Progressive Myths - Some of the Things You've Been Told Are Wrong

It's possible that in our pursuit of justice and equity that a few things might have been exaggerated.

Progressive Myths

By: Michael Huemer Published: 2024 277 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?

A wide-ranging debunking of most of the myths that flourished during the recent peak of social justice activism. Some myths concern specific incidents like those around Michael Brown and Kyle Rittenhouse. Others are ideological myths like the gender pay gap, or the efficiency of masks at preventing the spread of COVID. In total he covers twenty different myths.

What's the author's angle?

Huemer comes at things from a strong classically liberal approach. He is very wary of activism in all its forms. He's also clearly not worried about annoying people. Though he is very worried about people trying to "read between the lines".

Do not "read between the lines" to infer what I "must be implying". If you think of some ridiculous or horrible political view that you think I'm implying, that is almost certainly just in your imagination. I am not the sort of writer who likes to imply his point.

Who should read this book?

If you consider yourself to be a good progressive I would definitely read this book. I suspect that such people won't, but honestly, if you're looking for the best steelman of the opposing arguments this is it. If you're on the opposite side of the fence you still might find some things that surprise you (Also Huemer makes a point of also covering a few things that aren't myths. Incidents progressives were correct about.)

Many people speak very highly of Huemer's books, and I'll probably eventually read all of them.

What does the book have to say about the future?

Huemer has many recommendations for how to proceed, but they mostly boil down to having better epistemology. One of the great sins he identifies is motivated reasoning, which obscures facts, and beyond that leads to broad conclusions which are entirely unsupported by reality. And we seem to be getting more of such reasoning.

Specific thoughts: How do we fix epistemology?