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

[colker]

Originally Posted by 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...

I am just listening to the opening on the podcast and Sam is talking about PC censorship on academic circles. We are living troubled dangerous times. It´s the same vapid shallow reasoning behind consummerism of coolness and hip is being thrown at intellectual debate.

[FlashUNC]

Good to see David Brooks still writing columns about random words he just learned.

Probably the last guy you want explaining cool to you is David Brooks.

[fiamme red]

From the article: "If you grew up in the 20th century, there’s a decent chance you wanted to be like Miles Davis, Billie Holiday, Humphrey Bogart, Albert Camus, Audrey Hepburn, James Dean or Jimi Hendrix. In their own ways, these people defined cool."

I grew up in the 20th century and never wanted to be like any of these. If he wrote, "If you grew up in the fifties or sixties and aspired to be an existentialist philosopher, jazz or rock musician, or actor, there's a decent chance, etc." his statement would be a little more accurate.

It had been years since I read David Brooks's column, and judging from this article, if I never read another one I'm not going to be missing much.

[paredown]

I thought the 'cool' piece was OK--certainly the point about consumerism is true. I was reading a piece about Bob Marley--his estate is now the 6th largest dead guy merchandise empire--and that made me very sad...

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by daker13

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

Originally Posted by benb

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

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Probably the last guy you want explaining cool to you is David Brooks.

Originally Posted by fiamme red

It had been years since I read David Brooks's column, and judging from this article, if I never read another one I'm not going to be missing much.

Hey fellas, what can I tell ya? I don't know anything about why you feel this way other than you feel this way. Fine with me but I read all sorts of OpEds primarily from NYTimes and WSJ and I might disagree with some of the opinions but I don't view it as personal. Frankly the only weird columns come from Trump apologists that make their way into the WSJ occasionally but that's OK too because seeing that thought process on paper is its own thing altogether.

I see all forms of thoughts and ideas as currency. Their denominations will of course vary based on how I think I value them from my own thought process but in whatever myriad way I can get at those ideas, I get richer in the process because those inputs improve my own mosaic.

I am not defending David Brooks. I am saying use him and any others you can find to help you see a bigger world.

[colker]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

Hey fellas, what can I tell ya? I don't know anything about why you feel this way other than you feel this way. Fine with me but I read all sorts of OpEds primarily from NYTimes and WSJ and I might disagree with some of the opinions but I don't view it as personal. Frankly the only weird columns come from Trump apologists that make their way into the WSJ occasionally but that's OK too because seeing that thought process on paper is its own thing altogether.

I see all forms of thoughts and ideas as currency. Their denominations will of course vary based on how I think I value them from my own thought process but in whatever myriad way I can get at those ideas, I get richer in the process because those inputs improve my own mosaic.

I am not defending David Brooks. I am saying use him and any others you can find to help you see a bigger world.

The substance x medium on his piece is a well thought observation. Not an absolute just like no observation can be generalized but as a state of affairs is pretty acurate.
I wish he could extend his logic and reach the place where we could talk about the increase in cheap morality.

[benb]

I generally like the articles.. just saying he comes across as kind of nerdy.. the opposite of the american idea of cool.

[doomridesout]

The article was pretty decent for David Brooks but I still feel compelled to post this .gif:

[colker]

Originally Posted by doomridesout

The article was pretty decent for David Brooks but I still feel compelled to post this

Why should cool be restricted to kids?

[daker13]

Originally Posted by Jgrooms

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

Yes, I understand that reporters and columnists (or what you call 'scribes of the op ed') have different roles at a newspaper. My point was simply that David Brooks is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is worth drawing attention to, imho. What he writes is basically pop sociology. If you find it insightful, good for you.

[Elefantino]

If you have to have cool explained to you, you are not cool. If you have to explain cool to someone, you are not cool.

Essentially, it's like Fight Club. The first rule of cool is don't talk about cool.

[colker]

Originally Posted by Elefantino

If you have to have cool explained to you, you are not cool. If you have to explain cool to someone, you are not cool.

Essentially, it's like Fight Club. The first rule of cool is don't talk about cool.

Are you saying you are cool?

[goonster]

1. Real coolness is a lot like a good joke. You can dissect it, but to do that you have to kill it.

2. Coolness is not like Wokeness at all, because the former is primarily an aesthetic sensibility while the latter is political awareness.

3. The level of discourse that David Brooks operates on is pretty high, but if we accept him as a trader in the currency of ideas, then it is also a legit position to consistently refuse his wares on grounds of inferior quality. Yes, "he makes you think," but if what he makes you think 99.9% of the time is "this guy is wrong, and kind of lazy" then there is always other stuff to read.

4. I was listening to Erykah Badu long before David Brooks was aware of her, and that makes me cooler and woker than him.

[goonster]

Originally Posted by colker

Are you saying you are cool?

Because he is, he's not allowed to say.

Originally Posted by unterhausen

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

Wrong NYT columnist. That's Thomas Friedman.

[Elefantino]

Originally Posted by colker

Are you saying you are cool?

I talked (or, rather typed) about cool.

Therefore, according to the rules, no, I am not cool.