It is filled with factual errors, unsupported assertions, and appeals to emotion. The rest of the site appears to be of similarly poor journalistic quality. Looking at the author's Amazon author description page, I judge that he is attempting to make a career of telling a certain segment of the population what they want to hear, and leveraging that echo-chamber passion to sell books, get speaking gigs, and the like.
I was asked for my thoughts, not an argument intended to convince anyone, so that’s what I gave. :)
There are several other comments on this page that go into some of the factual errors.
I reviewed the titles and posting frequency of recent articles on the site, and it strongly pattern-matched in my brain as “content farm”, which would be negatively corrated with article quality. I predict the author’s intention is to post one article a day, and I predict that having such a posting frequency as a primary motivation is negatively correlated with quality.
I examined the author’s previous work in an attempt to understand his motivation behind writing and posting such an article; I’ve noticed that articles written out of a personal desire to communicate an idea tend to be better constructed or have a different “voice” than this article, so I wanted to understand where the author was coming from in the larger context. I only “attacked” because of the strength of the pattern-match I found.
