david brooks vs. thomas friedman vs. ross douthat

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

vote for the 'best reason to never sign up for nyt paywall'

Poll Results

OptionVotes
friedman 12
brooks 9
douthat 8


iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:24 (seven years ago) Permalink

hard choice but got 2 b friedman

flopson, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:27 (seven years ago) Permalink

^^^

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

I actually find him the least worst of these three

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:33 (seven years ago) Permalink

this is like choosing b/w bullshit, pigshit and chickenshit.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:35 (seven years ago) Permalink

hate to say it but friedman is the least bad of the three. at least he occasionally bothers to make an actual argument. reading brooks is like trying to get day-old caramel out of your teeth.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

seriously, it's really b/w Friedman and Brooks. Douthat is awful, but he's awful b/c he's pretty upfront about being a wingnut. Brooks has his fake centrist nonsense -- and he's a Mets fan -- but only a complete pinhead who's spent the last decade or so locked in a closet can't see through his schtick at this point.

so Friedman it is.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

i assume that brooks and douthat have a sinister purpose behind everything they write, so while i no doubt disagree, it at least makes sense.

friedman just seems clueless and is a terrible writer. 'my cab driver in cairo' etc good lord.

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

well the clueless head in the clouds thing is what makes it marginally more defensible, like he's just this crazy guy talking to you on the bus

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:41 (seven years ago) Permalink

Friedman the crazy guy on the bus talking nonsense whilst drooling on his overcoat also has the ear of the President and a shockingly large number of Democratic movers and shakers. that's why i voted for him.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:44 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'll be the contrarian and say Douthat, the only one who creates the blip of an impression that he's read other things besides editorials and policy statements. Also, I saw him in the queer part of Dupont Circle in 2009 in the company of what looked like a Provincetown bartender.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:45 (seven years ago) Permalink

^^^ sounds like infidelity

also, aren't we voting for the worst?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:46 (seven years ago) Permalink

yes

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (seven years ago) Permalink

Friedman's latest column is a masterpiece of cowardice and stupidity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/friedman-one-for-the-country.html?_r=1

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'll vote for Friedman as worst because he's taken most seriously. The right wing doesn't even take Brooks seriously.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (seven years ago) Permalink

voted Douthat cause i hate the way he couches intolerant/ugly sentiments in the deceptive rhetoric of "reason" and "balance"

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

alfred OTM on what makes Friedman the worst of this entire sorry lot.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

Brooks would win on photos alone

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/wp-content/uploads/David-Brooks.jpg

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

ross is "known" in conservative circles for his impeccable sense of style

http://images.nymag.com/news/intelligencer/encounter/encounter120326_250.jpg

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:56 (seven years ago) Permalink

douthat's face def bothers me the most

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:00 (seven years ago) Permalink

brooks is the worst. friedman is ok minus the globalization shtick.

bnw, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:04 (seven years ago) Permalink

Douthat looks like a late 30-something version of Paul Dano's character from the extra man.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:06 (seven years ago) Permalink

Douthat still thinks it's 1995.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:07 (seven years ago) Permalink

Jonah Goldberg has the same delusion.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:07 (seven years ago) Permalink

i was hoping this thread title was something that happened.

goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (seven years ago) Permalink

what is douthat's shtick, as compared to brooks' red/blue staters are like *this* and friedman's absurd metaphors that lead nowhere?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (seven years ago) Permalink

He's a Christian whose hands shake at the suspicion that libs might think he hates gays and women.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:13 (seven years ago) Permalink

he's not one of those republican extremists - heavens - tho he takes pains to diplomatically point out how liberals/women/gays/muslims/etc bring problems on themselves

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

that's right

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:23 (seven years ago) Permalink

a concern troll then; how innovative

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:25 (seven years ago) Permalink

if forced at gunpoint to read one of the three every day for the rest of my life i'd still choose douthat

friedman... just pull the trigger

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (seven years ago) Permalink

your doppelganger

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (seven years ago) Permalink

while we also talk about their merits as writers, how about we also turn this into a MFK thread?

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:27 (seven years ago) Permalink

when i was working a (very good and non-depressing) temp job at a financial planning group, the well meaning 50 something jewish libs frequently discussed friedman columns in reverent hushed tones... first time i'd ever heard anyone irl bring dude up as a serious columnist

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:29 (seven years ago) Permalink

voted Douthat cause i hate the way he couches intolerant/ugly sentiments in the deceptive rhetoric of "reason" and "balance"

― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:48 PM (43 minutes ago)

^^

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

i still find that less distasteful (or at least more garden variety) than friedman's schtick

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

all three are vile of course

NYT doesn't really have any 'very good' writers as columnists. i mean krugman's always worth a read but even following charles m blow on twitter has tempered my like of him

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

krugman is a very good writer

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

i'd heard that 'from beirut to jerusalem' was good, but find it a little hard to credit now -- perhaps the subject matter restrained him from making it an archetypical global fable, as with everything else?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah i changed my mind after i wrote his name and didn't bother to change my first statement haha xp

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

charles m blow seems ripe for display name puns, now that i think of it

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

The late William Safire was the only one who could occasionally write a sentence I'd read twice.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:45 (seven years ago) Permalink

i agree that krugman is worth reading and i always do but i am often smh at the way he seems to be preaching to the choir, he takes such a hard line that even though he's right he sort of paints himself into an ideological corner that just inflames the right instead of engaging him

obv that's not entirely or even largely his fault but i feel like he's wielding a battle axe when should be using the rapier

the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:46 (seven years ago) Permalink

lol ross douchehat

i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:47 (seven years ago) Permalink

brooks is like the bill gates looking dude in the back of newsweek who even though i am on the other side of the political spectrum i find myself agreeing with or at least appreciating the differing view cause his tone is measured

really love the loyal opposition guy though

the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

Krugman has given up on trying to talk w/ the shit-throwing baboons who call themselves conservatives these days. i don't blame him at all, it's really the most sensible approach.

i'll also stan for Nicholas Kristof.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:52 (seven years ago) Permalink

Krugman is a classic example of a pundit with whom I agree often but whose prose is pedestrian at best (boy, does he love his rhetorical questions).

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:53 (seven years ago) Permalink

douthat = least stupid/ most hateful

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

krugman = shrill
brooks/douthat = reasonable

does this perception hurt k-thug or not?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

thats it the worst possible tweet, shut it down

lag∞n, Friday, 31 March 2017 17:18 (two years ago) Permalink

lol

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 March 2017 17:18 (two years ago) Permalink

he also tweeted this at elizabeth bruin, referencing pence dinnergate

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/847507297651707905

"Care to discuss them over dinner?"

Ross is thirsty.

-_- (jim in vancouver), Friday, 31 March 2017 17:58 (two years ago) Permalink

i thought maybe ross would call for watergatesque sabotage of trump

welllllll

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9f/a1/7f/9fa17fce0ef1e6911470562b9df4cec7.jpg

Dogshit Critic (m coleman), Friday, 31 March 2017 18:12 (two years ago) Permalink

Kind of enjoying Douthat now that he's apparently realized that his political views have no relevance to our current reality but he can get paid to write whatever he likes.

JoeStork, Friday, 31 March 2017 18:22 (two years ago) Permalink

elaborate fantasies about corporate dystopias

lag∞n, Friday, 31 March 2017 18:22 (two years ago) Permalink

weird seeing a conservative in the current american milieu advocating for the singaporean health care system (which is universal healthcare)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/make-america-singapore.html?_r=0

-_- (jim in vancouver), Friday, 31 March 2017 18:23 (two years ago) Permalink

(even if it's a weird universal healthcare with large elements where the individual has to pay)

-_- (jim in vancouver), Friday, 31 March 2017 18:25 (two years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

Okay what the fuck has Douthat done this week

Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:03 (one year ago) Permalink

signal boosted incel worldview garbage and took it at face value

Simon H., Friday, 4 May 2018 16:12 (one year ago) Permalink

I didn't think most of his analysis was that terrible but it was in service of a terrible end.

FWIW I think there isn't enough contemporary left analysis of how the capitalist/consumerist paradigm shapes our ideas about sex.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:33 (one year ago) Permalink

sex is theft

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 16:35 (one year ago) Permalink

plausible

valorous wokelord (silby), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:40 (one year ago) Permalink

i found that piece just unconscionable. his - completely nonsensical - combination of social conservatism and libertarianism sees him equate redistributive economic policy with the idea of forcing people to have sex with incels - if you can distribute resources why can't you distribute sex, a thing completely different from a resource which results from the consensual physical congress of individuals? asks the millionaire columnist in the paper of record.

simultaneously he blames the sexual revolution for the existence of incels, as if the "halcyon days" when every man's wife was a maid he was allowed to rape and beat were preferable to the modern day sexual politics, and as if bitter sexless men didn't exist back then.

harkens back to the argument of houllebecq's protagonist in "Extension du domaine de la latte":

"The thesis is that the sexual revolution of the Sixties created not communism but capitalism in the sexual market, that the unattractive underclass is exiled while the privileged initiates are drained by corruption, sloth, and excess."

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:45 (one year ago) Permalink

Extension du domaine de la latte

damn you autocorrect

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:46 (one year ago) Permalink

him and brooks seem to take turns trying out dumbass each other on a biweekly basis

The Desus & Mero Chain (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:48 (one year ago) Permalink

He's still trying to explain today

I think one mistake was assuming readers would recall that I want *ban porn* in assessing whether I really favor sex robots.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) May 4, 2018

Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 May 2018 16:50 (one year ago) Permalink

(Of course, giving the phrasing, it sounds like he wants some subset of porn called 'ban porn,' the hottest porn of all.)

Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 May 2018 16:50 (one year ago) Permalink

lmao

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:07 (one year ago) Permalink

suggest ban porn

WilliamC, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:12 (one year ago) Permalink

oh yea baby!

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:15 (one year ago) Permalink

that would be some fetish

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 4 May 2018 17:31 (one year ago) Permalink

i found that piece just unconscionable. his - completely nonsensical - combination of social conservatism and libertarianism sees him equate redistributive economic policy with the idea of forcing people to have sex with incels - if you can distribute resources why can't you distribute sex, a thing completely different from a resource which results from the consensual physical congress of individuals? asks the millionaire columnist in the paper of record.

I don't think he takes this line of thinking seriously, I think he saw it as a reductio argument, like "Ok, if you accept these ideas about sex, then guess what the logical conclusion is"

simultaneously he blames the sexual revolution for the existence of incels, as if the "halcyon days" when every man's wife was a maid he was allowed to rape and beat were preferable to the modern day sexual politics, and as if bitter sexless men didn't exist back then.

But yeah this seems right.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 4 May 2018 17:33 (one year ago) Permalink

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcPbyczV0AERINN.jpg

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:58 (one year ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

Remember the single stupidest statement from pro-Trump commentators after the election? It was: “The media took Trump literally but not seriously. But his supporters took him seriously but not literally.”

Actually, some of us took him seriously and literally — our only mistake was not taking him literally enough. I assumed that a candidate who lied so casually and so often in the campaign would also do so as president; I just didn’t think he would literally utter 3,001 false or misleading claims in his first 466 days in office. I feared Trump would indeed, as he vowed, tear up the Iran nuclear deal, withdraw from the Paris climate accord and start a trade war with China; I just didn’t think he’d literally do them all at once with so little expert input.

I figured Trump would try to destroy Obamacare; I just didn’t think he’d literally do it without having a better alternative — any alternative — in place. I figured Trump would seek to tighten the border with Mexico; I just didn’t believe that he’d literally ask Congress for $18 billion to extend the border wall. I knew we needed to “drain the swamp” of Washington; I just didn’t think the drain would literally have to start in Trump’s White House and the offices of his cabinet secretaries.

lol friedman

also, what is with his twitter / nyt profile pics?

https://i.imgur.com/ORGqSkZ.jpg

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 01:46 (eleven months ago) Permalink

did someone digitally add his nyt suit?

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 01:47 (eleven months ago) Permalink

lmao looks like it that is very odd

sprout god (lag∞n), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 04:26 (eleven months ago) Permalink

Karl, can you overlay them?

I was really trying to figure out when you tweeted that whether it's a weird modified pic, or if he really makes the exact same pose for every photo

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ (mh), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:34 (eleven months ago) Permalink

its def the same photo look at the hair, moustache

sprout god (lag∞n), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:36 (eleven months ago) Permalink

what if he just keeps one of those photos by his mirror and shaves and combs his hair exactly the same every day

(lol they're totally the same pic)

so someone modified the NYT one to have a suit, and he also had his personal one modified to darken his hair? wild

mh, Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:42 (eleven months ago) Permalink

six months pass...

Why We Miss the WASPs
Their more meritocratic, diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well.

. . . I think you can usefully combine these takes, and describe Bush nostalgia as a longing for something America used to have and doesn’t really any more — a ruling class that was widely (not universally, but more widely than today) deemed legitimate, and that inspired various kinds of trust (intergenerational, institutional) conspicuously absent in our society today.

Put simply, Americans miss Bush because we miss the WASPs — because we feel, at some level, that their more meritocratic and diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/57407228/what-do-you-mean-we-white-man.jpg

mookieproof, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:34 (five months ago) Permalink

i posted this extremely good and very persuasive piece on the George H.W. Bush - Classic or Dud thread earlier fyi

We're in 2009—it's time to take risks, (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:36 (five months ago) Permalink

loved this piece, Pulitzer worthy imo

Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:58 (five months ago) Permalink

two months pass...
one month passes...

Man, Stephens’ column on Rep. Omar today is fucking disgusting, even for him, any reputable editor would fire him for this shit.

JoeStork, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:44 (one month ago) Permalink

i read it - it's nothing special but it's not "fucking disgusting"

Mordy, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:53 (one month ago) Permalink

One problem with the quoted remarks is that THIS IS AN INTENTIONAL MISQUOTE OF THE ACTUAL QUOTE THE WHOLE FAKE CONTROVERSY IS BUILT ON pic.twitter.com/Kdc5RGWQEN

— Tom Scocca (@tomscocca) April 18, 2019

JoeStork, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:53 (one month ago) Permalink

omar said "some people did something" how is this an "intentional misquote" as opposed to a rhetorically synonymous rephrasing

Mordy, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:55 (one month ago) Permalink

"some people did something"
"something some people did"

tom scocca: THIS IS AN INTENTIONAL MISQUOTE OF THE ACTUAL QUOTE etc

what a doofus

Mordy, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:55 (one month ago) Permalink

nyt opinion shd be shut down, the white supremacist but with glasses schtick has run its course

lag∞n, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:56 (one month ago) Permalink

in some sense it is nothing special business as usual but on the other hand it is disgusting

lag∞n, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:56 (one month ago) Permalink

whether or not it's a misquote, it's a total bad faith removal of context, and stephens is just as bad as crenshaw and the ny post and whoever else the fuck continues to pile on this woman for the crime of wearing a hijab.

person industrial complex (voodoo chili), Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:59 (one month ago) Permalink

you have to understand she said a sentence that diminished their favorite thing in the world 9/11

lag∞n, Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:01 (one month ago) Permalink

i think that's one correct response to the outrage not all this extremely stupid quibbles about context. the quote has been passed around in context and stephens is right that if trump had used similar language about other events he'd be under fire. you can say, "hey maybe minimizing 9/11 isn't such a big deal it's been many years" or even "9/11 was a response to US aggression across the globe" or even "Omar is a freshman congresswoman who cares what she says," but almost every argument trying to defend omar i have seen has been rhetorically equivalent to drooling.

Mordy, Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:04 (one month ago) Permalink

voodoo chili otm

I dunno maybe I’m overreacting bc he’s a prick and awful writer in general but it’s such an obvious twisting of her words to make it sound like she’s diminishing a tragedy when he almost certainly knows what the focus of her comment was.

i find it ridiculous that her comments even need defending. They’re utterly harmless! As for Trump I think he’s faced much less outrage for his hilariously awful comments on 9/11 as it was happening.

JoeStork, Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:21 (one month ago) Permalink

her comments arent harmless shes breaks a ton of washington taboos re what youre allowed to talk about and what youre not all the time, same w AOC, which is the reason the washington establishment is so going after them

lag∞n, Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:27 (one month ago) Permalink

if theres a lesson to be learned from trump its that theres an angle in breaking those taboos

lag∞n, Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:28 (one month ago) Permalink

she was saying that all muslims shouldn't be punished for something perpetrated by a small group of muslims. everyone knows that 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, don't really think that she needed to belabor that in a speech about an unrelated topic

person industrial complex (voodoo chili), Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:52 (one month ago) Permalink

bret stephens might have an interest in that very topic https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/330615-nyt-columnist-defends-his-disease-of-the-arab-mind-comments-in

lag∞n, Thursday, 18 April 2019 18:07 (one month ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.