I don't need to defend a personal opinion if I don't want to. I believe the book is an 'everything is fine' meme in book format, pandering to the current oligarchy who's arguing that everything is going in the right direction and direct action is unnecessary. Other people replying to the same comment have articulated it better than I did. Whenever a book like this comes along and the real capitalists start reviewing and recommending it, it triggers my bullshit sensors.

You might want to consider the possibility that it is simply an opinion that you disagree with and move on.

Ostensibly, we participate in this forum to discuss things. I thought it was provocative to call this book propaganda so I thought I'd probe a little. When you tell someone they are reading propaganda, one of the unsaid things you are doing is implying that people are being duped, and that you somehow come from a higher place and have the real answers. So yeah - you are going to get questions. So maybe don't throw the term around in a public forum if you aren't willing to engage the people you're insulting.

Everything is propaganda. This forum, for example, is full of techno-utopian/libertarian/accelerationist propaganda. Reading propaganda doesn't make you duped or stupid or whatever.

> you aren't willing to engage the people you're insulting

I'm sorry you feel insulted, that's mainly on you, this was not my intention. I suggest you reflect on why you feel insulted when an internet stranger calls a book (which you did not write) as propaganda.

I don't feel insulted, I pointed out you were being insulting.

If everything is propaganda, then the word is meaningless.

Symbols aside, dissemination of biased, misinformative, and arguably harmful information is not necessarily done with Ill intent.

Arguably harmful information is also arguably not harmful. Bias is a given for any work, why is that a problem to you? If there’s misinformation in the book - I’m all ears. Is it pervasive?

> Arguably harmful information is also arguably not harmful.

I can acknowledge without aversion that it may be possible that it is sometimes harmful, and sometimes not. Can you do the same?

>Bias is a given for any work, why is that a problem to you?

Bias and misinformation leads to delusion, delusion leads to disharmony, disharmony leads to suffering, at least often. I consider concern for the well being of others to be a good thing in an absolute sense...but this is a bias on my part, "each to his own", and enjoy the consequences Mother Nature rewards us. But please let's also consider how our fellow humans are making out in the lot they were born into.

> If there’s misinformation in the book - I’m all ears.

Is this to say that you are able and willing to consider all sound arguments, without bias?

As for Rosling: I think if people considered the entirety of his message things would be better....as I recall, he was an advocate of international aid rather than immigration and refugee policies saving some of the people from underdeveloped countries? To me, this seems like a better approach for several reasons.

> Is it pervasive?

I believe so, I think young Wittgenstein and many others are objectively correct, and that this can be objectively proven with virtually unlimited examples, because language is a fundamental building block of reality. The alternative, that all the people involved in disagreements derived from language are joking or something and I'm not in on it, is just too much for me.

> Is this to say that you are able and willing to consider all sound arguments, without bias?

Of course not, how could I possibly do that? I'm a human being, my life experience up to this point is my bias. Same goes for you.