I think - quite simply - that Janeane Garofalo is probably the last person in the universe to have any moral authority to comment on what is and isn't 'well adjusted'. She's a faux-intellectual who is so filled with bitterness, spite, anger, hate, and prejudice that she really shouldn't be allowed out in public, let alone offer commentary on who is and isn't well adjusted. Physicial, heal thyself. When she can open her mouth WITHOUT insulting large groups of people she doesn't know, then perhaps she will be fit for polite society. As it stands, she's just a tired, vapid, intellectually shallow troglodyte that the talk shows poke out from under the bridge on occasion to frighten the passers-by.

>> ^alizarin:
>> ^Diogenes:
i think she's off her rocker
i know plenty of very nice, reasonable republicans...

Being nice and reasonable doesn't negate what she said. My neighbor (for one of many examples) is a nice guy but when we talk about the morality of the two positions he eventually gets flustered and he can't face that his world view doesn't work outside his little world view. Studies on conservatives vs liberals I think tend to say that conservatives have difficulty tolerating uncertainty and I think that's the problem.


she says that first you have to be an 'asshole' and then to be a conservative you have be a "dick" - this is just a ridiculous over-generalization -- now, i'm pretty much a centrist, or if you will somewhat-conservative fiscally, but fairly well liberal on social issues - now how does that play to her petty paradigm? i also have many friends (and family) who cover the spectrum ideologically speaking - i generally am satisfied to sit back and listen, but i do interject (imho, gently) when i feel that either side is being unfactual and/or misrepresentative -- i find that my intercessions occur pretty evenly - to put it another way, i've seen both sides become 'flustered' even rabid in vociferously trying to defend their perception of 'truth' and what is moral -- take for example the arguments of equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome... which is more moral? afaik, there are *no* studies of "conservatives vs liberal" mindsets... only conservative - but i'll happily peruse any liberal psych studies you can provide


people who are generous and kind, intellectual and honest, responsible and caring, that take the lessons from a religious text rather than any literal meaning, that value common sense and hard work, and that anticipate changes to our society but whose hold on 'traditional values' is more of a pragmatic 'sea anchor' slowing down the pace of change so as to move forward in a more cautious and efficient manner

That does not describe conservatives. That describes liberal or maybe moderate Christians not conservatives. At least not any of the hundreds I grew up around or work with or see on tv etc.


i beg to differ, but it does very much describe many conservatives - let's get this straight... being conservative or even republican doesn't make you 'evil' - as well, being what i described doesn't necessarily shift you towards the left or even the middle -- you're simply lumping together every negative right-wing nutjob's views and conflating that to represent nearly 50% of the voting public - N.B. moderate christians *can be* conservative republicans... and newsflash... so can athiest or agnostic homosexuals


imho, this woman's smug labelings and polemics serve merely as a funhouse mirror to what is hateful and warped in her own political ideology

That quote wasn't smug, polemical, hateful, or warped. Studies on the differences between how conservatives think and how liberals think have been on national news and the opinion she stated is a fair interpretation of them. If I recall correctly I remember George Will reacted to one saying something like "we all have flaws". You can disagree but calling her all that stuff is making a straw man argument. I'm guessing it personally threatens you because you lean towards conservatism.


yes, indeed it was smug, polemical, hateful and warped -- i've watched quite a few interviews of garofalo and being 'smug' is one of her main schticks, be it comedic or political commentary - likewise, calling such a large portion of the voting public 'assholes' and 'dicks' is hateful, as well labeling them 'small-minded' and 'mean-spirited' is polemical -- the fact that such a torrent of rhetorical vomitus can spew from her gob at once (and in light of there being no countervailing "neuro-scientific" studies of liberals to counterpoint her hyperbole) is a fairly good proof that her own ideology has some problems of its own -- furthermore, you should reconsider your strawman accusation as your statement isn't clear or is misapplied -- finally, as i described my political leanings above, i don't feel the slightest bit threatened by her comments - rather i feel disgusted when i see someone's venting become coarse instead of reasonable, when i hear discourse that polarizes rather than works towards a common concensus, and especially when our nation is faced with such woes as today... that, even if provoked by fringe elements, the sides apparently can't or won't take the high ground by maintaining a respectful decorum -- but heck, she's a comedienne with a political pulpit, so let her (or olbermann) be the yin to limbaugh's yang... if that's what you really think will bring back a modicum of sanity to americans in this time of crisis

>> ^Psychologic:
The thing I hate most about all Republicans is how broad their generalizations are.


Got to agree there. I hate everyone who uses generalizations they're all the fucking same. Grouping people into the same box. Absolutely disgusts me. Round them all up and shoot them.

This video would have been a lot better had Garofalo actually been in it.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
^Diogenes
"take the lessons from a religious text rather than any literal meaning, that value common sense"
What do you need the lessons of the bible for if you already have "common sense" that you're judging them by?
As far as her smug labeling is concerned it's a proven fact
(see: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED ) that Republicans value being on the same "team" more than Democrats. I think this is the kind of thinking that she's talking about, albeit not in a tactful way, that 'team oriented' thinking doesn't leave much room for individuality especially in matters of philosophy.


because a religious text can impart knowledge or notionally change our understandings (e.g. the parable of the good samaritan or "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" forming the basis for servant leadership), in the same manner that virtually *any* text can do the same - my point here being that not all conservatives are 'christian fundies' and 'creationists' but rather can take some important lessons from *any* religious text in the same manner that a student can increase their understanding from their school texts

by 'smug labelings' i was referring to her ad homs of "cruelty, asshole, dick, and small-minded"

the ted vid doesn't take this tack, certainly - if anything, it emphasizes that the different 'teams' need or rely on each other... rather than saying that one side is "sick"

it would be interesting to me to see a psych study done of the liberal mind by the same methodology as used in the following:

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/Jost/_private/Political_Conservatism_as_Motivated_Social_Cognition.pdf

keeping in mind its possible failings:

http://www.ironshrink.com/articles.php?artID=070116_jost_conservative_study_methodology

I won't condone the way Garofalo put it because there are no rigorous scientific definitions of any of the adjectives she used, but there is something to it.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED

As determined by psychological testing:

Liberal Concerns
Harm/Benefit (aka utility)
Fairness

Conservative Concerns
Authority (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness)
Purity (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness, hijacked by whatever notions of purity happen to occur in the location of their birth)
In-group Loyalty (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness). In various circumstances this is known as tribalism, nepotism, cronyism, nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, patriotism, speciesism, or ageism.

The latter three are a crude system of morals that might have suited humanity well before it developed a germ theory of disease, representative government, and global commerce.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^swampgirl:
You can't sum up conservatives=republicans or any other group THAT black and white. The extreme right says the same thing of the far liberal left... always claiming they must be mentally ill.

I also don't agree with that stance.

I would think that a person who is willing to hear both sides and judge each idea individually to be more open-minded.

I don't think this is possible anymore, the GOP is comprised of a myriad of people, their strength has always been keeping everyone on message. We see it how well the same exact arguments are presented by all of them, predetermined and predefined. From marriage rights, Iraq, the surge, and Palin and McCain. It's only in rare moments does the truth come out, when for example Republican pundits not knowing they were being recored actually expressed their real views on how Sarah Palin was hurting McCain's chances.

Now the party is painting the stimulus bill as being bad, pork filled, government expansionist, and everyone is kept on message with key words like "generational theft" and "stimu-pork". Most of all they claim the bill is unpopular when in fact it is with the wider American public.

I believe this is a symptom of the inner collapse and struggle that the GOP is going through, I mean they just went through 8 years of failure after failure, the marching orders are seemingly coming from Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin. At the core of this is the fact that the GOP has lost the fiscal conservatism that was the core part of its ideology, seen in the Bush years.

I believe this is something RNC Chair Steele understands. There is a need to centralize and reevaluate the GOPs objectives. However that doesn't exist right now, a frank reassessment of what the GOP as a whole should stand for given what has occurred over the last 8 years. What is happening right now, the partisan way the GOP has attacked the stimulus bill, is simply counter productive and will simply make more conservatives disillusioned the reason I think there is a movement towards Libertarian beliefs recently.

Its the people on BOTH far sides that claim to have cornered truth and enlightenment that worry me. They won't budge for any amount of reasoning.

Unfortunately this is all a game of political chess, public benefit and progress are tertiary benefits.