Responding to the Right, by Nathan J Robinson, is an attempt to collect and organize responses to some of the more common conservative "arguments."

I listened to the audio version but also checked an ebook copy to check on citations. The audiobook was engaging and Robinson, who also narrated, expressed his arguments well.

Many of the conservative "arguments" are not so much arguments (though they do love to argue, or rather, yell repeatedly their little catchphrases) as they are soundbites they learned from their handlers. So when responding to the few who might actually engage in dialogue there often isn't time to lay out every nuance of a rebuttal. That doesn't mean we don't need to know more than just what we're going to say. By gaining a detailed and broad understanding, we can select the parts that speak more directly to that person's actual concern. For instance, not every person opposed to choice when it comes to abortion has the same reason. Countering someone who has, from their perspective, a religious argument with science about what forms when is not going to help much, it isn't where their opposition is focused. So more detailed knowledge is necessary in order to actually debate the same issue with someone. If the detail here bothers you, then you are really just looking for your own catchphrases to yell back at theirs.

By the way, if nuanced ideas confuse you, don't bother reading this. Don't confuse the societal concept of white privilege with some idea that every white person is privileged. There is a difference. Every white person is the beneficiary of white privilege even if their life is not one of privilege. Same idea with Black Lives Matter. It does not mean ONLY Black lives matter, it emphasizes, because Black lives have historically been discounted as disposable, that they do matter. This isn't rocket science, unless you agree with the idea of Black lives being disposable.

Also, if anyone tosses out some asinine comment about this just being opinion and with insufficient research, ignore the bigot, they didn't read the book. If anything, it is almost over researched if the notes and acknowledgements are any indication.

I would recommend this to readers who want to engage those on the right who are open to actual dialogue. You will come away with enough information to then respond to that person's actual concern. If you just want to be given a few short phrases to say in response to their phrases without considering whether or not it fits, well, this might seem like too much detail or too much like having to learn something for you.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley. ( )

Insightful. Well thought out. As much as I hate having to talk politics with people, today it seems unavoidable. So, rather than be run over by people who rely on bluster and bravado to tout their right-wing ideals, I try to reason with them. This book gives me a lot of good information to counter their arguments. Not sure if it will work, but at least I will have tried to be a voice of reason in the sea of mud. ( )

I have so many mixed feelings on this.

To start, it read like a well researched paper rather than a book laying out arguments. I enjoy that style, but it can be limiting as many readers don’t.

At one point, the author says that one argument is so easy to see through that it should just be “laughed at.” That isn’t the kind of response I expected in a book like this, but it is only one of them.

I appreciated how well cited everything was, but it made the delivery fall flat as it became just paragraphs of quotes and previously made arguments. Sometimes they worked, but other parts were tedious.

The long and short is that I wish this was more accessible. It has a clear purpose, but I don’t believe it fits the bill for what it is attempting to achieve as it comes across as purely academic. ( )