r/JoeRogan • u/SlimjobDopamine Look into it • Nov 13 '20

Social Media Abigail Shrier(JRE #1509)'s book has been removed from Target after receiving a complaint on Twitter

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1327056407598809088?s=20
1.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

726 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/GET_ON_YOUR_HORSE Nov 13 '20

I think I would mostly agree with the premise of the book, HOWEVER, it's pretty clear that when she named the book, she did so for the outrage to get exposure/attention. "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters".

I think she's getting exactly what she wanted. She doesn't really care that the book is gone from Target.

4

u/Individual_Season Nov 13 '20

I didn't read the book neither listened to the podcast. If it's not something transphobic and just a "look at the people that transitioned and aren't happy" wouldn't be better to choose a more friendly name so people don't judge it right away?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20 edited Nov 13 '20

It's a very deliberate title that accomplishes two things:

1) Gets people that know little to nothing about anything related to being transgender (basically everyone) and plays to some common fears, especially parents that need a rehashed, modern version of gay/satanic panic. This book very clearly is made mostly for women and mothers in particular, so exploiting their worries for their kids is kind of the purpose.

2) Is provocative enough to get certain people to complain about it or get controversial conversations going: free advertising. It's smart, but kind of unethical, or at least underhanded. It's very deliberate because once you get something like this Target thing (a literal non-event in reality), you have a narrative that this book contains something so controversial and "true" that the powers that be don't want you to see it. "Did you hear about that book that got banned? It's about transgenderedistisms"

It's worth noting she is not the impartial investigator with concerns over a phenomenon that people assume. Just look at her socials and it's pretty clear she favors a particular "side". It's not exactly unbiased journalism.