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.

>> ^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

"You canot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican."

Sorry, lads, that is overwhelmingly true.

You can't say we're all equal 'EXCEPT.'

Republicans are reactionaries. They don't have to force gay people to live as second-class citizens, but they can and they get a sadistic rise out of it, and that's mainly why they do it.

They don't have to arrest pot smokers, but it gives them a hard-on and what are you going to do to stop them? Studies? Science? Ha!

Republicans are, mostly, frieghtened people who hear the buzz on the radio or television and just go along with it.

Grafalo is one of the most intelligent, fiesty and beautiful women in the public eye. Honest to a fault.

I'm on her side all the way.

Every step forward, every man and woman who has died, did not for a conservative cause.

They did not die to keep blacks in the back of the bus.

They did not die to keep Vietnamese napalmed.

Every great step was to keep the stupid from repeating the obvious crime.

The thing I hate most about all Republicans is how broad their generalizations are.

This only really serves conservatives by giving them hateful words they can point to in order to pretend that they are marginalized.

No good for anyone except Fox themselves.

The GOP can't support anything Obama's administration does. Politically they have to distance themselves. The party is in shambles. If they vote yes, and the plans work.. then its over for them. They're hoping for failure so they can make a comeback.

I hate politics

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

>> ^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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

haha, I see what you did there ^ (but I think he knew what he was doing too)

>> ^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

Damn those plurararalistic liberals...

*brief

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by lucky760.

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.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
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.


So you think a person has to have moral authority to express their opinion? Based on your opinion of her, I guess that means you think you have moral authority.

Tell me, how do you reconcile with yourself the fact that your comment exhibits the same behavior that you are criticizing?

I'm not seeing much evidence from anyone here that they even know what conservatism is or represents, except what pathological 24-ruining hollyweird loons like Giraffolo spew, which in this instance is like asking a nazi to describe a Jew. The arguments from this, uh, 'actress' as well as on this sift are about as deep as, "Someone with a GOP bumpersticker cut me off on the freeway...SEE, that just PROVES what I'm saying they are so MEAN!"

Children also think adults are mean, especially when they can't get their way.

I oppose Obama's marxist policies, and right now were it McCain trying to sneak the same damned Scamulus through I'd be 100% against him too.

You really think Obama gives a damn about any of you? I'm not talking one-on-one at the town hall, I mean, do you think he respects your rights or freedom? That he's working to serve YOU? Then why is he working overtime to inflict his marxist Big Government nightmare on what what was once a free nation? Why does he think he's entitled to the money you've earned--every last penny of it if he could get it--as if your very existence is to serve his vision? The man has a distorted view of the Constitution, a questionable background, and a lockstep liberal mainstream media to back him up. I notice other than pausing to hate FOX, no one on the left has any concern about this mainstream media lockdown, the same kind as in countries with State-run media. It's shameful.

How many of you knew, before this sift started, that unemployment levels are less than those of the 1981 recession, yet Obama claims we're in a second Great Depression? No one at CNN-CBS-MSDNC will ever ask.

If, as Colbert's team of hacks claim, reality has a "liberal bias", why do most professional liberals stick to academic circles and theories that never have to be proven in the real world, or indoctrinate children via government schools, or go to Hollywood to join that fantasy groupthink? (those liberal souls in Hollywood that run the studios work VERY hard to hide all their assets from the tax man). You think Giraffolo is a kind-hearted, generous, liberal soul? I only wish we could all see her reaction when her personal assistant lets her cellphone battery die or brings her the wrong brand of spring water.

If you see nothing noble in conservative or religious values, then why should anyone see governments' seizing one citizen's property, money and livelihood and giving it to others who didn't earn it as "noble"? This has nothing to do with helping people who genuinely need it.

You'll never witness a more belligerent human than a liberal whose self-perceived "rights" have been violated, particularly the "right" never to be offended.

Tell me, how do you reconcile with yourself the fact that your comment exhibits the same behavior that you are criticizing?

It is quite simple - and if you exercised your faculties for a moment and thought about as opposed to 'emoting' about it then you could answer your own question for you without bothering me. As it stands, I am more than pleased to fill in the gap of your ignorance.

1. I am commenting about a single known individual who has a long track record of bias, anger, spite, and of propogandizing. Garofolo is not a neutral party. She is a partisan hack, and every time she speaks she makes logical fallacies, hasty generalizations, prejudiced comments, and otherwise proves that she is a smally, petty, bitter individual who blindly opposes 'Republican' and bends over for 'liberal' with equal blindness. She's a hack. A simplistic hack who has proven again and again that she is not 'well adjusted' or anything close to it.

2. She is commenting about literally millions on millions of persons and using the worst kind of prejudice, and stereotyping to apply characteristics to ALL persons in that group. Stereotyping is a common human coping mechanism, but she does the worst possible thing you can do with it. Most normal, well-adjusted human beings use stereotypes to mentally 'bin' people into basic categories, and then take the time to learn about individuals they meet. Not all persons in a 'stereotype' fit the bill. Certainly not all Republicans are mean, cruel, or anything of the sort. Therefore she is that most odious and stupid of persons that can possibly exist... A person that lets her stereotypes do her thinking for her. That makes her a troll - unworthy of further consideration. Any concept or idea she proposes should be rejected on that basis alone. She is intellectually incapable of moving outside of her prejudices. She is small minded, vapid, and stupid if she actually believes what she's saying.

That spell it out for you? That's how I can criticize her. Because I'm commenting on an analysis of HER and what SHE says and thinks based on her actions, words, deeds, writings, and comments... You know - REAL things that she has said and done. She on the other hand is commenting about millions of people she's never met in her life, and has the gall and cheek to claim that she thinks she knows they're evil, cruel people. All it proves is that if you changed her gender and sent her back a few decades you could rename her "Goebbels" instead of "Garofolo" and you couldn't tell the difference...

From a career perspective, a mediocre entertainer probably shouldn't insult one half of the nation, either. Ben Stiller must thank the gods every day he got out of there.

>> ^dag:
haha, I see what you did there ^ (but I think he knew what he was doing too)


Ah yes. And so did I. And I know that you know that I know that. And we all know that everyone knows that I know you know that I know that. And I'm sure he knows that too. Just confirming really that we all know what was going on there. And anyone and everyone who doesn't is probably just a small-minded idiot anyway.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^We're all just so damn meta.