I always knew David Brooks was an asshole ....

Notice the revolting way in which he drops a smear and moves on:

Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy.

Both of those quotes make little sense. Plus he says:

The policy proposals that have been floating around the Occupy Wall Street movement — a financial transfer tax, forgiveness for student loans — are marginal.

But he strongly endorses Miller's call to "raise capital requirements for banks"

"Let’s occupy ourselves" <--- stirring

lol

"The most radical people today are the ones that look the most boring."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/16/opinion/Brooks_New/Brooks_New-articleInline.jpg

tbf, Adbusters did publish a pretty anti-semitic article from the EIC of the magazine and then defended it the next issue. i don't know what that has to do with OWS except to try and delegitimize it, but I think being wary of Adbuster activity is appropriate reaction

adbusters and david brooks deserve each other

Krugman -

I read David Brooks citing the Tax Foundation this morning, and I thought he must have misread them. They couldn’t possibly have compared one year’s take from higher taxes on the rich with the total stock of debt, could they? They can’t possibly be that stupid, or think that their readers are that stupid, can they?

Yes they did. They actually find that their version of the “Buffett rule” would collect $120 billion a year, which is a seriously significant sum. But they try to make it look small by comparing one year’s revenue with the total debt outstanding.

lol what dicks

david brooks can you speak at my teach in why because you look boring

Foreign tourists are coming up to me on the streets and asking, “David, you have so many different kinds of inequality in your country. How can I tell which are socially acceptable and which are not?”

This is an excellent question. I will provide you with a guide to the American inequality map to help you avoid embarrassment.

he's got the Nordlinger-esque faux-naif bit down pat.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/david_brooks_vs_david_brooks033360.php

Because we were all waiting for David Brooks to weigh in on Paterno

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinion/brooks-lets-all-feel-superior.html?src=recg

We live in a society oriented around our inner wonderfulness.

a sentence like this could only have been written by someone who thinks of himself as utterly not wonderful inside.

which would be uncharacteristically perceptive of him.

guys why did i just start arguing on facebook with somebody who endorsed this column? why?

back away slowly

haha this column is such a mess

Over the course of history — during the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or the street beatings that happen in American neighborhoods — the same pattern has emerged. Many people do not intervene. Very often they see but they don’t see.

lol none of these things are at all like what happened

Even in cases where people consciously register some offense, they still often don’t intervene. In research done at Penn State and published in 1999, students were asked if they would make a stink if someone made a sexist remark in their presence. Half said yes. When researchers arranged for that to happen, only 16 percent protested.

In another experiment at a different school, 68 percent of students insisted they would refuse to answer if they were asked offensive questions during a job interview. But none actually objected when asked questions like, “Do you think it is appropriate for women to wear bras to work?”

because when someone makes a sexist comment a child gets raped

i wouldve stopped genocides and hypothetical generic events that threaten my own physical well being but i didnt want to harsh the good vibes

The Kitty Genovese case from the ’60s is mostly apocryphal, but hundreds of other cases are not.

there is a famously untrue story, dont u feel guilty now

In centuries past, people built moral systems that acknowledged this weakness. These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside. These vocabularies made people aware of how their weaknesses manifested themselves and how to exercise discipline over them. These systems gave people categories with which to process savagery and scripts to follow when they confronted it. They helped people make moral judgments and hold people responsible amidst our frailties.

a time when nothing bad ever happened surely, like... THE HOLOCAUST

That was the proper question after Abu Ghraib, Madoff, the Wall Street follies and a thousand other scandals. But it’s a question this society has a hard time asking because the most seductive evasion is the one that leads us to deny the underside of our own nature.

dood all these things were allowed to happen because people in power had a vested interest in having them happen, not because some guy thought he was wonderful

These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside.

yeah this was really awesome everyone felt frightened guilty and miserable all the time! if only we could bring that back!

His analogies don't clarify the context, and while a few of the examples he mentions are true, they don't justify his larger point. Maybe he should go back to his defense of protecting the 1 %, and justifying entitlement cuts. Oy.

but people brimming terrified self loathing never do anything bad!

guys why did i just start arguing on facebook with somebody who endorsed this column? why?

― horseshoe, Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:06 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

naw i fully support calling people on such obvs bullshit, otherwise youre as bad as hitler

You're endorsing your inner wonderfulness.

he has a point though. if i saw david brooks being beaten on a street in an american neighborhood i would do nothing to intervene.

tbf that is something that happens nearly every day in our post moral society

if he was being genocided i would try to talk them down to a street beating.

lol berto

my facebook argument turned out to be quite civil, but i don't understand conservatives, basically.

Oh hs I nearly bopped a couple of people yesterday, and it wasn't even about David Brooks. I just don't understand how people can be the way they are at all.

i guess i don't even understand why she's still a conservative. she's a smart woman! she does have this very individual-oriented understanding of everything, though. her response to the Penn State scandal is despair at everyone's moral turpitude, basically. it just seems like a weird and off-base reaction to me.

conservatives! weirdos!

not believing theres such thing as society!

this just in: DAVID BROOKS IS STILL AN ASSHOLE.

right? or power? i suspect she also really liked brooks's ows parody whatever the shit that was but i don't even want to get into that with her.

xp scott otm fuck that dude

Foreign tourists are coming up to me on the streets and asking, “David, you have so many different kinds of inequality in your country. How can I tell which are socially acceptable and which are not?”

if foreign tourists are seeking out david brooks for social guidance, our country is in worse condition that i could have ever feared

but really i am just laughing at how bad and unwieldy and ridiculous the set-up is

this guy is supposed to be a writer

i say this every time david brooks comes up but the amazing thing about him imo is that he is clearly not very bright! and not just in a "i never agree with this guy" way--he is a shallow and lousy critical thinker!

i know i always feel like his entire career is trolling America. this guy has a column in the nyt?

lol @ the concept of foreign tourists approaching david brooks and asking “David, you have so many different kinds of inequality in your country. How can I tell which are socially acceptable and which are not?”

i mean obvs this never happened, guy should be fired for making stupid things up

it's kind of some sad self-fanfic where he imagines he is known enough to be instantly recognized by "foreign tourists"

it fits w/ my image of him as thomas friedman's little brother

In centuries past, people built moral systems that acknowledged this weakness. These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside. These vocabularies made people aware of how their weaknesses manifested themselves and how to exercise discipline over them. These systems gave people categories with which to process savagery and scripts to follow when they confronted it. They helped people make moral judgments and hold people responsible amidst our frailties.

http://www.corwith-wesley.k12.ia.us/WebPage09/Scott/ArchieEdith.jpg

that sentiment is so stupid i cannot even stand it

the insidious thing about him is that bland geniality. especially on t.v. you can be lulled (to sleep) into thinking that he is being really reasonable and commonsensical until you wake up and actually listen and realize that he's a complete idiot. its easier to see in print obviously. i'm sure there are plenty of non-repubs who watch him on pbs and think that he's the kindler gentler conservative thst they kinda agree with sometimes. cuz in their heart of hearts they do think that people should just work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps and all that. he's still on pbs right? #nocablejustnetflix