|
This is a thread for posting and mocking bad editorials. Please provide a link or quote it if the editorial lurks behind some dumb paywall. First off: David Brooks, who I think will become a thread favorite, much like Blaster Master is a favorite character of people in the first three Mad Max films. Rich People use their wealth and privilege to deny lower class people opportunities in education - I take MY LOW-CLASS FRIEND to a richer dining establishment and she is uncomfortable https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/...collection&_r=0 quote:Over the past generation, members of the college-educated class have become amazingly good at making sure their children retain their privileged status. They have also become devastatingly good at making sure the children of other classes have limited chances to join their ranks.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2017 20:30 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:47 |
|
but he's right in that article, like there's only 3 sentences of dumb. How did you find the one David Brooks article where he's not hilariously out of touch?
|
# ? Jul 11, 2017 21:00 |
|
Coolness Averted posted:but he's right in that article, like there's only 3 sentences of dumb. How did you find the one David Brooks article where he's not hilariously out of touch? Surely, friend, David Brooks has never written anything dumber than this I mean, please, prove me wrong (or have this which I think I've posted to CSPAM like three times now)
|
# ? Jul 11, 2017 21:20 |
|
Here's some classic David Brooks. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/opinion/brooks-weed-been-there-done-that.html quote:For a little while in my teenage years, my friends and I smoked marijuana. It was fun. I have some fond memories of us all being silly together. I think those moments of uninhibited frolic deepened our friendships.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 00:09 |
|
Oops, almost forgot:quote:The campaign of 2016 was an education in the deep problems facing the country. Angry voters made a few things abundantly clear: that modern democratic capitalism is not working for them; that basic institutions like the family and communities are falling apart; that we have a college educated elite that has found ingenious ways to make everybody else feel invisible, that has managed to transfer wealth upward to itself, that crashes the hammer of political correctness down on anybody who does not have faculty lounge views.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 01:45 |
|
MaxxBot posted:Here's some classic David Brooks. Personal responsibility and FREEDOM - unless these things don't create the "moral ecology" I like?
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 01:50 |
|
MaxxBot posted:Here's some classic David Brooks. yes Nebakenezzer posted:Oops, almost forgot: yesssssssss https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/opinion/the-uses-of-patriotism.html?ref=opinion&_r=1 quote:This column is directed at all the high school football players around the country who are pulling a Kaepernick — kneeling during their pregame national anthems to protest systemic racism. I’m going to try to persuade you that what you’re doing is extremely counterproductive.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 02:10 |
|
yes, the REAL way to make the world better is NOT upsetting the status quo, that's my favorite Brooks. "Truth is in the Middle" Brooks isn't quite as fun.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 02:15 |
|
my favorite david brooks is "i'm so lonely, why did my wife leave me" david brooks
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 02:54 |
|
Coolness Averted posted:yes, the REAL way to make the world better is NOT upsetting the status quo, that's my favorite Brooks. "Truth is in the Middle" Brooks isn't quite as fun. Haha, oh lord, trying to change things is bad because criticism decreases patriotism In that essay about alienation I posted, Brooks aknowledges that Trump's rise is a sign that something is very wrong, but his solution for this is to "foster a faith in the system" (IE do nothing) and have a new marketing spin on the GOP's program
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 15:30 |
|
Margret Wente is Canada's David Brooks, if Brooks had been caught plagiarizing his column several times. While this is something that would get you expelled at Canadian Universities, she's held onto her column, which hilariously often attacks academia as the locus of a sinister liberal conspiracy - except when it says things she agrees with. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/is-seattles-minimum-wage-debacle-coming-to-ontario/article35533163/ Let me run you through this column - WILL THE NIGHTMARE OF A LIVING MINIMUM WAGE COME TO ONTARIO
|
# ? Jul 12, 2017 23:21 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:my favorite david brooks is "i'm so lonely, why did my wife leave me" david brooks i wonder if the NYT's insurance policy covers enough counseling to keep david brooks from jumping off the brooklyn bridge once his new millennial waifu inevitably ditches his crusty rear end
|
# ? Jul 13, 2017 13:16 |
|
as he fell, a witness heard the phrase “avocado toooooooast”
|
# ? Jul 13, 2017 13:21 |
|
Well poo poo - it gets highly mockable toward the end but has gay innuendo at the start, making it respectable https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/...&pgtype=article David Brooks - Before Manliness Lost Its Virtue The Trump administration is certainly giving us an education in the varieties of wannabe manliness. There is the slovenly “I don’t care what you think” manliness of Steve Bannon. There’s the look-at-me-I-can-curse manliness that Anthony Scaramucci learned from “Glengarry Glen Ross.” There is the affirmation-hungry “I long to be the man my father was” parody of manliness performed by Donald Trump. There are all those authentically manly Marine generals Trump hires to supplement his own. There’s Trump’s man-crush on Vladimir Putin and the firing of insufficiently manly Reince Priebus. With this crowd, it’s man-craving all the way down. It’s worth remembering, when we are surrounded by all this thrusting masculinity, what substantive manliness once looked like. For example, 2,400 years ago the Greeks had a more fully developed vision of manliness than anything we see in or around the White House today. Greek manliness started from a different place than ours does now. For the ancient Greeks, it would have been incomprehensible to count yourself an alpha male simply because you can run a trading floor or sell an apartment because you gilded a faucet handle. For them, real men defended or served their city, or performed some noble public service. Braying after money was the opposite of manliness. For the Greeks, that was just avariciousness, an activity that shrunk you down into a people-pleasing marketer or hollowed you out because you pursued hollow things. The Greeks admired what you might call spiritedness. The spirited man defies death in battle, performs deeds of honor and is respected by those whose esteem is worth having. The classical Greek concept of manliness emphasizes certain traits. The bedrock virtue is courage. The manly man puts himself on the line and risks death and criticism. The manly man is assertive. He does not hang back but instead wades into any fray. The manly man is competitive. He looks for ways to compete with others, to demonstrate his prowess and to be the best. The manly man is self-confident. He knows his own worth. But he is also touchy. He is outraged if others do not grant him the honor that is his due. That version of manliness gave Greece its dynamism. But the Greeks came to understand the problem with manly men. They are hard to live with. They are constantly picking fights and engaging in peacock displays. Take the savage feuding that marks the Trump White House and put it on steroids and you get some idea of Greek culture. The Greek tragedies describe cycles of revenge and counter-revenge as manly men and women wreak death and destruction on each other. So the Greeks took manliness to the next level. On top of the honor code, they gave us the concept of magnanimity. Pericles is the perfect magnanimous man (and in America, George Washington and George Marshall were his heirs). The magnanimous leader possesses all the spirited traits described above, but he uses his traits not just to puff himself up, but to create a just political order. The magnanimous man tries to master the profession of statecraft because he believes, with the Athenian ruler Solon, that the well-governed city “makes all things wise and perfect in the world of men.” The magnanimous leader tries to beautify his city, to arouse people’s pride in and love for it. He encourages citizens to get involved in great civic projects that will give their lives meaning and allow everybody to partake in the heroic action that was once reserved for the aristocratic few. The magnanimous man has a certain style. He is a bit aloof, marked more by gravitas than familiarity. He shows perfect self-control because he has mastered his passions. He does not show his vulnerability. His relationships are not reciprocal. He is eager to grant favors but is ashamed of receiving them. His personal life can wither because he has devoted himself to disinterested public service. The magnanimous man believes that politics practiced well is the noblest of all professions. No other arena requires as much wisdom, tenacity, foresight and empathy. No other field places such stress on conversation and persuasion. The English word “idiot” comes from the ancient Greek word for the person who is uninterested in politics but capable only of running his or her own private affairs. ---------------------------------------------- Today, we’re in a crisis of masculinity. Some men are unable to compete in schools and in labor markets because the stereotype of what is considered “man’s work” is so narrow. In the White House, we have phony manliness run amok. But we still have all these older models to draw from. Of all the politicians I’ve covered, John McCain comes closest to the old magnanimous ideal. Last week, when he went to the Senate and flipped his thumb down on the pretzeled-up health care bill, we saw one version of manliness trumping another. When John Kelly elbowed out Anthony Scaramucci, one version of manliness replaced another. --------------------------------------------- The old virtues aren’t totally lost. So there’s hope.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 21:52 |
|
those first couple articles remind me of how dumb i was as a teenager maybe he didnt really give up the weed
|
# ? Aug 2, 2017 07:32 |
|
All op/eds are poo poo
|
# ? Aug 2, 2017 10:22 |
|
Mother Jones published this turd recently. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/07/are-people-disgusted-by-the-homeless/ Turns out they were misrepresenting the studies they reference just to take down those nefarious homeless. https://theintercept.com/2017/08/01/scholars-say-mother-jones-distorted-their-research-for-anti-homeless-article/
|
# ? Aug 2, 2017 13:48 |
|
Zeris posted:All op/eds are poo poo Sounds like you can't compete in todays labor markets because you are not a real man (like David Brooks)
|
# ? Aug 2, 2017 13:51 |
|
quote:
the nefarious homeless and their perverse desire to not sleep on the streets, must be countered at every turn, by any means necessary
|
# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:20 |
|
HMS Beagle posted:Mother Jones published this turd recently. gently caress, it feels really bad to see a formerly great magazine become the trash rag slush fund of some rich idiots.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 03:57 |
|
Zeris posted:All op/eds are poo poo
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 03:59 |
|
also political cartoons
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 03:59 |
|
who the gently caress wants to read david brooks op
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 04:04 |
|
kevin "gas the homeless" drum
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 04:05 |
|
HMS Beagle posted:Mother Jones published this turd recently. Not a bad article, but I was disappointed that it didn't point out that there is no paradox between supporting aid for the homeless and for banning sleeping in public or panhandling. You can do both of these by providing housing and financial support to the homeless so they don't need to sleep and beg in the streets. Supposedly smart people are so far gone up their ideological buttholes that they cannot consider the obvious if it might involve collective action and *gasp* taxation. Even the most utopian solution they can imagine is people cheerfully accepting the presence of a population without shelter and reduced to begging. Hodgepodge has issued a correction as of 04:41 on Aug 11, 2017 |
# ? Aug 11, 2017 04:39 |
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:who the gently caress wants to read david brooks op Honestly sorta the point of this thread
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 18:27 |
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:who the gently caress wants to read david brooks op somebody post David brooks' defense of the Google misogynist
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:44 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:somebody post David brooks' defense of the Google misogynist Google's CEO Should Resign There are many actors in the whole Google/diversity drama, but I’d say the one who’s behaved the worst is the C.E.O., Sundar Pichai. The first actor is James Damore, who wrote the memo. In it, he was trying to explain why 80 percent of Google’s tech employees are male. He agreed that there are large cultural biases but also pointed to a genetic component. Then he described some of the ways the distribution of qualities differs across male and female populations. Damore was tapping into the long and contentious debate about genes and behavior. On one side are those who believe that humans come out as blank slates and are formed by social structures. On the other are the evolutionary psychologists who argue that genes interact with environment and play a large role in shaping who we are. In general the evolutionary psychologists have been winning this debate. When it comes to the genetic differences between male and female brains, I’d say the mainstream view is that male and female abilities are the same across the vast majority of domains — I.Q., the ability to do math, etc. But there are some ways that male and female brains are, on average, different. There seems to be more connectivity between the hemispheres, on average, in female brains. Prenatal exposure to different levels of androgen does seem to produce different effects throughout the life span. In his memo, Damore cites a series of studies, making the case, for example, that men tend to be more interested in things and women more interested in people. (Interest is not the same as ability.) Several scientists in the field have backed up his summary of the data. “Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate,” Debra Soh wrote in The Globe and Mail in Toronto. Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionary psychologist, wrote in Quillette, “For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate.” Damore was especially careful to say this research applies only to populations, not individuals: “Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population-level distributions.” That’s the crucial point. But of course we don’t live as populations; we live our individual lives. We should all have a lot of sympathy for the second group of actors in this drama, the women in tech who felt the memo made their lives harder. Picture yourself in a hostile male-dominated environment, getting interrupted at meetings, being ignored, having your abilities doubted, and along comes some guy arguing that women are on average less status hungry and more vulnerable to stress. Of course you’d object. What we have is a legitimate tension. Damore is describing a truth on one level; his sensible critics are describing a different truth, one that exists on another level. He is championing scientific research; they are championing gender equality. It takes a little subtlety to harmonize these strands, but it’s doable. Of course subtlety is in hibernation in modern America. The third player in the drama is Google’s diversity officer, Danielle Brown. She didn’t wrestle with any of the evidence behind Damore’s memo. She just wrote his views “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.” This is ideology obliterating reason. The fourth actor is the media. The coverage of the memo has been atrocious. As Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic, “I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.” Various reporters and critics apparently decided that Damore opposes all things Enlightened People believe and therefore they don’t have to afford him the basic standards of intellectual fairness. The mob that hounded Damore was like the mobs we’ve seen on a lot of college campuses. We all have our theories about why these moral crazes are suddenly so common. I’d say that radical uncertainty about morality, meaning and life in general is producing intense anxiety. Some people embrace moral absolutism in a desperate effort to find solid ground. They feel a rare and comforting sense of moral certainty when they are purging an evil person who has violated one of their sacred taboos. Which brings us to Pichai, the supposed grown-up in the room. He could have wrestled with the tension between population-level research and individual experience. He could have stood up for the free flow of information. Instead he joined the mob. He fired Damore and wrote, “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the memo. Damore wrote nothing like that about his Google colleagues. Either Pichai is unprepared to understand the research (unlikely), is not capable of handling complex data flows (a bad trait in a C.E.O.) or was simply too afraid to stand up to a mob. Regardless which weakness applies, this episode suggests he should seek a nonleadership position. We are at a moment when mobs on the left and the right ignore evidence and destroy scapegoats. That’s when we need good leaders most. Nebakenezzer has issued a correction as of 20:59 on Aug 11, 2017 |
# ? Aug 11, 2017 20:53 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionary psychologist, wrote in Quillette, “For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate.” Nebakenezzer posted:Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionary psychologist, wrote in Quillette, Nebakenezzer posted:prominent evolutionary psychologist hmm yes, let's trust the people from biotruths: the field: the movie: the game, a field that starts with a conclusion and tortures conjecture into supporting it alex jones, a prominent goblin advocate
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 00:50 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Honestly sorta the point of this thread
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 00:52 |
|
Panic! at Nabisco posted:
let's see who this guy is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) posted:In an article entitled What should we be worried about? he talked about eugenics in China and how Deng Xiaoping instigated the one-child policy, "partly to curtail China's population explosion, but also to reduce dysgenic fertility". He argued that if China is successful, and given what he calls the lottery of Mendelian genetics it may increase the IQ of its population, perhaps by 5–15 IQ points per generation, concluding that within a couple of generations it "would be game over for Western global competitiveness" and hopes the West will join China in this experiment rather than citing "bioethical panic" in order to attack these policies. hmm yes eugenics a cutting edge issue in academic debate
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 00:55 |
|
I love when a major evopsych researcher in the UK got blackballed from a bunch of bio and psych journals for literally faking his data.
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 00:58 |
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I love when a major evopsych researcher in the UK got blackballed from a bunch of bio and psych journals for literally faking his data. I despise these people - do you remember his name? get that OUT of my face posted:making GBS threads on david brooks is a noble deed, but this thread is kinda redundant given the amount of mock threads that are already here. just imo, i don't call the shots and hope that i never will You're not wrong, but I loving despise these people, they are like a living embodiment of aristocratic privilege, writing dumb bullshit that frequently wouldn't pass muster as a student submission in a university, only we're to pretend their views have merit because they possess a column
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 02:20 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I despise these people - do you remember his name? Satoshi "blondes with big breasts are the apex of sexual selection" Kanazawa, iirc even other evopsych types think he's too spicy at this point.
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 02:22 |
|
Speaking of: MARGRET WENTE - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/nerdy-guy-writes-memo-world-has-nervous-breakdown/article35960330/ I can't even read this, somebody else will have to highlight the important bits Nerdy guy writes memo; world has nervous breakdown A few months ago, a nerdy young Google engineer went to one of the company’s diversity workshops, where he was skeptical about what he heard. So he gave himself a crash course in the science of sex differences, and wrote a 10-page memo that set out his thoughts. Last week, someone sent it to the online site Gizmodo, which called it an “anti-diversity screed,” and all hell broke loose. Mainstream media – CNN, the BBC, NBC and others – used similar language to characterize the memo, the gist of which, they said, was that women aren’t biologically suited for tech jobs. The offending nerd, James Damore, was promptly fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes.” In his note to employees, Google chief executive Sundar Pichai said the offending memo had “clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting” – thereby perpetuating the gender stereotype that women are more sensitive and fragile than men. On Twitter, the prevailing sentiment was that firing was too good for him. Opinion writers rushed to the barricades with pieces pointing out that women were foundational to computing, etc., etc. The media coverage was painfully misleading. It was obvious that nobody had read the memo, which wasn’t an anti-diversity rant at all. “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists,” it began. The tone, although occasionally injudicious, was mild. Mr. Damore said he agreed there should be more diversity in tech, not less. His issue was with the way Google was going about it. “Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism),” he concluded. Also: Google cancels internal town hall meant to address gender discrimination The memo did not argue that women aren’t biologically suited for tech jobs. Instead, it argued that gender bias is not the only, or even the main reason, why men predominate. Differences in preferences and aptitudes also play a role. Broadly speaking, more women are attracted to work involving people, and more men are attracted to work with objects and systems. In the world of neuroscience and evolutionary biology, there’s nothing controversial about this statement. It’s like saying that men, broadly speaking, are taller than women. There still are a lot of tall women and short men – just as there are lots of women who like to code and lots of men who don’t. But in the world of liberal dogma, all of this is wrongthink. These ideas are so toxic that they cannot even be discussed. When four scientists stated on Quillette that Mr. Damore’s assertions were essentially accurate, protesters crashed the site and temporarily shut it down. (The scientists included Dr. Debra Soh, whose piece on the subject appeared this week in The Globe and Mail.) The Google memo made headlines because it seemed to play into the popular narrative that the tech world is a uniquely sexist place – implacably hostile to women and their aspirations. Women have trampled down the barriers in medicine, law and a host of other fields that were once closed to them – so what is it about tech that continues to shut them out? It’s a question well worth asking. One useful observation comes from blogger Scott Alexander, who notes that even in these fields, gender preferences are different. Women, for example, significantly outstrip men in specialties such as ob-gyn, family medicine and pediatrics, which are heavy on human interaction. More men go in for surgery, radiology and anesthesiology, which require a lot of technical expertise but minimal contact with actual patients. So why haven’t women conquered computer science and engineering? Maybe they avoid these fields for fear of being unwelcome. Or maybe they think these fields won’t offer enough people stuff. But there’s also the undeniable fact that the tech world is full of nerdy guys such as James Damore. People skills are not their strength. An unusual number are somewhere on the Asperger’s scale, which means they’re bad at reading social cues and don’t even know when they’re offending people. They enjoy a work culture that’s obsessive, and think work-life balance is a bunch of hooey. Here’s how ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt described his ideal female Google employees: “They’ll go quiet for a few hours while they’re busy taking care of the family or whatever it is they’re doing, and then they emerge at 11 o’clock at night, working hard to make sure that their responsibilities are taken care of.” Whew. No wonder only 20 per cent of Google’s tech jobs are held by women. Despite the hundreds of millions the company has spent on diversity initiatives, this ratio has barely budged. Nor will it, I suspect – so long as Google pretends that gender differences don’t exist.
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 02:24 |
|
I know this'll be mostly NYTimes and poo poo, but I would give some forums rewards or something if people turn up some really hilarious stuff from local papers.
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 02:26 |
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I know this'll be mostly NYTimes and poo poo, but I would give some forums rewards or something if people turn up some really hilarious stuff from local papers.
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 04:24 |
|
get that OUT of my face posted:can this also include letters to the editor in local papers? those are great
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 04:24 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Speaking of: this hot take: women like people more, so they can't tech right, also child rearing is secondary to administrative responsibilities, if you are a woman wanting to work in corporate Conch Shell Corp posted:That limo had a wife and kids Lastgirl posted:"you're the animals, you're the animals" I insist as I continue to spew vitriolic, divisive and shallow rhetoric
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 06:44 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:47 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Whew. No wonder only 20 per cent of Google’s tech jobs are held by women. Hotter Take:
|
# ? Aug 12, 2017 07:27 |