OT: David Brooks/NYTimes essay on being "Cool"

[fuzzalow]

OK, beyond what might seem an incongruity for the topic of "cool" to be broached by a person of standing as our esteemed Mr. Brooks, what he writes is reasonable food for thought.

How Cool Works in America Today

I agree with his basic construct proposed here which I took as "cool" being the culmination of a lotta things in a person, unique to that person and yet still existing within subtle boundaries of behavior even if there coexists a radical grounding of ideas underneath. There are numerous points made in the easy so that is just my summary on it, read it yourself and see if you might come to a different conclusion.

I hadda laugh at Brooks' knock on the vacuous hipster mentality as from the essay:

I started to look around to see if there might be another contemporary ethos that has replaced the cool ethos. You could say the hipster ethos you find in, say, Brooklyn qualifies. But that strikes me as less of a cultural movement and more of a consumer aesthetic.

I guess being cool is never having to say that you are - if you are then you is.

[OtayBW]

I preferred his editorial of 4 days ago...but I digress.

[Clean39T]

"Consumer aesthetic" is the perfect description for pretty much everything in Portlandia as well..

But I'd agree - a very undude article.

[redir]

I find it interesting that the term 'cool' has stuck around through so many generations. When was cool was NOT a consumer aesthetic?

[daker13]

Trying to wrap my head around the idea of considering anything David Brooks writes as 'food for thought.'

This is a guy who beats America over the head with his ideas on moral character, then dumps his wife to marry a research assistant 27 years his junior. And who routinely criticizes hipster/millennial/American consumerism, while having a wedding registry that is about as concerned with the higher things as Tony Soprano's living room (worth a web search, it leaked a few months ago and is quite funny).

Sorry if I'm being a d*ck, but I find it outrageous that the NYT fires reporters while employing these kinds of fatuous nitwits on their editorial page.

[e-RICHIE]

DB and I don't have to be BFFs but he did win me over with Lord of the Memes.

[benb]

I don't get his conflation of cool with consumerism.

There are different kinds of cool. To a junior high schooler it might be about having the cool shoes or the cool clothes but to adults I don't think it rings true.

If you try to be "cool" through consumerism you risk being a poseur... think about it from a cycling perspective.

No one thinks the people he mentions in the article were cool because of the products they used/bought.. they had charisma and their own style and were virtuosos at something. They might not have been super concerned with social justice or being "woke" but they didn't need to, they did their own thing and brought people happiness.

A cyclist can be cool without the latest products.. it'd be about skill, souplesse, experiences & attitude, etc.. rather than having the latest frame and the carbon wheels and the Rapha wardrobe. You can have all the gear and certainly be a Fred anyway. The guy you meet who has rode across the country or dropped out of work for a year to concentrate on racing is going to have a big head start on being a "cool" cyclist IMO.

I guess that's just me though.. there is always that guy in the parking lot before a race/ride who is a little out of shape but won't shut up about his high zoot gear. He's not cool to me. But he might be cool to someone else who is just like him. Guess it's all perspective.

David Brooks doesn't strike me as terribly cool FWIW. Doesn't have much to do with his politics.

[colker]

To be cool is to be tragic... that´s how i would resume his (very well written) article.
Cool is about how you react to life´s basic injustice: Luck.
The cool person knows that fate, destiny, luck or the Gods.. laugh at our desperate attempts to make sense and logic out of this thing called life. While everyone adopts collective values and wisdom, he does not believe them true. His view won´t prevail. He won´t win in the end... but the way he feels, the way he moves around shows no one is really winning.

Capitalism makes anything into product and turned tragedy into fashion. It can sell BOgart´s drinking or Jimmy Dean´s red jacket. But you can´t buy what tragic really means.

[cachagua]

"Capitalism turns tragedy into fashion"... very nicely put!

That whole post. Excellent.

[unterhausen]

did he get the idea for this essay from a cab driver at the applebee's salad bar?

Black twitter tells me that Brooks just killed "woke-ness"

[Jgrooms]

Originally Posted by daker13

Trying to wrap my head around the idea of considering anything David Brooks writes as 'food for thought.'



This is a guy who beats America over the head with his ideas on moral character, then dumps his wife to marry a research assistant 27 years his junior. And who routinely criticizes hipster/millennial/American consumerism, while having a wedding registry that is about as concerned with the higher things as Tony Soprano's living room (worth a web search, it leaked a few months ago and is quite funny).



Sorry if I'm being a d*ck, but I find it outrageous that the NYT fires reporters while employing these kinds of fatuous nitwits on their editorial page.

For someone who doesn't understand his audience you know much re Mr Brooks? Some points:

Getting a new partner hardly disqualifies one to question America's 'moral character' or hold any public office for that matter. If it did, it'd be crickets out there. Of course a consistent lack of fidelity used to disqualify one from the highest office. In the future it may be a prerequisite?

Hardly the first or only one to make a living bashing millennials. The old lamenting the young is as old as well:

They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything -- they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.
(Aristotle)

And reporters are held to a different standard than the scribes of the op ed. This fundamental fact seems lost in this day and age.

I may not always agree w DBs, but he makes you think. Which is the point of op ed. If this 'assaults' one's worldview, just turn the page.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[e-RICHIE]

Originally Posted by Jgrooms

And reporters are held to a different standard than the scribes of the op ed. This fundamental fact seems lost in this day and age.

Many who read the papers don't know this, that there is that difference in roles.

I may not always agree w DBs, but he makes you think. Which is the point of op ed. If this 'assaults' one's worldview, just turn the page.

Indeed.

[fuzzalow]

I dunno. What Mr. Brooks does in his personal life is none of my business. I care only about his ideas. And whether I agree with his ideas, opinions or whatever is irrelevant if it gets me to think about or formulate my own thoughts and ideas on any given topic.

As per Brooks' article, I disagree with his statement that "Cool was politically detached..." I think Camus or Bob Dylan as paradigms of cool were hardly politically detached. But I might agree that from them as being from a different age with a greater openness and affinity for intellectualism than I think is prevalent in the here and now. I see a much greater acceptance of tribalism and ignorance today which fuels and metastasizes a divided and divisive society.

Just look at where we are now. Just look at what we have done to ourselves. As said by Benjamin Franklin during the time of our nation's birth: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.".

[colker]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

I dunno. What Mr. Brooks does in his personal life is none of my business. I care only about his ideas. And whether I agree with his ideas, opinions or whatever is irrelevant if it gets me to think about or formulate my own thoughts and ideas on any given topic.

As per Brooks' article, I disagree with his statement that "Cool was politically detached..." I think Camus or Bob Dylan as paradigms of cool were hardly politically detached. But I might agree that from them as being from a different age with a greater openness and affinity for intellectualism than I think is prevalent in the here and now. I see a much greater acceptance of tribalism and ignorance today which fuels and metastasizes a divided and divisive society.

Just look at where we are now. Just look at what we have done to ourselves. As said by Benjamin Franklin during the time of our nation's birth: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.".

I gess he means "highly individualistic" w/ the politically detached quote. Cool was about being outside the power dispute and therefore not pleasing the crowd. If you are into politics you have to raise sympathy; you need to comunicate. Dylan quickly made clear he was out of that game and became enigmatic.

[Clean39T]

Haven't listened to this yet, but probably will:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/it...-better-person

I enjoy Sam's non-political work (his WakingUp book, his book on Free Will, interviews with Joseph Goldstein, etc.), but only now and then venture into his engagement on the controversial stuff that would get this thread locked if I mentioned it. Not sure where this one falls on that spectrum since I haven't listened to it...