Top products from r/MurderedByWords

We found 24 product mentions on r/MurderedByWords. We ranked the 130 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/MurderedByWords:

u/ed_jpa · 2 pointsr/MurderedByWords

Hey buddy, thx for the tip about dictionaries, I'm glad you know how to use them.
But to try to burst my bubble (and maybe learn something about the concepts of ethnicity and/or ethnic groups), you should check out some of these other small books first:





To jumpstart, and I'm not even kidding, just try to read the introduction to "ethnic groups and boundaries", by Frederick Barth: the text is from 1969, and it's absolutely seminal on nowadays' understanding of ethnic group formation and, above all, ethnic group persistence in time. (link to pdf:

If you wanna go further down this road, check "ethnicity without groups", by Rogers Brubaker: the best modern critical thinking around ethnicity and group formation, IMO. (link to pdf:

Now, lets move on to the next part of your comment. I did love the end of it. The part where you assume I have a bachelor's degree (IF I even managed to graduate yet, ofc - 'cause I'm so dumb) is nice.

But the best part is that amazing scientific lesson you gave us all: "Since the beginning of life animals have had hunting grounds they fought for, later evolved to humans with specific racial, social traits with country borders."

Seriously, I am thinking about printing this and framing it.
Thx a bunch, bud. I should start making calls, because entire academic fields will disappear and universities will close down: you just solved social science AND evolutionary science in a single sentence!

Finally, I just want to clear this up for ya, buddy: I do not have any spanish comments, and the fact that you think that I'm mexican (and that what I wrote in my reddit's history is spanish) says a lot more about your ignorance than it says about me.


u/Journeyman12 · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

Oh, for pity´s sake, dude. I wrote a 1,500-word essay above, specifically called out your first reply, and you haven´t engaged at all with anything I wrote. Why don't you ask a question that addresses the everyday reality of Jews in 1933-39 Germany instead of 'Suppose there was this one time when some dude told me to get on a train and I said no because I had a gun'?

It's like you're actively trying not to imagine what life was actually like on a day-in, day-out basis for Jews living in Germany during that period. Which I can understand, because it was horrible, but if you're trying to argue how guns would have changed the lives of people living in that place at that time... maybe you should take some time and effort to understand the lives of people in that place at that time? Maybe even research?

I really recommend The Third Reich in Power by Evans, the book that I mentioned above. It's long, but exceedingly comprehensive. The bit I mentioned about Nazis taking over all voluntary/civilian organizations, and the bit about smashing the Communist Party in Germany, both come from there. It's an extraordinary resource, very well-sourced. It tends not to feature man-on-the-ground stuff as much as broader societal trends, but I use it to illustrate what life would've been like for a typical person in the Reich (in the case of this argument, a Jew). If you're serious about this topic, why not give it a read and see what you think?

u/18834561 · 2 pointsr/MurderedByWords

The idea that the middle ages were "the dark ages" is a modern myth. The middle ages were a period of scientific and artistic progress, and their was no great revolution caused by the enlightenment. It was a continuation of midieval thought. The roots of modern science lie in the middle ages


Read Rodney Stark, James Hannam, or edward grant


There is a lot of scholarship about the progress of Europe during the middle ages, so this wikipedia article is a nice summary of why it's a misleading conception of the era

u/DemenicHand · 5 pointsr/MurderedByWords

yeah, he had numerous collections of reviews, i would read page after page, not focusing on a particular movie. I worked at a video store so had lots of time to read
these are two that i remember:

home companion

he also turned me on to Pauline Kael.

Also i remember once he lost his voice, he started writing about more than films on his blog. I didnt read much i just remember that he had some really good essays that were not about films and i liked pretty much every point he had made (cant remember what they were about now)

u/SovietStomper · 4 pointsr/MurderedByWords

About CPTSD in general? This book by Pete Walker is a pretty seminal work.

This other one also helped me a lot, because the physiological crap that comes along with CPTSD is every bit as terrible as the emotional component:

Ultimately though, therapy and journaling are going to be your best starting points for your personal recovery. If you can find a therapist that has experience with trauma, that’s your best bet. I would also recommend seeing a general practitioner and a psychiatrist because of the aforementioned physical issues.

u/Curudril · 20 pointsr/MurderedByWords

Well, you might want to start with the famous Cathy Newman interview which got a lot of attention. Then, you can get to many of his debates from here. If you are interested to learn more about the ideas Dr. Peterson defends, you can see some videos on his youtube channel. There are also cuts from his lectures all over youtube. A random clip from a lecture. He recently published a book 12 rules for life. And this quora segment pretty much sums up all the basic stuff:

EDIT: typos

u/dshakir · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

Are you referring to when human development was at a standstill? Sure, caveman.

We didn’t start progressing until trade routes and the exchange of values, ideas and cultures became prevalent though.

u/Affectionate_Meat · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

They CAN be backed up, and there are several hundreds of books doing just that. My personal favorite is God According to God. So, they can be, don't you worry about that.

u/ghostchamber · 2 pointsr/MurderedByWords

He's still really popular. Just because it is trendy to hate him on reddit and Twitter, it does not mean his popularity has waned.

His most recent book. It spent 48 weeks on the NYT best seller list.

But he's not popular, right?

u/goldensunshine429 · 6 pointsr/MurderedByWords

Have you read Spoken Soul ? We read it in my linguistic anthropology course in college.

u/Nodickdikdik · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

Aesop's Fables (Oxford World's Classics)

Are the versions you are looking at translations, or retelling? The link i have given is a translation.

u/ObnoxiousFactczecher · -1 pointsr/MurderedByWords

Our numerals as symbols are related to Western Arabic numerals. [EDIT: Chrisomalis calls them 'Maghribi numerals'] The number system is Indian. There doesn't seem to really be a contradiction here.

u/DEAD_P1XL · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

> if I compare, say, a MacBook Air, and an equivalent laptop (same weight, same specs, same size, etc..) in PC, the PC one tends to be more expensive.

This is bullshit. We roll out plain-ass ASUS laptops running i7s with good specs for under $800. License included. You can't even get a new iPad Pro for that price.

$1300 for a dual-core i5 thermal-throttle-prone netbook with no normal ports (Apple = Dongles'R'Us) and a whopping 256gb SSD is not a good deal in any corporate environment.

u/Varg_Burzum_666 · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

> LOL. Wait, when was it published?
> December 14,1988

um... I don't know where you got that date, but it was published in 1946, not 1988

>"A magnificent job of theoretical exposition."

>—Ayn Rand

She's not wrong.

>So to clarify, you recommend two books, one of which is thirty years old

No. much older. The age of a book does not correspond to the quality of said book.

>another which is by man who died in 1937


>was virulently racist even by the standards of his own time

True, but that doesn't mean his fiction is any less spectacular. Lots of people back then were racist. It doesn't mean that they can't also be good authors of good fiction. If you're worried that buying a book of his would be financially supporting a racist, he's been dead for 80 years, so you don't have to worry about that. He's not going to get any of the money you may spend on his fiction.

>Gollancz published a compendium of the Mythos and some of his other tales in 2008, called Necromicon : the Best Wierd Tales of HP Lovecraft

Yes, that's the one.

>but Lovecraft never published a book called The Necronomicon

If you want to get technical, Lovecraft never published a single book. He wrote mostly short stories and the longest story he wrote was a novella, not even a full novel, and most of his stuff was published in old pulp magazines.

>Certainly not an 1000+ page one.

Well, it's 900 pages so close enough.

u/ceart_ag_na_vegans · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

“Perhaps in the back of our minds we already understand ... that something terribly wrong is happening. Our sustenance now comes from misery. We know that if someone offers to show us a film on how our meat is produced, it will be a horror film. We perhaps know more than we care to admit, keeping it down in the dark places of our memory-- disavowed. When we eat factory-farmed meat we live, literally, on tortured flesh. Increasingly, that tortured flesh is becoming our own.”

Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals

u/yuzirnayme · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

There are a couple ways I envision this conversation could go and I don't know which you'd prefer (if any)

  1. I respond to your direct comments
  2. We investigate what you seem to believe

    I'm going with 1 since 2 is more personal and only partially on topic.

    > How is this done without defining the parameters for morals and ethics?

    This was defined up front as in the context of utilitarian ethical system. If you don't subscribe to a utilitarian ethical or moral framework, then this won't be convincing. That is independent of the fact that you used the word human for something that Singer wouldn't use the same word for. One is a human on a biological categorization level, the other is a different classification that has to do with moral status. Using the same word for both would be confusing and lead to miscommunications.

    > This is a value problem that's a trick question

    No its not. It is an extreme hypothetical meant to clarify what you believe. From there you investigate what lead to your decision. If your answer is they have the same value, I have a follow up question to tease out what you mean by that (or if you really mean that). And if it is really true, what the consequences of that belief would be that I (and maybe you) would find surprising.

    > Answer: They all deserve to live...

    This doesn't answer the question. It says a fair amount about what you believe anyways (no one on earth is qualified, etc) but doesn't answer the question. And how you feel about a situation, generally, doesn't hold a lot of weight by comparison to action. Letting them both burn to death but feeling twice as guilty would not, I imagine, be thought of as the moral thing to do by most people.

    > Their high utility is from an unspecified unmeasurable potential, thus judging morality from a potential, not a concrete.
    A concrete answer, is that all of them have the same limitless potential, and to decide someone's potential is murder
    Just like abortion

    This is just nonsensical. You have decided that all people have the same unlimited potential, and that the potential matters more than or as much as the actual. And simply deciding someone's potential is murder. There are just so many problems with this statement. I'll list a few:

  3. Not all people have unlimited potential, even if I'm very generous in interpreting what you mean by "unlimited". The brain dead person does not have unlimited potential. The 106 year old does not have unlimited potential. Certainly their potential is different than that of a newborn child.
  4. Using "potential" as the measure of the importance of a thing has ridiculous consequences. The old arguments of condoms destroying potential futures is a classic. But even things like people not living up to their potential would be morally wrong. Is it unethical to be lazy? Or would it be unethical to give up on your own dreams in favor of your family member's dream? How do you compare two "unlimited" potentials? How do we maximize for the most moral good in the "potential" regime? It would seem that maximizing the number of humans would maximize the pool of potentials. Should we create breeding factories to accomplish this? Is rape justifiable as it has the potential to create a child?
  5. Deciding potential is murder? If two people come into the ER after a car accident, both are dying, and the Dr makes a judgement call as to which he has the best chance to save, did he murder the other person? When college admission boards choose who to accept or give scholarships to, did they murder those they decided had less potential? Job interviews? Guidance counselors? If a parent requires one student to work so the other can go to school, murderers?
  6. How does one know what is right and avoid murder if both decisions are bad? This is why I asked the fire question. Situations exist where two people's lives are at stake, and you can save 1, but not both. And no decision results in death of both. This is actually not entirely rare in pregnancy.
  7. How does someone know when potential exists? For example, if you believe that human level intelligence AI is possible, how do you know what machine AI will result in this new AI? (this assumes you think a human level intelligence AI would have moral standing, if you don't think this that is yet another interesting tangent).
  8. Can someone be forced to give up autonomy in all cases to maximize potential for others? Forced kidney donations? Forced bone marrow donation? Forced organ donation on death? Forced egg and sperm donation?

    This response has gotten quite long. Please feel free to respond or not, or we can delve into your beliefs. I'm not personally a staunch utilitarian, so I'm mostly providing the argument as I understand it. If you find the argument interesting but don't want to argue on the internet, I would suggest you either read