A review by mducks
Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History by Kurt Andersen
1.0
It starts off reasonably well because Andersen had to carry out a bit of research into what he was saying.
Once he hits his birthday though, he gives up research, launching into a diatribe of unsubstantiated statements. Too often he calls something rubbish or wrong or fantasy without bothering to give a solitary reference to back up his claims - and in many cases he calls things as having no argument other than a group claiming something is wrong when there is sufficient research to show that at lease a special interest group put in some effort beyond a rant.
He confuses a diatribe with arguments and research against a point of view.
At no point does he attempt to 'follow the money', a basic journalist tool to work out accuracy, instead happy to support a neoliberal interpretation of the world.
What is Fantasyland? It seems to be the world that Andersen doesn't agree with, it is made up and has no basis in reality or fact, the believers are fantasists lacking rational thought - but not so lacking that they can't be charged with mass murder
This is not the start of a conversation because it lacks rigor in its arguments, it lacks research. It lacks the basic ability to clam that a group of powerful people in a room will discuss ways to increase their power and manipulate information - not a conspiracy but the way we work as humans.
Confusing everything he doesn't agree with as being a fantasy is to dysfunctional, lacking complexity and he fails to explain the roots of any fantasy, just that there is a crazy sector of American society that believes things
Once he hits his birthday though, he gives up research, launching into a diatribe of unsubstantiated statements. Too often he calls something rubbish or wrong or fantasy without bothering to give a solitary reference to back up his claims - and in many cases he calls things as having no argument other than a group claiming something is wrong when there is sufficient research to show that at lease a special interest group put in some effort beyond a rant.
He confuses a diatribe with arguments and research against a point of view.
At no point does he attempt to 'follow the money', a basic journalist tool to work out accuracy, instead happy to support a neoliberal interpretation of the world.
What is Fantasyland? It seems to be the world that Andersen doesn't agree with, it is made up and has no basis in reality or fact, the believers are fantasists lacking rational thought - but not so lacking that they can't be charged with mass murder
This is not the start of a conversation because it lacks rigor in its arguments, it lacks research. It lacks the basic ability to clam that a group of powerful people in a room will discuss ways to increase their power and manipulate information - not a conspiracy but the way we work as humans.
Confusing everything he doesn't agree with as being a fantasy is to dysfunctional, lacking complexity and he fails to explain the roots of any fantasy, just that there is a crazy sector of American society that believes things