2/ The short version: he argues that woke tech/creative elites have monopolized cultural power and both lock out and disdain white working class America, leading to violent right-wing revolutionary impulses that faux-populist scum like Trump exploit.
What's missing from that?...
3/ The sustained attack since Nixon (at least) on education, science etc., ramped up in recent years by the post-truth stylings of Murdoch's empire and much else besides. Resentment against current elites isn't some natural response to overweening incumbents...
4/ It has been carefully nurtured for economic ends and the pursuit of political power. FL's DeSantis is presiding over a pandemic disaster to own the libs; that's not "BoBos fault," pace Mr. Brooks.
What's more...
5/ There is nothing comparable in the hands of the left, or the so-called creative class, to the network of both public-intellectual BS shops and blunt political cash flooded organizations run by the billionaire class on the right.
6/ Any analysis of partisan resentment that doesn't look at who fuels such resentment & to what end is...not just weak, but suspect: if Brooks isn't providing cover for the right's anti-democratic move, his words are indistinguishable from those of someone trying to do just that.
2/ Conor often deploys that presumption of risibility in his dislikes, BTW, rhetorical red meat but bad argument. The larger issue though is his both siderism which assumes the weaponized anti-CRT crowd & the racism-is-pervasive side are equivalent in either argument or power..
3/ I'm trying to learn to leap into every fight I'm invited to (or not), but the two sides are not mirror images. Among other things, there is a wide range of different types of evidence that racism still plays a huge role in US daily life...
One last thought before I go: I can't tell you how the pandemic started. No one can. There is no dispositive evidence, and there is unlikely to be any for many years, if ever, given how long it has taken to track down previous new zoonotic diseases. 1/
2/ As Professor Tufekci put it, perhaps sharply, in an earlier reply tweet to me, it's a mistake to have too much certainty about probabilities. But it's important to be clear on what that necessary intellectual modesty actually requires...
3/ It means that we all need to do a lot of work. There are a series of specific steps required for a lab-escape scenario to actually occur. @beyerstein does a great job of detailing them here: newrepublic.com/article/162689….
Here's an example of problematical coverage of the lab-escape scenario for COVID origins. An article in @techreview about "risky bat virus engineering" in Wuhan. It unfolds in 41 paragraphs. The quote below comes from the 40th graf.
This is a problem. Why?
2/ Because the previous 39 grafs build what appears to be a strong inferential case that there was something nasty in the woodshed that directly links the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the pandemic...which impression this tale-end-Charlie of a concession undercuts. A lot...
3/ If that quote had been in the nut graf, and had the story then been framed not as a Wuhan-mass-murder-suspect story, but as this is a warning sign that we need to get better world-wide re lab safety, ethics and regulation, this could have been a great story. As it is...
It will be some time before we realize just how badly major news media–@nytimes, @cnn, @VanityFair and many others, have handled the lab-escape story. The chain of cherry picked what-ifs has not changed much since last spring. The underlying science has not shifted. And yet...
2/ A small handful of sources and reporters, some with very interesting histories, have managed by dint of repetition and a kind of in-group associational credibility trading managed to transform a bunch of maybes into a discourse where could have=did happen...
3/ See @nprfreshair's interview last week with the @VanityFair writer whose name is slipping my mind for an example...
This @washingtonpost story is a) mostly a nothing burger & b) a problem.
Why is the lead writer a politics reporter? (The other two are science/health writers, tho not virology/ID focused.) I get this is news-but what it means is not a political q.
2/ This isn't to say that the politics reporter in question is bad journalist. I don't follow his byline so I've no view on that. My presumption: he's fine until proven otherwise.
But virology, like any technical subject, takes time to grasp; work on the bleeding edge more so...
3/ And there's no way for him to judge who's bullshitting here, and to what extent. And that's key even in a scientific dispute with no political dimension. It's that much more so when the issue is being weaponized to assign blame (and maybe even start a war)...
@amyyqin and @ChuBailiang are expert and knowledgable China reporters. They seem in this piece out of their depth on the science...
2/ I don't have time right now (deadlines of my own) to fisk the problems in this piece fully...so I'll just point to two problems very quickly. They are clearly drawing on others' work to describe each of the alleged scenarios for a lab escape origin for the COVID pandemic...
3/ There account follows closely the arguments from Nicholas Wade, who lost his connection to @NYTScience because of his commitment to motivated reasoning on race and genetics, and the novelist/essayist Nicholas Wade. In repeating very similar claims without scrutiny...