Seeing titles like "Courage is Calling", "Stillness is the Key", and "Trust Me, I'm Lying" only make me more confident in my point, not less. But, I'm not going to buy these books just to see if my hunch developed over 15 seconds is correct.
But I did find "Trust Me, I'm Lying" to be a fascinating look into how to fake a grass roots campaign and create the illusion of virality (basically a step by step guide to fake it till you make it).
I also found his book on Peter Thiel/the Hulk Hogan case (Conspiracy) to be a really interesting look into a lawsuit with pretty major implications for the future of journalism. Although his musings on Thiel's motives/morality/approach seemed to overlook the idea that maybe there just shouldnt be billionaires.
Overall I would say he has interesting insights on specific situations but in general his thinking is fairly unimaginative/limited to manipulating the current system without actually questioning underlying assumptions.
People who judge the morality of an action based on characteristics of the people involved have replaced their moral sense with tribal affiliation. That, or they're immature black-and-white thinkers who cannot understand that even someone who is generally bad can be on the right side of a specific issue.
Also Thiel is far from the only person to be outed, the only difference is his reaction/how much money he has. Do you think its equally wrong that Wired outed Naomi Wu while she lives in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people?
Have you read Conspiracy?
OK, let's see if we agree on the basic timeline:
1. Gawker outed Thiel.
2. Gawker released the Hulk Hogan sex tape.
3. Thiel funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker.
4. Gawker lost the lawsuit.
Is that accurate? If it is, the problem isn't that Thiel funded the lawsuit, the problem is that Hulk Hogan needed Thiel to fund the lawsuit for him to prevail in court and get justice for the wrong Gawker did to him.
I'm for taxing billionaires. I'm also for privacy and people being protected against paparazzi. Those things don't come into conflict unless someone sees a billionaire funding lawsuits based on the right to privacy and decides that anything a billionaire does must be wrong, prima facie.
> Do you think its equally wrong that Wired outed Naomi Wu while she lives in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people?
Yes.
> Have you read Conspiracy?
No.
Any combination of factors that allows the opening of something like an independent bookshop is A-OK by me. Maybe Tim Ferriss will open a wood-fired pizzeria.
I think I will judge that book by the words on its cover.
But I think I get it. I'll make another assumption, still in about 15 seconds, this time about you: You like Ryan Holiday. You subscribe to his mailing lists, have read his writings, and may have a couple of his books on your shelf. Your views on the world are aligned with his. So you're offended that I made a negative assumption about him because he's "your guy".
I think it's very easy to make assumptions and it's good to have heuristics to make life easier. But it's not wise to double down on them.
(You're half wrong again. I dont think stoicism that Ryan Holiday talks about is the greatest philosophy. I have read a couple of his books but dont subscribe to him. Anyways I would love to buy you a copy of his work if you want to read and judge for yourself.)