument for it and disproving it.

No... that merely proves that particular argument is wrong. Imagine, for a moment, that I have a dog:

• This is a dog because it has four legs.
• This is a cat, it also has four legs. Therefore you're wrong.

Of course, you can very reasonably point out that I've hardly presented the best or strongest argument for something but that doesn't actually matter... even if this was the case there can still be a "worse" argument that holds.

The best argument against something is always to argue that it is a bad thing.

The best way to convince someone is probably to tell them a story that simultaneously shows how their arguments don't work whilst illustrating your case...

Basic Economics for those who think Socialism is the way to go.

What's the author's name? ISBN?

Anyone who reads an introductory text on microeconomics with market failures and then reads the same for macroeconomics and doesn't come out the other side as some kind of lefty, didn't understand what they read.

Right-wing arguments with economic foundations do not follow from the first principles of the discipline and instead consist of, "Okay, but what if the government doesn't do it better?" Which is, after all, exactly the same conclusion someone would get if you asked them to read nothing more than:

Always ask yourself three questions:

• would doing it differently really make it better?
• if the answer to the above is no, is it really broken?
• what if the government wouldn't do it better?

We can quibble about some more specific ideas... such as whether or not VSOL is a meaningful concept... but this characterises the neo-classical synthesis' views on politics pretty much exactly.

[The Serbian Empire]

Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich, a book showing how poor the pay is for many jobs. And due to inflation, it has only gotten worse since she wrote that book in the early stages of George W. Bush Administration.

[Nakena]

Tell me which books you read and I can tell who you are.

[Kowani]

Tell me which books you read and I can tell who you are.

I think the majority of the people here read too many books…

[Samudera Darussalam]

Tell me which books you read and I can tell who you are.

Really?

I read Samira Ahmed's Internment and Ghost Fleet.

[Nakena]

Tell me which books you read and I can tell who you are.

I think the majority of the people here read too many books…

I read almost everything I can grab, well, except total boring books. Or those that are ideological claptrap.

Tell me which books you read and I can tell who you are.

Really?

I read Samira Ahmed's Internment and Ghost Fleet.

Just looked them quickly up. Not uninteresting.

Did you read Snow Crash? You might like it.

[Kowani]

I think the majority of the people here read too many books…

I read almost everything I can grab, well, except total boring books. Or those that are ideological claptrap.

Clearly, you have impeccable taste.

[Nakena]

I read almost everything I can grab, well, except total boring books. Or those that are ideological claptrap.

Clearly, you have impeccable taste.

You might like Snow Crash too. It is to no little part about linguistics. And memetics. Heres a good summary.