The acolytes of St Greta can't really help themselves. “cascading effects of climate change.”... is now just a religious invocation to get started - no matter what the journey
Great lesson but not always easy to follow - particularly if opinions/beliefs rather than facts are all we have. Morgan Housel put it beautifully when he said "The strongest-held beliefs are usually on topics with the most uncertainty. No one is as passionate about geometry as they are about religion."
"Perhaps Friedman and the Times care nothing about trying to persuade Republican readers, or perhaps the times doubts there are any left."
I do read the NYT as well as the Washington Post to try and understand opposing points of view. As you wrote, they don't make it easy. I am sure they are not trying to persuade any of us They are competent enough to do so if they tried.
Good advice, but I think you nailed it when you say "unless you’re absolutely sure none of them are reading, or you don’t care if they tune you out". It sounds to me like Friedman is not writing to an audience of open minded readers to sway them with facts and logic; he is writing for those who already agree with him, assuming that those who do not are beyond the pale and beyond reasoning. I guess we can chalk up his article as another bad choice by a big player...
Tom has some trouble with the idea of authoritarian. He has been known to praise China for its ability to act without democratic rigamarole.
He hasn't written anything insightful since "From Beirut to Jerusalem" and that was 35 years ago. I stopped reading his stuff 25 years ago. I have been happier since then.
I agree in spirit, but isn’t the key part of the observation the “unless you have to” bit? From my experience, it seems highly plausible that large proportions of NYT readers will not listen to you *unless* you loudly signal that you agree with them on which views are taboo. The gratuitously antagonistic throat clearing that to you seems an unnecessary cost is really a necessary investment in this reading.
I think he did have to piss them off, or at least he thought he had to. Friedman was writing a broadly pro-Israel article. He knows that will be controversial with the typical left-leaning NYT reader. By taking gratuitous swipes at half the country, he was signaling ‘I’m on your team, so it is safe to listen to my argument.’ It is necessary to this strategy that the issues are things like climate change, that are totally unrelated to his main point, because his main point is controversial for his target audience, so can’t be used to establish team identity. It was also necessary for it to be gratuitous insults, because that is how to establish which team you're on - making relevant fact-based arguments is just that, and doesn't establish team membership. No doubt he knew that he would lose some right-leaning readers, but he thought it would be more than balanced by gaining some left-leaning readers, especially among NYT readers, and since the right is more likely to be pro-Israel anyway.
Friedman would respond this way: You see all these things as irrelevant swipes distracting from the central point of my article, and thus unnecessarily alienating. But you are missing the forest for the trees. I don't write one-off articles about unconnected current events considered in isolation, I am exploring a consistent theme across many articles in which I write about my subtle insight how many seemingly unconnected current events are really manifestations of the same big underlying phenomenon. This is difficult for many people to notice and grasp, but I'm a world-class noticer of paterns like this which require special efforts at research and analysis and capacity for abstraction to distill key commonalities. This is so hard to notice that in fact you still didn't notice it even in yet another attempt of mine to explain it. What you are misinterpreting as a series of unrelated and superfluous swipes at different ideas that have nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war - put together only as a creedal litany to both flatter the correlated prejudices and reinforce the solidarity of my core readership by marshaling their sense of ideological group identity and intellectual and moral superiority - are in fact the very essence of what constitutes an effort at rigorous, logical persuasion of the existence and importance of a common theme, which is precisely the indispensable activity of listing out of many pieces of consistently corroborating evidence demonstrating the strength and explanatory and predictive power of the thesis.
For the record, John Yoo, Berkley Legal scholar and Bushite conservative WHO HATES TRUMP wrote a book entitled 'Defender in Chief' about Trump's time in office. What the record makes clear is that Trump was more respectful of the rule of law and the separation of powers than other recent POTUS's and that he also preserved the power of POTUS carefully. It's funny, I hear all this rhetoric about Trump but very little factual analysis. And no, a quick Google search to find some memes about how Trump is Hitler based on offhand comments isn't analysis...Just sayin'. #FactsMatter I'm so tired of the 'throwaway line threat narrative' mode of discussing Trump. In fact, if one is an actual political scientist, he's one of the most interesting developments in modern politics. But hey, I live in a fact based world, which quite often puts me at odds with the self-anointed geniuses of the world.
The real problem with all this is Jews pretending calling for the elimination of the Jewish state equals genocide. This along with their undending lying about how they ethnically cleansed 750k Arab Muslims from land they stole to form Israel (they took much more than the U.N. Partition granted) makes this an impossible conversation to have on a rational basis.. But we aren't allowed to discuss that factually as for some reason Zionist colonialism and occupation and ethnic cleansing under the aegis of the U.N. and post-colonial movement is not 'fair' for open debate.
Eff that nonsense. I also know the history of Islam and don't fall for simplistic lies offered by Jihadis about their victimhood. The truth is simple. This is a religious war over land. It has nothing to do with the West, and we should have never gotten involved in the first place. Let the Jews and Muslims sort it out. I do not care if Jews have a Jewish state to live in. It matters not a whit to any articulable American interest.
As for Friedman, this author's mistake is one of the first order - not understanding that Friedman is a pseudo-intellectual hack who hasn't had a unique, interesting idea or thing to say in his entire life. I remember the whole "The World is Flat" bs from 20 years ago, I was amazed to find out he actually had nothing new or even interesting to say about globalism. Rather is was just cheerleading.
Friedman is writing to his own tribe, he's not trying to convince those outside of it. The paragraph at the beginning that you quote says in essence: "I'm one of you. I believe all the things you believe in. Now listen to what I have to say about Hamas, even if some of it you don't like."
Friedman was incredibly wrong about China and I see no reason to accept his analysis of Israel. He is right that they could have chosen peace, but when your entire culture is based on hate of one people, you can't ever choose peace. I think that we are on the precipice of real change in the world. I am hoping the election of Milei is the first domino to fall.
Demand curves slope down, and the one great thing about seeing the intentional rot of our institutions is that people are slowly starting to think objectively for themselves. The tribes that adhere to the false religion Mr. Friedman espouses will be left behind. Even the "don't bug me with politics" people are waking up that centralized government is not the solution, and is just as limiting as any racist from the Jim Crow South.
There are so many technologies today that are on the cusp of really making our lives better and they will democratize processes/technology so more people can afford to improve their lives using it. The new Renaissance is here. You just have to open your eyes and mind to it.
"Denying the election loss is a narcissistic tragedy, but not an 'authoritarian drift.'"
Jesus John, I can't even tell if you're being serious anymore. Suggesting that Trump's transgressions begin and end at merely denying the election loss betrays the extraordinary depth to which you've buried your head in the sand. Why is it so impossible for you to call a spade a spade? Because it's not the tribe you're accustomed to attacking? Talking about losing the reader.
There is an excellent article on this by Alan Howe in The Weekend Australian 16-17 December. Well worth finding and reading. Howe begins: "Much of Gaza is in smouldering ruin. And Gazans are to blame. They voted for Hamas and polls show they would do so again, not that they have had the chance lately. Hamas likes to present itself as a resistance movement, but its raison d’etre is the slaughter of Jews – and anyone else who would support Israel’s democracy. Most Gazans agree with that." Howe contrasts Gaza with countries such as Singapore, which from a similar base years ago built a prosperous and safe community.
Stop trying nice to democrat fascists. They hate you and America. Remember democrats are fine with Civil Wars against America. They obviously cheat on elections...and ruin America on purpose...drugs, illegals, crime, fail educations and cities. They REALLY HATE AMERICA and regularly state they wish to leave when they lose election. They want money...not to be your friend and debate issues. They are FASCISTS
There is an excellent article on this by Alan Howe in The Weekend Australian 16-17 December. Well worth finding and reading. Howe begins: "Much of Gaza is in smouldering ruin. And Gazans are to blame. They voted for Hamas and polls show they would do so again, not that they have had the chance lately. Hamas likes to present itself as a resistance movement, but its raison d’etre is the slaughter of Jews – and anyone else who would support Israel’s democracy. Most Gazans agree with that." Howe contrasts Gaza with countries such as Singapore, which from a similar base years ago built a prosperous and safe community.
The acolytes of St Greta can't really help themselves. “cascading effects of climate change.”... is now just a religious invocation to get started - no matter what the journey
Great lesson but not always easy to follow - particularly if opinions/beliefs rather than facts are all we have. Morgan Housel put it beautifully when he said "The strongest-held beliefs are usually on topics with the most uncertainty. No one is as passionate about geometry as they are about religion."
"Perhaps Friedman and the Times care nothing about trying to persuade Republican readers, or perhaps the times doubts there are any left."
I do read the NYT as well as the Washington Post to try and understand opposing points of view. As you wrote, they don't make it easy. I am sure they are not trying to persuade any of us They are competent enough to do so if they tried.
Good advice, but I think you nailed it when you say "unless you’re absolutely sure none of them are reading, or you don’t care if they tune you out". It sounds to me like Friedman is not writing to an audience of open minded readers to sway them with facts and logic; he is writing for those who already agree with him, assuming that those who do not are beyond the pale and beyond reasoning. I guess we can chalk up his article as another bad choice by a big player...
Tom has some trouble with the idea of authoritarian. He has been known to praise China for its ability to act without democratic rigamarole.
He hasn't written anything insightful since "From Beirut to Jerusalem" and that was 35 years ago. I stopped reading his stuff 25 years ago. I have been happier since then.
I agree in spirit, but isn’t the key part of the observation the “unless you have to” bit? From my experience, it seems highly plausible that large proportions of NYT readers will not listen to you *unless* you loudly signal that you agree with them on which views are taboo. The gratuitously antagonistic throat clearing that to you seems an unnecessary cost is really a necessary investment in this reading.
Tom Friedman is an expert on everything. And glibly so.
I think he did have to piss them off, or at least he thought he had to. Friedman was writing a broadly pro-Israel article. He knows that will be controversial with the typical left-leaning NYT reader. By taking gratuitous swipes at half the country, he was signaling ‘I’m on your team, so it is safe to listen to my argument.’ It is necessary to this strategy that the issues are things like climate change, that are totally unrelated to his main point, because his main point is controversial for his target audience, so can’t be used to establish team identity. It was also necessary for it to be gratuitous insults, because that is how to establish which team you're on - making relevant fact-based arguments is just that, and doesn't establish team membership. No doubt he knew that he would lose some right-leaning readers, but he thought it would be more than balanced by gaining some left-leaning readers, especially among NYT readers, and since the right is more likely to be pro-Israel anyway.
Friedman would respond this way: You see all these things as irrelevant swipes distracting from the central point of my article, and thus unnecessarily alienating. But you are missing the forest for the trees. I don't write one-off articles about unconnected current events considered in isolation, I am exploring a consistent theme across many articles in which I write about my subtle insight how many seemingly unconnected current events are really manifestations of the same big underlying phenomenon. This is difficult for many people to notice and grasp, but I'm a world-class noticer of paterns like this which require special efforts at research and analysis and capacity for abstraction to distill key commonalities. This is so hard to notice that in fact you still didn't notice it even in yet another attempt of mine to explain it. What you are misinterpreting as a series of unrelated and superfluous swipes at different ideas that have nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war - put together only as a creedal litany to both flatter the correlated prejudices and reinforce the solidarity of my core readership by marshaling their sense of ideological group identity and intellectual and moral superiority - are in fact the very essence of what constitutes an effort at rigorous, logical persuasion of the existence and importance of a common theme, which is precisely the indispensable activity of listing out of many pieces of consistently corroborating evidence demonstrating the strength and explanatory and predictive power of the thesis.
For the record, John Yoo, Berkley Legal scholar and Bushite conservative WHO HATES TRUMP wrote a book entitled 'Defender in Chief' about Trump's time in office. What the record makes clear is that Trump was more respectful of the rule of law and the separation of powers than other recent POTUS's and that he also preserved the power of POTUS carefully. It's funny, I hear all this rhetoric about Trump but very little factual analysis. And no, a quick Google search to find some memes about how Trump is Hitler based on offhand comments isn't analysis...Just sayin'. #FactsMatter I'm so tired of the 'throwaway line threat narrative' mode of discussing Trump. In fact, if one is an actual political scientist, he's one of the most interesting developments in modern politics. But hey, I live in a fact based world, which quite often puts me at odds with the self-anointed geniuses of the world.
The real problem with all this is Jews pretending calling for the elimination of the Jewish state equals genocide. This along with their undending lying about how they ethnically cleansed 750k Arab Muslims from land they stole to form Israel (they took much more than the U.N. Partition granted) makes this an impossible conversation to have on a rational basis.. But we aren't allowed to discuss that factually as for some reason Zionist colonialism and occupation and ethnic cleansing under the aegis of the U.N. and post-colonial movement is not 'fair' for open debate.
Eff that nonsense. I also know the history of Islam and don't fall for simplistic lies offered by Jihadis about their victimhood. The truth is simple. This is a religious war over land. It has nothing to do with the West, and we should have never gotten involved in the first place. Let the Jews and Muslims sort it out. I do not care if Jews have a Jewish state to live in. It matters not a whit to any articulable American interest.
As for Friedman, this author's mistake is one of the first order - not understanding that Friedman is a pseudo-intellectual hack who hasn't had a unique, interesting idea or thing to say in his entire life. I remember the whole "The World is Flat" bs from 20 years ago, I was amazed to find out he actually had nothing new or even interesting to say about globalism. Rather is was just cheerleading.
Friedman is writing to his own tribe, he's not trying to convince those outside of it. The paragraph at the beginning that you quote says in essence: "I'm one of you. I believe all the things you believe in. Now listen to what I have to say about Hamas, even if some of it you don't like."
Friedman was incredibly wrong about China and I see no reason to accept his analysis of Israel. He is right that they could have chosen peace, but when your entire culture is based on hate of one people, you can't ever choose peace. I think that we are on the precipice of real change in the world. I am hoping the election of Milei is the first domino to fall.
Demand curves slope down, and the one great thing about seeing the intentional rot of our institutions is that people are slowly starting to think objectively for themselves. The tribes that adhere to the false religion Mr. Friedman espouses will be left behind. Even the "don't bug me with politics" people are waking up that centralized government is not the solution, and is just as limiting as any racist from the Jim Crow South.
There are so many technologies today that are on the cusp of really making our lives better and they will democratize processes/technology so more people can afford to improve their lives using it. The new Renaissance is here. You just have to open your eyes and mind to it.
"Denying the election loss is a narcissistic tragedy, but not an 'authoritarian drift.'"
Jesus John, I can't even tell if you're being serious anymore. Suggesting that Trump's transgressions begin and end at merely denying the election loss betrays the extraordinary depth to which you've buried your head in the sand. Why is it so impossible for you to call a spade a spade? Because it's not the tribe you're accustomed to attacking? Talking about losing the reader.
There is an excellent article on this by Alan Howe in The Weekend Australian 16-17 December. Well worth finding and reading. Howe begins: "Much of Gaza is in smouldering ruin. And Gazans are to blame. They voted for Hamas and polls show they would do so again, not that they have had the chance lately. Hamas likes to present itself as a resistance movement, but its raison d’etre is the slaughter of Jews – and anyone else who would support Israel’s democracy. Most Gazans agree with that." Howe contrasts Gaza with countries such as Singapore, which from a similar base years ago built a prosperous and safe community.
Stop trying nice to democrat fascists. They hate you and America. Remember democrats are fine with Civil Wars against America. They obviously cheat on elections...and ruin America on purpose...drugs, illegals, crime, fail educations and cities. They REALLY HATE AMERICA and regularly state they wish to leave when they lose election. They want money...not to be your friend and debate issues. They are FASCISTS
There is an excellent article on this by Alan Howe in The Weekend Australian 16-17 December. Well worth finding and reading. Howe begins: "Much of Gaza is in smouldering ruin. And Gazans are to blame. They voted for Hamas and polls show they would do so again, not that they have had the chance lately. Hamas likes to present itself as a resistance movement, but its raison d’etre is the slaughter of Jews – and anyone else who would support Israel’s democracy. Most Gazans agree with that." Howe contrasts Gaza with countries such as Singapore, which from a similar base years ago built a prosperous and safe community.