If Books Could Kill

The Worst Takes of 2025 [TEASER]

December 29, 2025

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The central theme of the 'worst takes' discussed in this teaser for *If Books Could Kill*'s episode 'The Worst Takes of 2025 [TEASER]' is the failure of centrist and mainstream punditry to accurately assess the ongoing authoritarian resurgence, often resulting in 'both sides' arguments that minimize clear political threats. 
  • A recurring bad take identified is the tendency of pundits, particularly in outlets like *The Atlantic* and *The New York Times*, to offer contrarian takes that downplay obvious political dangers (like Trump's actions or the military parade) by seeking false equivalencies or projecting internal liberal anxieties. 
  • The hosts critique political analysis that draws sweeping ideological conclusions from recent elections, noting that many pundits ignore clear electoral outcomes (like Democratic wins in 2025) to fit pre-existing narratives about the failure of the left or the necessity of moving to the center. 

Segments

Worst Takes Introduction and Self-Criticism
Copied to clipboard!
(00:00:00)
  • Key Takeaway: The hosts of If Books Could Kill are cataloging the definitive worst takes of 2025, potentially including self-referential criticism.
  • Summary: The episode teaser opens with the hosts joking about whether their own criticism was the worst take of the previous year. One host claims that for three years running, the worst takes have been light criticism directed at him. The segment establishes the premise of cataloging the year’s worst takes.
Elon Musk Criticism Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:01:03)
  • Key Takeaway: A specific bad take involved criticism directed at one host for being too nice to Elon Musk, particularly after acknowledging his competence in vertical integration.
  • Summary: The first specific take mentioned involved criticism that one host was too complimentary of Elon Musk, specifically citing a moment where he noted Musk’s understanding of vertical integration amidst broader condemnation. This criticism was deemed a ‘worst take’ despite being recent.
Brain Dead Both Sides Takes
Copied to clipboard!
(00:02:04)
  • Key Takeaway: The first category of bad takes identified is ‘brain dead, both sides’ arguments, exemplified by an Olivia Rheingold piece minimizing starvation in Gaza.
  • Summary: The hosts categorize egregious ‘both sides’ takes, highlighting an Olivia Rheingold piece in The Free Press that suggested reports of starvation in Gaza were exaggerated or false, which was immediately followed by UN agencies declaring famine. Other examples included pieces defending the White House military parade and arguing against the genocide claim against Israel.
Elon Musk Visionary Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:03:53)
  • Key Takeaway: An honorary mention for a bad take was a New York Times piece calling Elon Musk a visionary whose long-term goal is multi-planet civilization due to the sun’s eventual expansion.
  • Summary: A New York Times article by Louise Perry was highlighted for framing Elon Musk as a visionary whose focus extends beyond Washington to the necessity of becoming a multi-planet civilization. The hosts mockingly point out that this existential timeline is five billion years away, long after humanity would face more immediate threats from figures like Musk.
Trump Parade Both Sides Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:05:14)
  • Key Takeaway: The actual winner for ‘both sidesing’ was an Atlantic article arguing that a Trump military parade was not inherently a threat to democracy, suggesting it could boost recruitment.
  • Summary: The winning ‘both sides’ take came from an Atlantic article by Corey Shake, which argued that Trump’s proposed military parade should be viewed neutrally, comparing it to Bastille Day and suggesting it could aid recruitment. The hosts ridicule the argument for asking readers to look past Trump’s consistent pattern of mixing politics with military honors.
Hyperpolitics Fading Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:10:16)
  • Key Takeaway: A major genre of bad 2025 takes predicted the end of ‘hyperpolitics’ and resistance following the 2024 election, failing to account for subsequent Democratic electoral success.
  • Summary: The hosts criticize early 2025 takes, like one from Ross Barkin in the New York Times magazine, which declared the era of hyperpolitics over and suggested liberals needed to re-envision their project because they had failed. This prediction was immediately invalidated by Democrats winning major elections in 2025, including governorships in New Jersey and Virginia.
Corporate Depoliticization Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:12:48)
  • Key Takeaway: Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance on Joe Rogan to promote masculinity was framed by pundits as ‘depoliticization,’ when it was actually a calculated move to align with the rising political climate.
  • Summary: The discussion points out the absurdity of framing Mark Zuckerberg’s embrace of aggressive masculinity on Joe Rogan’s show as a move away from politics. In reality, corporations were aware of the political shift and were attempting to align themselves with the incoming power structure.
Persuasion Newsletter Takes
Copied to clipboard!
(00:16:58)
  • Key Takeaway: The newsletter Persuasion is characterized by reactionary centrist takes focused on criticizing the ’excesses of wokeness’ and DEI, despite the 2025 elections suggesting these issues were not electorally decisive.
  • Summary: Headlines from Yasha Monk’s Persuasion are read, focusing heavily on conformity problems within race discourse, the need to teach conservative thought, and the illiteracy of college students. The hosts argue that these outlets continue to push a narrative about reining in the social justice left, even when recent election results contradict the idea that this was a losing electoral strategy.
Wife Guy Vocabulary Complaint
Copied to clipboard!
(00:20:45)
  • Key Takeaway: An Atlantic article defending a man who posted a photo of his wife against the pejorative term ‘wife guy’ exemplifies the collapse of context in modern vocabulary policing.
  • Summary: The hosts mock an article where the author defends his loving post about his wife against the term ‘wife guy,’ which he claims is a pejorative implying untrustworthy performance. The hosts counter that ‘wife guy’ is generally an endearing term of gentle teasing, and the author’s spiral demonstrates an overreaction to minimal social critique.
Trans Rights Blame Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:26:17)
  • Key Takeaway: Pundits incorrectly blamed transgender rights for Democratic losses, ignoring that Democrats actively avoided the issue in campaign rhetoric and that conceding on policy grounds against propaganda is ineffective.
  • Summary: A New York Times piece by Charles Homans is criticized for suggesting Democrats lost voters due to transgender rights, despite the 2024 campaign avoiding the topic. Conceding on policy points like gender-affirming care is deemed useless because the right-wing propaganda framing the issue is the actual problem, not the underlying policy.
USAID Failure Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:35:23)
  • Key Takeaway: A New York Times article blaming the left for the failure of USAID to tell its story exemplifies the trend of blaming the left even when reporting on right-wing attacks against liberal institutions.
  • Summary: An article titled ‘I Worked at USAID for Eight Years. This is our biggest failure’ is cited as an example where coverage of a right-wing attack frames the failure as the institution’s inability to communicate its value. This ignores that the agency was targeted by political opponents, not that its narrative was inherently flawed.
Higher Education Blame Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:36:26)
  • Key Takeaway: The New York Times editorial board’s piece on higher education blamed liberal ideology and ‘shutting down debate’ for public distrust, ignoring that the right-wing itself was actively attacking those institutions.
  • Summary: The New York Times editorial board argued that universities needed to be more reflective about their weaknesses, such as acting as ’liberal ideologues’ and silencing debate on topics like COVID lockdowns and DEI. The hosts point out the hypocrisy, as the right-wing, which is now taking over these institutions, does not actually believe in the validity of many academic disciplines.
Epstein File David Brooks Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:40:58)
  • Key Takeaway: David Brooks’ New York Times column arguing that focusing on the Epstein files was evidence of a QAnon mentality was egregious because it defended the elite against accountability.
  • Summary: Brooks claimed that focusing on the Epstein files was a distraction from major issues and proof that the ‘QAnon mentality’ (assuming the elite is corrupt) had taken over. The hosts note that Brooks’ instinct was to avoid accountability for powerful figures, especially after photos later emerged showing him at an Epstein dinner.
Glenn Kessler Speculation Take
Copied to clipboard!
(00:46:30)
  • Key Takeaway: Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler’s claim that no evidence connecting Trump to Epstein’s crimes would be found in the files was an unwarranted, self-serving speculation.
  • Summary: Kessler wrote in a fact-check that he was ‘confident’ no connection between Trump and Epstein’s crimes would emerge from the files, despite the White House refusing to release them. This speculation was particularly bad because, as the hosts note, Trump was indeed prominently mentioned in later releases, proving Kessler’s confidence unfounded.