Why is David Brooks so famous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AHHHHHH okay I did not know that he left his wife of 28 years for his research assistant and I had no idea he published this garbage in the Times!!

“ The person being left has to suppress vindictive flashes of resentment and be motivated by a steady wish for the other person’s ultimate good. Without accepting the idea that she deserved to be left, the person being left has to act in a way worthy of her best nature, to continue the sacrificial love that the leaver may not deserve and may never learn about.”

And then:

“ That means not calling when you are not wanted. Not pleading for more intimacy or doing the other embarrassing things that wine, late nights and instant communications make possible.”

Okay he is officially one of the least qualified people to talk about character and morals.

Reposting it as my very valuable comment got lost in the pp’s quote.

Wow did he really published it? That is so f#cked up. What an @sshole!

Yep, he really wrote it. Sorry I forgot to post the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/opinion/david-brooks-leaving-and-cleaving.html

Holy crow. What a piece of shit! I’m actually shocked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She looks like his granddaughter.

Yeah. I’m trying to think how they could have posed that shot to make the age difference look less ridiculous but sitting on his lap doesn’t help at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AHHHHHH okay I did not know that he left his wife of 28 years for his research assistant and I had no idea he published this garbage in the Times!!

“ The person being left has to suppress vindictive flashes of resentment and be motivated by a steady wish for the other person’s ultimate good. Without accepting the idea that she deserved to be left, the person being left has to act in a way worthy of her best nature, to continue the sacrificial love that the leaver may not deserve and may never learn about.”

And then:

“ That means not calling when you are not wanted. Not pleading for more intimacy or doing the other embarrassing things that wine, late nights and instant communications make possible.”

Okay he is officially one of the least qualified people to talk about character and morals.

Reposting it as my very valuable comment got lost in the pp’s quote.

Wow did he really published it? That is so f#cked up. What an @sshole!

Yep, he really wrote it. Sorry I forgot to post the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/opinion/david-brooks-leaving-and-cleaving.html

Holy crow. What a piece of shit! I’m actually shocked!

Same!! I don’t know how I missed this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like some of his work. I think some people hate anything he does because they disapprove of his personal life.

Is he Republican?

Yes. He was also a big supporter of the Iraq invasion in 2002. He was part of the neo-liberal Republican crowd, using his weekly articles to drum up support for invasion.

He's now pretty insignificant in the party, as he - and other Republicans like him - enabled the populist, anti-intellectual, anti-science madness that runs the GOP today.

Same thing with Bill Kristol, too.

Bill Kristol still tries to make himself relevant, but good riddance his loss of a "platform." My favorite was when he spoke at an event a few years where he suggested putting poor people in camps. Then, after the event was over and he wasn't canceled yet (to my great surprise), I overheard him tell a young woman, "Sweetheart, I live in McLean, where rich people live. I know how they think." The great irony was that the young woman he was speaking to comes from an extremely well-to-do family in the area.

I like Bill Kristol. Look, the GOP has gone ape-shit fascist crazy. People like Bill Kristol represent the old guard—snooty country club Republicans. I’m ok with it. I wish we had more of them!!!!! I follow him on Twitter and even agree w/ him occasionally, and respect him for being a never trumper when it wasn’t easy to do so.

[Anonymous]

Why wasn't he fired by the Times? He's proven himself to be an unethical writer on the take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AHHHHHH okay I did not know that he left his wife of 28 years for his research assistant and I had no idea he published this garbage in the Times!!

“ The person being left has to suppress vindictive flashes of resentment and be motivated by a steady wish for the other person’s ultimate good. Without accepting the idea that she deserved to be left, the person being left has to act in a way worthy of her best nature, to continue the sacrificial love that the leaver may not deserve and may never learn about.”

And then:

“ That means not calling when you are not wanted. Not pleading for more intimacy or doing the other embarrassing things that wine, late nights and instant communications make possible.”

Okay he is officially one of the least qualified people to talk about character and morals.

Reposting it as my very valuable comment got lost in the pp’s quote.

Wow did he really published it? That is so f#cked up. What an @sshole!

Yep, he really wrote it. Sorry I forgot to post the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/opinion/david-brooks-leaving-and-cleaving.html

Holy crow. What a piece of shit! I’m actually shocked!

That is crazy!!! I can't believe that got published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like some of his work. I think some people hate anything he does because they disapprove of his personal life.

Is he Republican?

Yes. He was also a big supporter of the Iraq invasion in 2002. He was part of the neo-liberal Republican crowd, using his weekly articles to drum up support for invasion.

He's now pretty insignificant in the party, as he - and other Republicans like him - enabled the populist, anti-intellectual, anti-science madness that runs the GOP today.

Same thing with Bill Kristol, too.

Bill Kristol still tries to make himself relevant, but good riddance his loss of a "platform." My favorite was when he spoke at an event a few years where he suggested putting poor people in camps. Then, after the event was over and he wasn't canceled yet (to my great surprise), I overheard him tell a young woman, "Sweetheart, I live in McLean, where rich people live. I know how they think." The great irony was that the young woman he was speaking to comes from an extremely well-to-do family in the area.

I like Bill Kristol. Look, the GOP has gone ape-shit fascist crazy. People like Bill Kristol represent the old guard—snooty country club Republicans. I’m ok with it. I wish we had more of them!!!!! I follow him on Twitter and even agree w/ him occasionally, and respect him for being a never trumper when it wasn’t easy to do so.

In my personal experience, Kristol is a nice guy. And it pains me to say it, but so is Brooks. Though I would pay money to unsee that lap picture. So gross.

[Anonymous]

I take the point that Bill Kristol and Brooks are more moderate voices among republicans. But how long has he been at the Times? Can't the Times find a new moderate voice? Would be more interesting for that space to give a platform to a young maybe female +/or non-white writer. Brooks' time has come and gone, his message is undermined by his life choices - he does not walk the talk, and he, as noted above, has abused his platform, particularly with the column about his former wife. In my workplace, a guy like this is simply parked. He might not be fired but we'd make sure he could not make important judgments or manage people. In private sector settings, he'd be let go, no? What's with the Times?? And especially with PBS news hour, which I love but also needs more new faces.

[Anonymous]

This is killing me - I’m the “holy crow” poster and I still can’t believe the Times published that- but I know he and the magnificent Gwen Ifill had a real friendship and that her death devastated him. I imagine Gwen was a good judge of basic decency.

[Anonymous]

He’s a conservative who advocated for conservative ideals — until those ideals that he advocated predictably resulted in the election of Trump. He viewed himself as a moralist, writing on character — while cheating on his wife and, presumably, causing at least some damage to his family. I enjoyed reading Bobos many years ago. I stopped reading his work when he wrote of an experience having lunch with a young woman, and proceeded to project some pretty loathsome stuff onto her without acknowledging it as projection. The lack of insight coupled with the multi-layered cruelty of this piece was enough to shift me from viewing his work as vaguely interesting representations of views that I don’t share, to seeing him as a not very creative hypocrite whose views are not worth reading.

[Anonymous]

He is an immoral creep with zero shame

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s a conservative who advocated for conservative ideals — until those ideals that he advocated predictably resulted in the election of Trump. He viewed himself as a moralist, writing on character — while cheating on his wife and, presumably, causing at least some damage to his family. I enjoyed reading Bobos many years ago. I stopped reading his work when he wrote of an experience having lunch with a young woman, and proceeded to project some pretty loathsome stuff onto her without acknowledging it as projection. The lack of insight coupled with the multi-layered cruelty of this piece was enough to shift me from viewing his work as vaguely interesting representations of views that I don’t share, to seeing him as a not very creative hypocrite whose views are not worth reading.

He’s a neocon Zionist like every columnist at NYT and WSJ. His son served in the IDF