How to Be Right summary

These days, it’s all too easy for an idea to enter the mainstream without being properly scrutinized. So, one of the things the author tries to do on his radio show is to challenge the opinions that are being lazily retweeted and shared on social media.

Often, he simply asks the callers to defend and support their positions with details and facts. This was certainly the case with callers who accepted the reasons pro-Leave spokespeople gave for wanting to break from the EU. One of the more popular reasons was that Britain was being forced to obey unfair or somehow hurtful EU laws.

Unlike other issues that become topics of public debate, no one is making the claim that homosexuality is taking away jobs or eating up public tax money. Indeed, the argument against homosexuality often comes from a moral standpoint, though the origin of that morality is usually dubious when questioned.

Take for instance, the persistent belief that homosexuality is a personal lifestyle choice, which, it bears pointing out, is a belief that has so far only been voiced by male callers on the author’s show. Whenever this line of argument comes up, the author has a standard reply: “So when did you choose to be straight?” This often cuts right to the absurdity of the argument since it implies that everyone is equally attracted to all sexes and makes a decision. The caller may then get flustered and bring up religion.

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four envisages a future dystopia that continues to impress with its insights into modern society. One such detail is what the book calls “Two Minutes Hate,” in which the people are prodded into a daily ritual of getting angry about abstract and unclear matters. It doesn’t matter what the subject is – just that people feel enraged. In fact, the point is that people can easily redirect that rage anywhere.

This anger is exactly what the tabloid newspapers in Britain excel at. Every day, they give people some vague and often nonsensical reason to be angry. Often, these excuses to get enraged are framed as an example of “political correctness gone mad!”

When people complain about immigration and political correctness, they often say they’re worried about the erosion of traditional values. But the truth is, many traditions aren’t necessarily worth holding on to.

Consider the troubling fact that in 1984 UK courts wouldn’t consider it rape if a married man forced his wife to have sex. And it was only in 1975, with the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act, that husbands and fathers were no longer asked to step in as guarantors when women sought money loans.

Like the dangers of Islam, immigration, political correctness, and feminism, you’ve probably heard libertarians complain about “nanny states.” This is the term often invoked whenever a nation’s tax money gets put to use in order to protect us from ourselves.

More specifically, arguments about this topic arise because certain advocates or politicians have taken steps to try to protect us from rampant capitalism, where there’s no limit to what corporations can do in the name of profit.

If there’s one thing that the political rise of Donald Trump has taught us, it’s that politicians can go far by telling people what they want to hear. In this case, it’s appealing to a sense of entitlement and offering people a scapegoat for their anger. In particular, Trump appeals to the white people who carry the notion that they are of a higher status, and he uses very simple slogans and catchphrases like “Lock Her Up” and “Fake News,” that allow those people to turn off their brains.

From early on, Trump excelled in blurring the line between lies, truths and alternative realities. This is essentially what Trump does when he uses the term “fake news” to describe facts. At the same time, he puts out lies, like having the turnout for his swearing-in be described as “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration.”