|
David Brooks: Year of the Wolves Can the constitution withstand the partisans? [image:snarling grey wolf] Drink if you have it handy, god knows I am [padding from a novel recounting an attack by wolves] Point: sometimes crazy poo poo happens and even good people do bad things This is because 2019 is the year when crazy, vicious poo poo may happen bla bla bla, be afraid because 1. "government is divided" - this of course means 'Dems have some political power', and I feel compelled to point out that brooks, sniveling coward that he is, is comparing this to a wolf attack 2. Trump is unhinged - it would be churlish to ask who for the past two years did sweet and fuckall about it Trump is battered in scandal, like a fried jumbo shrimp, and that is bad because ------ TUMP bad, he don't play by da rules quote:We know the language he’ll use. It will be the anti-establishment, anti-institutional language that has been coursing through the left and right for the past few decades: The establishment is corrupt, the game is rigged, the elites are out to get you. Brooks has outdone himself here, I'd try to grasp a more hilariously false and sweeping BOTH SIDES, but I really can't. I challenge all of CSPAM to write a more wrong both sides, I predict it will involve the mushroom kingdom Also, notice that this seems to say that the really bad thing about Babby Tump is that - he attacks institutions, which is a **WEIRD** take if you think about all the things you could say here Anyway, canny readers have already clocked the false equivalence. The GOP abject cowardice in the debasement of Trump is forgotten. It's BOTH SIDES that now need to be bipartisan, and """reasonable""". What this means is that the dems should let the cowardly GOP have a veto over anything they do ---- to get rid of trump, because otherwise it's "politics' and 'partisanship'. Notice how the pissweasel brooks is basically saying that if trump, who he's very very nominally against, should remain that's way better than if the Dems charge ahead and demonstrate some effectiveness, especially without the desiccated remains of the GOP If both sides Don't agree to be bipartisan, then the 40% of voters who love trump will be permanently alienated from the democratic system, and this wouldn't be the case if they do as brooks commands, they'd be totally reasonable and finally understand Trump did crimes. And hey it's not like a guy who planned to loose the 2016 election so he could just keep surfing white resentment forever isn't gonna vilify, say, a bunch of people who are working to expose him and his family's crimes, get him out of office, and generally disgrace him just as he's drifting off into sweet senility, there's no evidence he'd do this, none, and it certainly isn't a popular social media app or something like that Witness this man's stupidity. He will be reborn, shiny and chrome quote:They’ll see there is no higher authority that all Americans are accountable to. It’s just power and popularity straight through. Conclusion: My way or America will become a neo darwinian nightmare
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/AndyBCampbell/status/1081301469129777158
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Jesus imagine not knowing anything about this and then suddenly discovering that the most embarrassing moments of your childhood were being dissected and broadcast to strangers by your own mother...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:"minor advisory" Yeah keep your kids away from the pedoph-isles
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1081454789848838144
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BretStephensNYT/status/1081380631311994882?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 10:59
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 11:04
|
|
|
i mean the actual article isnt so bad, in that hes pointing out fox is actually a tool of the establishment
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1081329092467789825?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 12:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidklion/status/1081601787872841728?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/1081604582902562816
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ppyajunebug/status/1081245622748016640 holy poo poo lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
this is just sad and reading it vaguely makes me want to yell at her therapist
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuN7RvX7R78
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
lmfao
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
I have a lot of respect for that kid, she seems pretty savvy, much more so than her mom. Nebakenezzer posted:David Brooks: Year of the Wolves Can the constitution withstand the partisans? There are two wolves inside every person, and the one that you feed will dominate, but what if both wolves are evil?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Jake Tapper deserves some kind of ironic poetic jusice, like having to be a games journalist and host the VGAs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
If he'd done that then Omar might've only won 75% of the vote instead of 77%. lol she's got my vote until I drop dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:There are two wolves inside every person, and the one that you feed will dominate, but what if both wolves are evil? Feed the less destructive one I'd say feed the smarter one, but that's no guarantee of anything Brooks in a passive-aggressive smarmy nagging magpie voice that ends every paragraph with a exclamation mark!: The Morality of Selfism Our culture has rejected external standards for morality [moral excellence is a poo poo term and I'm not writing it] External meaning...objective, fact based? Your only example here is that people try to live up to a standard, and they are Lincoln and Mother Teresa, can you---- NOPE! But SNAKE PEOPLE have rejected this because sometimes this approach makes you feel bad! quote:When somebody does this, you should just say, “That makes me feel judged,” and just walk away. Don’t stoop to their level! O..........Kay................. quote:The second problem with these external standards is that they are very hard to relate to. People are always talking about how Nelson Mandela came out of prison and tried to usher in an era of forgiveness and reconciliation. That’s all very well and good for Nelson Mandela, but what does this have to do with your life? Um, realtalk, WTF is this even We were talking about moral standards, now we're talking about empathy? Also, can I just flag this: quote:People are always talking about how Nelson Mandela came out of prison and tried to usher in an era of forgiveness and reconciliation. People are? Is this sarcasm? Am I to understand people are not talking about this? Also, I have to admit if all anybody said about Mandela "got out of prison and ushered in a new age," well, I was listening to the podcast Pontifacts and I feel more of a personal connection with that pope who became a pope when a birb landed on his head also should Mandela have hammered out compromises and used the system to end apartheid, or should he have just rotted in prison because he refused to explicitly take violence off of the table bit of a tangent, where was I Right, you were saying people who want meaning in their lives - are detestable, cool, cool Meaning is bad.....because it's internal, and thus you - don't have to work for it Sarcastically: "just do things that give you good feelings!" Wait, but now-------the bad person is judging others and displaying indignation Like David Brooks And this is bad [oh lord, he uses woke, once again the man who ostensibly hypes listening to others and reason is of course saying everybody that isn't in his clan is an NPC] Ahem, it is bad to be like david brooks Second way to be bad: using signs to show that you judge others This is especially bad if phrased like tolerance, because obviously if you say tolerance you mean the opposite Like...david brooks? It's also mindless conformity, and unlike having external norms enforced from outside, that's bad quote:You want to inspire others by sharing about yourself. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is talk about yourself a lot mmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm What other things about SNAKE PEOPLE bother you mr. brooks quote:The fourth thing you need to do is condemn bad people. Let me just stop you mr. brooks. You're saying condemning people is bad while condemning people but you're not a snake person, ah quote:You need to protect people from hearing ideas they may not already have! Let me stop you again, mr brooks, you are saying this is bad you david brooks I think you may have literally forgotton that you're writing this column with a nagging schoolmarmish shrill magpie voice quote:But remember: You’re already perfect just the way you are! yeah, if I'd authored this logical catasterfuck, I'd just end on "go gently caress yourself" too
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Feed the less destructive one What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
quote:The Morality of Selfism Lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
quote:How many times did I have that conversation? Probably about five. Per week. Every single time it felt like rejection, which it was, but it started to feel less personal each time Marc or Barry or Jonathan said he would pass on dating me because of religion. I told one suitor (I called them my “Jewtors”) that I was willing to convert to Judaism, but he said, “it wouldn’t count.” kind of weird she didnt convert to judaism for the sake of her ex husband but she is willing to do it for internet strangers like even if he didnt care i bet it would have upped her jdate game
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
I'm a Jewtor
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 08:39
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:David Brooks needs his fingers broken. As our resident David Brooks expert. Can you define what he actually believes or what if anything he claims is a moral good that he commits to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 11:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1081801176704794625?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 11:46
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
is glenn greenwald the most online man in journalism? https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1082016616081182722 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1082035922080882688
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Jose posted:is glenn greenwald the most online man in journalism? A thin-skinned posting machine.  , Glenn,
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/max_fisher/status/1082053156966682625?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
in awe of the size of this brain
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
so populist = fascist
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
populism is literally just doing what the people want, and whether it's left wing or right wing populism it basically just boils down to a representation of the popular will. elite resentment of populism stems purely from the fact that they think they know how best to run society and that the masses are ignorant sheep who have to be herded towards their own best interests. so since we live in a world of hegemonic liberalism, they've made the conscious effort to redefine populism as something that only represents some kind of reactionary nativist sentiment, in an attempt to preclude any kind of popular left wing movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
lmao, is this guy a D&D poster posting sources, and then lying about what the sources actually say because you don't think anyone will actually click them, is a classic move
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Sazabi posted:As our resident David Brooks expert. Can you define what he actually believes or what if anything he claims is a moral good that he commits to. Warning: Prolux AF for somebody explaining the whys of why a dumb man is dumb The truth (that I don't know if he's even dimly aware of it) is that Brooks is a hyper-partisan. He has a dualistic world view that divides everyone between "his sort of people" (IE rich white aristocrat movement cons) and literally everyone else. The key to understanding brooks and his river of mediocrity is understanding that he fuckin' commits to this view in a way that is totally empty. What I mean is that Brooks has no principles or truths inside this empty set. It's just a commitment to an identity and a cause, but aside from "who I am" these things are left undefined. This means that "his sort of people" can literally never do wrong or betray ideology. What's more, it means that truth and principle become empty concepts to brooks, which is why he fucks them up so badly Take "character principle" for example. For a principle to have any meaning at all, it's something that has to be held for non-utilitarian reasons, and something that you stick to, even in the face of challenges, or when nobody will know. It's also something that you can be assessed at succeeding or failing at. But, with Brooks and his smoothbrained definition, character principles (like, for example, being anti-torture*) cannot exist. You can see it pretty clearly if you assume a principled conservative [Aaron] around the first Bush admin. Let's assume for a moment that [Aaron] believes some version of American conservatism, but this is anchored in the truth of it and in principles. When Bush and Cheney start waterboarding people, [Aaron] is going to FLIP THE gently caress OUT, because he sees personal rights (including things like a right to privacy and personal legal rights being universal) as very important. He's not going to let it go, and he's not gonna shut up about it. With Brooks, obviously, this policy will be justified somehow. So, his is why fucktards like Brooks use this language in their columns, but don't know what it means. They assume it is entirely 'theirs' to use, but literally don't understand it. Similarly, brooks assumes literally truth and reason are owned by his group alone. They are good things, so by definition they must belong to movement cons. Pretty much anything else good (wisdom, morality, etc) also by definition must belong to them as well. The deduction here is that "The Other" cannot have reason. In one of those "six of one/half dozen of the other" statements you often find when in your hip waders in these slime and mold filled sub-basements, this allows any opponents to only have psychological motives, which is why in that preposterous "collapsing dream palaces" article, or modern op eds, brooks always refers to the non-elect as being 'tribal' in their motives, or "a shitload of synonyms for mindless partisans and reactionaries." It's also why this piss otter can be this impossible partisan and decry 'partisanship' without his head exploding; partisanship is bad when The Other does it. poo poo gets comical, though, because brooks also assumes he can deploy logic and reason against his enemies, but not understanding what these things are leads to the farcical implosion of contradictions. With no succsess/failure criteria for reason assessment because "I say it T/F right" doesn't leave room for that, brooks is left with a nonfunctional epistemology. This is also why Brooks has always seen "TF I'm right" in literally everything. With a definition that precludes being wrong, that's literally all you are left with "Morals," however the term cashes out, must also fail, because brooks only grasps them as a tribal identity possessed by his tribe and not by anyone else. Since saying "anything X does is good, anything Y does is bad" is a total failure in ethics, functionally brooks has none. This position is frankly worse than "no gods, no ethics" since at least the latter is logically consistent, and I point this out because shitheads like brooks take aforementioned statement as the worst thing ever You can see all this in action with Trump. The reign of Trump has taken a big agressive poo poo on everything brooks has claimed to believe in, and TUMP repudiates a shitload of all that careful clubroom horseshit the "intellectuals" of movement cons have cultivated over the past thirty years. The fact that the GOP at large have sat on their hands while this was going on should have turned brooks, man who claims to think and believe things, against the GOP as people who sold his life's work out. The fact that he's been wearing an ascot of never-trump-ness along with brick of dumbshit Friedman, and then half the time supporting trump anyway, is pathetic in ways a more eloquent writer will have to take a stab at. It's like Trump the swan cock has landed next to piss otter brooks and honked in his face "SHELLFISH ARE GAY, DON'T EAT THEM" and then otter brooks just was all "yeah, I don't eat shellfish, I wish that swan had decorum" Decorum is literally the only complaint brooks has with trump, that by acting like a large bigbird rear end in a top hat, he makes the club of ancestral wealth otters look bad Conclusion: Brooks' basic assumptions about the world are embarrassingly nonfunctional, which is why he writes the way he does Nebakenezzer has issued a correction as of 12:09 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1082124293218201600?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
God forbid the guy rotting in prison for 30 years for doing something you can now do in Colorado legally gets a decent meal every once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
TrilliontonNixon posted:God forbid the guy rotting in prison for 30 years for doing something you can now do in Colorado legally gets a decent meal every once in a while. He must suffer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
the bad man has to experience bad things
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
quote:These criminals are being guarded by people “putting in 16 hours a day,” Rojas said, and many are picking up side jobs to be able to afford gas to make it to the prison facility. If they are tired or distracted, bad things will happen, he said. this strikes me as a somewhat more important detail than the whole "we still have to feed prisoners" thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 06:28
|
|