You know what? I’m starting to think that basing articles, even opinion pieces, about random Twitter discourse isn’t a great idea. A couple of Twitter posts is constantly being framed as “a serious rift in the community” or some other such nonsense. And it never seems occur to anyone at these publications that users of a semi-anonymous online platform and is fueled by engagement metrics might be (get this) trolling! Can you imagine? Shitposting! On the internet of all places!
Just want to follow up that Slate published a piece about the exact same report that was much more accurate, basically saying "we just don't know if they are effective. Maybe yes, maybe no".
I have to admit I never read Bret Stephens, but I am really interested in this masking question (taking care of a 93 year old tends to focus the mind, Covid-wise.) So this column was quite a shock to read, because I assume all of these guys (Stephens, Douthat, Brooks, etc.) are playing the "reasonable conservative" role, and here's something that looks like it could have been written by Tucker Carlson.
The "reasonable conservative" in my head might say, "Yes, this is complicated, government officials who put mask mandates into effect meant well, but we can now see they were wrong." But that's not what Stephens is saying, which is more like "Government officials knew all along masks don't work, but they don't care, because they just want to force us all to follow their rules."
I know, how naive of me to think there was a difference between Bret Stephens and Tucker Carlson, a false belief I was only able to maintain by never actually reading Bret Stephens.
I will reiterate this again and again. Cancel your NYT subscription. Stop playing Wordle (SquareWord.org is more fun, IMO, but there are countless online puzzle games to choose from). Do not link or share NYT articles (even good ones!) unless you are journalist like Parker whose raison d'être is to expose these monsters.
The NYT is objectively no better than Fox News. Other media are superior in reporting world events, facts, and trends. I'm still waiting for the Judith Miller apology tour. The NYT, even in the 1920s and 30s, couldn't stop being fasc curious. It has never been worth more than the paper it's printed on.
Some of these columnists like Friedman seem to engage in something like a ritual. People want to be told what to think but they want to be told things that they might think if they were to think about something. So they hire the kind of people who will write columns like this. It’s sort of like a therapist you hire to say ‘you’re so great and nobody should ever criticize you. Also, everything is going to work out.’ I used to think ‘well, that’s OK because they have other things.’ But now I worry that the other things are a kind of cover so we won’t get so infuriated about the BS and it is harder to call it out. Maybe the BS is actually the point of the whole enterprise for some of these publications. Is the ratio of soothing ideological pablum to something that might inform the reader getting worse or am I simply getting old?
How odd that the study author is giving interviews proclaiming that he proved that masks definitely don't work, when the study itself doesn't say that.
You know what? I’m starting to think that basing articles, even opinion pieces, about random Twitter discourse isn’t a great idea. A couple of Twitter posts is constantly being framed as “a serious rift in the community” or some other such nonsense. And it never seems occur to anyone at these publications that users of a semi-anonymous online platform and is fueled by engagement metrics might be (get this) trolling! Can you imagine? Shitposting! On the internet of all places!
Just want to follow up that Slate published a piece about the exact same report that was much more accurate, basically saying "we just don't know if they are effective. Maybe yes, maybe no".
https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/masks-effectiveness-cochrane-review.html
I have to admit I never read Bret Stephens, but I am really interested in this masking question (taking care of a 93 year old tends to focus the mind, Covid-wise.) So this column was quite a shock to read, because I assume all of these guys (Stephens, Douthat, Brooks, etc.) are playing the "reasonable conservative" role, and here's something that looks like it could have been written by Tucker Carlson.
The "reasonable conservative" in my head might say, "Yes, this is complicated, government officials who put mask mandates into effect meant well, but we can now see they were wrong." But that's not what Stephens is saying, which is more like "Government officials knew all along masks don't work, but they don't care, because they just want to force us all to follow their rules."
I know, how naive of me to think there was a difference between Bret Stephens and Tucker Carlson, a false belief I was only able to maintain by never actually reading Bret Stephens.
I will reiterate this again and again. Cancel your NYT subscription. Stop playing Wordle (SquareWord.org is more fun, IMO, but there are countless online puzzle games to choose from). Do not link or share NYT articles (even good ones!) unless you are journalist like Parker whose raison d'être is to expose these monsters.
The NYT is objectively no better than Fox News. Other media are superior in reporting world events, facts, and trends. I'm still waiting for the Judith Miller apology tour. The NYT, even in the 1920s and 30s, couldn't stop being fasc curious. It has never been worth more than the paper it's printed on.
NYT dēlenda sunt.
Some of these columnists like Friedman seem to engage in something like a ritual. People want to be told what to think but they want to be told things that they might think if they were to think about something. So they hire the kind of people who will write columns like this. It’s sort of like a therapist you hire to say ‘you’re so great and nobody should ever criticize you. Also, everything is going to work out.’ I used to think ‘well, that’s OK because they have other things.’ But now I worry that the other things are a kind of cover so we won’t get so infuriated about the BS and it is harder to call it out. Maybe the BS is actually the point of the whole enterprise for some of these publications. Is the ratio of soothing ideological pablum to something that might inform the reader getting worse or am I simply getting old?
I would guess that Tom Friedman actually learned about the t-shirt story from a taxi driver . . . just kidding.
How odd that the study author is giving interviews proclaiming that he proved that masks definitely don't work, when the study itself doesn't say that.
It doesn’t take much to see that there’s plenty of studies to show even basic masks are effective https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018