4 ms·
I honestly don't know exactly why it rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe because he's railing against capitalism (I can't even count the number of assertions in the
by hkeide 7y ago
I honestly don't know exactly why it rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe because he's railing against capitalism (I can't even count the number of assertions in the article, and very little explanation or evidence is offered) and then procedes to try to sell his book based on what I personally think is a shallow understanding of the subject matter.
In general, complaining that the pop culture version of something is shallow and ineffective compared to a full understanding (which ironically, the author lacks), could be generalized without lack of accuracy. If you did that, it would be hard to find some ideolical construct to point a finger at, which seems to be his main objective.
Pushing your opinion is obviously okay in a newspaper. That's his right. I just won't be paying for it.
I've lately noticed a gradual decrease in the "detached analysis" coming out of The Guardian in favor of more idealist in-group circle-self-satisfaction. This probably feels good for some people but I don't think it's the way forward.
- thesz 7y agoAs I see it, he does object to narrowing the thinking which is imposed by capitalism as the one and sole viable human society operation mode. That narrowing is induced by neoliberal ideology, as he thinks. I do too, by the way. He even introduced me to "disimagination" neologism which I greatly admire, and I am not even done with the article.