A few generations ago, teenagers went steady. But over the past decades, the dating relationship has been replaced by a more amorphous hook-up culture.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:20 (twelve years ago) link
a few generations ago, it was legal to marry a 15 year old
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:28 (twelve years ago) link
a few generations ago, interracial marriage was against the law
a few generations ago, bestiality was legal in Florida
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:36 (twelve years ago) link
The half-century between 1912 and 1962 was a period of great wars and economic tumult but also of impressive social cohesion. Marriage rates were high. Community groups connected people across classIn the half-century between 1962 and the present, America has become more prosperous, peaceful and fair, but the social fabric has deteriorated. Social trust has plummeted. Society has segmented. The share of Americans born out of wedlock is now at 40 percent and rising.
In the half-century between 1962 and the present, America has become more prosperous, peaceful and fair, but the social fabric has deteriorated. Social trust has plummeted. Society has segmented. The share of Americans born out of wedlock is now at 40 percent and rising.
Ah, the good ol' days..... If only married people had kids, we could have impressive social cohesion and a strong social fabric like we did before 1961, when only men could get decent jobs and we kept those darned negroes out of our good schools, restaurants, and bus seats....
― everything else is secondary (Lee626), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:41 (twelve years ago) link
beyond self-parody at this point
― ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 00:26 (twelve years ago) link
Can't be a coincidence that his name is *this* close to douche-hat: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html
― s.clover, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 00:42 (twelve years ago) link
First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.
― iatee, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 15:58 (twelve years ago) link
Got pretty bummed because he's scheduled to speak at a conference I'll be attending next month, which meant I would have had to cover his talk for our org's magazine. Was dreading that. But turns out he's speaking at a luncheon during the conference, so I think I'm free of that burden!
― andrew m., Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:12 (twelve years ago) link
does your org have a rule against reporting on luncheons?
― goole, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:13 (twelve years ago) link
one more liberal wanting a free ride!
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:15 (twelve years ago) link
David Brooks making right-wingers angry:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/28/is-david-brooks-comparing-the-tea-party-to-nazis/
I would also point out that the Rockefeller Republicans were losers and compassionate conservatism put us on the brink of financial ruin
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:44 (twelve years ago) link
the last half of the sentence OTM
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:46 (twelve years ago) link
Similar statements were made about Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain.
maybe reagan but otherwise, no, child
― goole, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:49 (twelve years ago) link
well ok W in 04 too
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/is-david-brooks-teaching-humility-at-yale-the-most-pretentious-moment-in-history-20121219
― k3vin k., Thursday, 20 December 2012 22:24 (eleven years ago) link
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14zUrsmH6eO_i-arEN0zf1LwFID7SoyxkgAo36NUiHp0/pub
― iatee, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:38 (eleven years ago) link
The strategies covered here start from a similar premise—that human beings are blessed with many talents but are also burdened by sinfulness, ignorance and weakness, which is why I call on both parties for common sense solutions to our problems, the most notable of which is a cat o' nine tails.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 January 2013 23:39 (eleven years ago) link
We will pay special attention to those who attended elite prep schools and universities.
u don't say
― flopson, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:40 (eleven years ago) link
someone please call his office phone
― iatee, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:50 (eleven years ago) link
Modern societies have become economically and socially more unequal. We will explore status competition and the desire for social distinction—executives who feel unabashed when asking for lavish salaries. We will ask whether it is proper to put a Yale window sticker on the back of your car. We will look at codes of social modesty and ask whether modest people make better business leaders
― Mordy, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:53 (eleven years ago) link
"Students will be asked to grapple with the indictment of their generation made by Christian Smith, Alasdair Macintyre and Jean Twenge."
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:55 (eleven years ago) link
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/david-brooks-now-totally-pathological.html
More fun from Chait
― "It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Drunk!" (kingfish), Saturday, 19 January 2013 17:26 (eleven years ago) link
Brooks rose into prominence as a moderate Republican and has enjoyed immense success and prestige as a result. Psychologically, he could hurl himself from a moving car more easily than he could reject Republicanism, no matter how batshit crazy the party becomes.
― Aimless, Saturday, 19 January 2013 17:56 (eleven years ago) link
same with Frum at this point, imo. i realize he can't begin to approach the loathsomeness of Brooks, but his blog basically serves to titillate liberals (who the fuck else pays attention to him?) and provoke a chorus of 'i-told-you-so's'
except for his recent weird preoccupation with the evils of zomg marihuana and the fact that he can't get his mouth off Israel's dick for 5 seconds, i really don't understand how he's still able to call himself a Republican with a straight face.
i suppose renouncing Republicanism would damage his brand, his blog traffic would suffer and he wouldn't be one of cable news' 4 go-to guys who are "trying to save the party"
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Saturday, 19 January 2013 18:33 (eleven years ago) link
(re Frum on pot and Israel: i realize that neither of these positions would preclude one from being a card-carrying Dem)
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Saturday, 19 January 2013 18:35 (eleven years ago) link
I mind Frum far less than Brooks. At least Frum gives the impression that he has groggily awakened from a nightmare.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 19 January 2013 18:39 (eleven years ago) link
lol at "the chinese have no word for nerd"
― caek, Monday, 4 March 2013 00:31 (eleven years ago) link
clean hit:
David Brooks has an unparalleled ability to shape an intellectually interesting idea into the rhetorical arc of an 800-word op-ed piece. The trouble is, a central part of his genius is choosing the little factoids that perfectly illustrate his points. No doubt he's happy enough to use a true fact if the right one comes to hand, but whenever I've checked, the details have turned out to be somewhere between mischaracterized and invented.
― caek, Monday, 4 March 2013 00:33 (eleven years ago) link
Is it just me or is there a kind of critical mass of media/internet people piling on him now? I find the timing strange -- I didn't think his latest column was particularly more noteworthy than a lot of his other drivel.
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:04 (ten years ago) link
I was a little bemused too when he was EVERYWHERE in my twitter feed night before last. I checked the brooks threads on here and saw only vague lol refs-- I'l be god damned if I'm giving that little psycho a click so I actually still haven't read the column in q.
― yes, i have seen the documentary (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:07 (ten years ago) link
h8 him so much
I think he may have struck a nerve with a lot of bloggers with that "thought leader" piece, since it seems to be satirizing a certain kind of aspiring intellectual not too dissimilar to many bloggers themselves. Yglesias was particularly harsh:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/17/david_brooks_scant_self_awareness_divorced_pundit_suddenly_not_so_worried.html
Basically accuses him of hypocrisy for his recent divorce.
― o. nate, Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:10 (ten years ago) link
Pareene: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/hack_list_no_4_david_brooks/
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:13 (ten years ago) link
He's overdue for a flogging, I just don't know why it's happening now.
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:20 (ten years ago) link
i wouldn't flog him with my little brother's lash
― yes, i have seen the documentary (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:22 (ten years ago) link
o nate otm
― flopson, Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:23 (ten years ago) link
have remained blissfully ignorant of this whole kerfuffle so a little disappointed at the reasons for this thread revive
― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:27 (ten years ago) link
Don't worry guys, with any luck Iraq will turn out like Rwanda!
― Οὖτις, Friday, 20 June 2014 20:28 (nine years ago) link
too late to neglect it into genocide
― Mordy, Friday, 20 June 2014 20:32 (nine years ago) link
Equating sunnis/shiites w hutsis/tutus is next level idiocy
― Οὖτις, Friday, 20 June 2014 20:35 (nine years ago) link
Next level idiocy is just what we've come to expect from Mr. Brooks. The NYT demands nothing but the best from their columnists.
― Aimless, Friday, 20 June 2014 21:58 (nine years ago) link
"America was governed best when it was governed by a porous, self-conscious and responsible elite."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html?_r=0
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 23 September 2014 16:42 (nine years ago) link
http://www.civil-twilight.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gal_sweat_president_bush.jpg
― the man with the black wigs (Eazy), Tuesday, 23 September 2014 16:45 (nine years ago) link
someone put an icepick in this jackass
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 16:51 (nine years ago) link
is it bad that when I saw this thread in the new answers page my first thought was "oh thank god"?
― ed.b, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 16:53 (nine years ago) link
fucking thread title gets me EVERY TIME, I perk right up
― von Daniken Donuts (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 23 September 2014 17:02 (nine years ago) link
fuck he didn't die :(
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 23 September 2014 17:20 (nine years ago) link
must resist urge to deconstruct this odious "porous elite" concept, not worth the effort
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 23 September 2014 17:24 (nine years ago) link
i for one welcome our new sponge overlords
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 23 September 2014 17:30 (nine years ago) link
Spouse suggested that I love to hate on DB the way I watched 60 Minutes to hate on Andy Rooney back in the day, but it is truly a different thing with me and Brooks
― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Saturday, 10 February 2024 03:52 (two months ago) link
Ugh, he's definitely more smug than Rooney was. I haven't read him in awhile and then I saw this annoying bit--
Last fall I argued that Joe Biden was the Democratic Party’s strongest 2024 presidential nominee. I believed that for two reasons: He has been an effective president, and he is the Democrat most likely to appeal to working-class voters.
I still believe Biden is the party’s strongest candidate, but I’m getting more pessimistic about his chances of winning.
The first reason is not political rocket science: Voters prefer the Republicans on key issues like inflation and immigration. Most Donald Trump supporters I know aren’t swept up in his cult of personality; they vote for him because they are conservative types who like G.O.P. policies and think Trump is a more effective executive than Biden.
"Most Donald Trump supporters that I know" ...
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/24/opinion/thepoint?searchResultPosition=1#biden-poll-young-voters
― curmudgeon, Friday, 26 April 2024 00:33 (six days ago) link
and think Trump is a more effective executive than Biden.
Brooks is huffing something if he takes this at face value.
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 26 April 2024 01:13 (six days ago) link
every single trump supporter david brooks knows supports trump because he'll lower their taxes and/or abandon all regulation of them or their businesses
that is what being 'effective' means
― mookieproof, Friday, 26 April 2024 02:12 (six days ago) link
yes, but that was amply covered by "prefer the Republicans on key issues". I perfectly understand that the the follow-on reference to "inflation and immigration" was just camouflage for lower business, personal, and capital gains taxes combined with reckless deregulation, both of which Trump leaves entirely to his minions in Congress to make happen. He has no interest in such petty details as writing and passing legislation. He just likes to sit in the big chair and give orders.
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 26 April 2024 02:43 (six days ago) link
*reads* this guy is the most dangerous bastard in the public discourse because people don't realize or won't admit how motherfucking dishonest and/or deluded and stupid he is.
― schrodingers cat was always cool (Hunt3r), Friday, 26 April 2024 03:49 (six days ago) link