NationStates Jolt Archive

Janeane Garofolo has apparently taken time out of her busy schedule of doing…whatever the hell it is that she does, to provide free neurosurgery diagnoses. In an interview given to Ecorazzi, she disclosed the shocking truth: people are conservatives because ‘something is wrong with their brains.’

"Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world – that’s a fact not an opinion. Every single policy that “conservative republicans” have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us.”

‘Destroyed?’ Really? You might want to check your dictionary there, Janeane. Now, granted, the last ten years or so haven't exactly been Happy Fuzzy Kitten Land, but I think ‘destroyed’ is a bit histrionic. Carthage was destroyed. Pompeii, Hiroshima, Dresden…they were destroyed. We, on the other hand, endeavor to perservere. Also, you may want to check ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’, you seem a little fuzzy on those as well.

“ And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flatulation or masochism in some way.”

Why do ‘they still get a say? ’ For the same reason you get a say. Because that’s how democracy works. It’s like free speech, occasionally, you’re going to hear something you don’t like, but that’s price you pay. Besides, the only thing worse than a two party system is a one-party system. The real gem in that bit there is ‘self-flatulation.’ While it describes her speaking style well enough, I think the term Miss Garafolo is fumbling for like a thalidomide baby with butter on it’s flippers looking for a light switch in the dark is ‘self-flagellation.’

“The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty. First you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology."

Oh, it’s science. Why didn’t you say so? In that case, I’m sure you have the data from the study that was done, or can point to where it can be gotten. I've noticed that there seems to be a certain type of…well, call them ‘secularists’, I guess, for lack of a better term, who use the phrase ‘It’s science!’ the same way that fundamentalists of other stripes use ‘It’s God’s will’ or ‘Insh’allah’ and for much the same reason. The phrase, when used that way, usually carries the sub-text of 'you can't disagree with me now." While ‘It’s science!’ might make a dandy catch-phrase for Dr. Beaker’s Gonzo Science Hour on PBS Kids, Miss Garafolo might be advised to save it for times when she’s talking about actual science.

It really is neuroscience. I truly believe that it has something to do with their limbic brain. I really believe that some people’s limbic brain dominates more than others. Our limbic brain controls all our emotions and it causes us to be irrational. Our limbic brain goes into action when we’re ecstatic, frightened, when we’re having sex.

Miss Garafolo seems to be implying here that conservatives are more ecstatic, more frightened, or have more sex. Now, two out of those three aren't bad things, and the third is, at worst, a survivial mechanism. An evolutionary response, even.

"I really believe that if a neuroscientist examined the brain of somebody who identified as a conservative, they would find it’s wired differently."

Wait, wait..what do you mean ‘if a neuroscientist examined the brain…’? I thought the issue had already been settled beyond a shadow of a doubt. What happened to ‘It’s science!’ I don’t know, “people who disagree with me only do so because there is something wrong with their brains” is a dangerous road to start down, and there’s all kinds of nasty things at the end of it.

Now, I ask you, does the preceding interview give the impression of someone who is "well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened?" Doesn't sound like it to me, which, by her logic, can only mean...Janeane Garafolo: Conservative. Welcome to the Dark Side, Janeane. "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth, and taste..."

Dear god why does anyone listen to idiots like this?

source?

Yeah, that sounds pretty silly.

Of course, given that a book entitled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" was a best-seller, I'm not going to cry too much about the poor conservatives having to get a taste of their own medicine on occasion.

Calm down. Have some dip.

http://img.timeinc.net/recipes/i/recipes/cs/07/11/spinach-dip-cs-1672954-l.jpg

She's just a comedian.

Calm down. Have some dip.

http://img.timeinc.net/recipes/i/recipes/cs/07/11/spinach-dip-cs-1672954-l.jpg

She's just a comedian.

Who thinks she's got all the answers.

She's just a comedian.
She used to be funny. :p

Can't see this ending well.

I'm sure shes right, the brains probably are wired differently (although I doubt its limbic in origin), doesn't make it something wrong, everyone's brain is a little different.

Take LG for example... *brandishes hacksaw*

She used to be funny. :p

Then she should stick to it. SOme of the best social commentaries I ever heard came from comedians, but they were still funny when they gave them.

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the feelings of those poor poor conservatives. I think there's a line somewhere, don't dish what you can't take (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)?

I'm sure shes right, the brains probably are wired differently (although I doubt its limbic in origin), doesn't make it something wrong, everyone's brain is a little different.

Take LG for example... *brandishes hacksaw*

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/escape.gif

Then she should stick to it. SOme of the best social commentaries I ever heard came from comedians, but they were still funny when they gave them.

George Carlin. Bill Cosby. Eddie Murphy.

She used to be funny. :p

Janeane Garafolo? Funny? When?! :eek:

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the feelings of those poor poor conservatives. I think there's a line somewhere, don't dish what you can't take (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)?

Nonono Neo Art, you are ignoring the miracle of "double standard".
It is perfectly fine for a conservative to state liberals have a brain disorder, but you cannot return the favour without being a jerk.
A similar thing goes for Christians and their God - them saying certain population groups are a threat to humanity is fine, but if one dares to criticise them or their beliefs there is outrage.

And I am certain we can think of thousands of other examples of this fine invention :)

BREAKING NEWS: Professional entertainer says something attention-grabbing!

BREAKING NEWS: Professional entertainer says something attention-grabbing!

Still no source on it though, this has the feel of a chain letter. Google fails to find a source for it.

Janeane Garafolo? Funny? When?! :eek:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1ad006723d/janeane-garofalo-evil-cake-from-standupfan

Still no source on it though, this has the feel of a chain letter.

I can't see YouTubes atm but when I searched for "Janeane Garofolo neuroscience" I got this result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krwlSQZTLXo

Dunno if it's the right item.

I'm sure you're equally up in arms about all the things Ann Coulter has said, right?

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1ad006723d/janeane-garofalo-evil-cake-from-standupfan

Eeeeehhhhh.....

Not my cup of tea... also not a woman, so it's significance is lost on me. But, fair enough.

Much prefer Cake or Death http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY Longer version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAOLOGGftTY

I can't see YouTubes atm but when I searched for "Janeane Garofolo neuroscience" I got this result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krwlSQZTLXo

Dunno if it's the right item.

It's a fox news piece apparently about it, not real sure because I've no sound.

George Carlin. Bill Cosby. Eddie Murphy.

Excellent examples. Also Lewis Black, John Stewart and Robin Williams.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1ad006723d/janeane-garofalo-evil-cake-from-standupfan
She's awfully shouty.

What's wrong with you is listening to an actress/comedienne.

What's wrong with you is listening to an actress/comedienne.

Same people who take Rush "Drug addled" Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as fonts of wisdom. I think there's some kind of logical break somewhere.

I'm sure you're equally up in arms about all the things Ann Coulter has said, right?

I have to admit, I'm really enjoying how the conservatives are now desperately trying to fish for ways to feel oppressed.

I got to endure 8 years of being told I'm a traitor, I'm a murderer, I have no moral values, and I'm destroying the country. I got told this not by a lone conservative comedian, but by my president, my vice president, countless members of the legislature, Justices of the Supreme Court, military leaders, and every single major news outlet in my country. I was told these things for one of two reasons: 1) I did not agree with the rush to war in Iraq, 2) I believe that all citizens of my country should have equal rights under the law.

The fact that conservatives have to go looking for B-list actors in order to find somebody who says something 1/10th as hateful and repulsive as what their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES say...well, forgive me for not being quite yet able to squeeze out a sympathy tear.

Yeah, that sounds pretty silly.

Of course, given that a book entitled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" was a best-seller, I'm not going to cry too much about the poor conservatives having to get a taste of their own medicine on occasion.

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the feelings of those poor poor conservatives. I think there's a line somewhere, don't dish what you can't take (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)?

GET OUT OF MY BRAIN. :p

Excellent examples. Also Lewis Black, John Stewart and Robin Williams.

Of course!

Same people who take Rush "Drug addled" Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as fonts of wisdom. I think there's some kind of logical break somewhere.

It's the Orwellian Grandfather Clause.

"Some animals are More Equal than others."

So, conservatives' brains are wired differently from liberals, making them fearful, emotional and irrational. Liberals brains are wired different, too, making them fearful, emotional and irrational. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

What this means is, us moderates are the only sane ones here.

(stupid ad.)

source?

I'm not here to do your homework for you. Everything you need to find the original interview is contained within the original post. You want it, go find it.

Yeah, that sounds pretty silly. Of course, given that a book entitled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" was a best-seller, I'm not going to cry too much about the poor conservatives having to get a taste of their own medicine on occasion.

Fair enough.

I think there's a line somewhere, don't dish what you can't take (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)?

And don't think people didn't do to her what I'm doing from the opposite side. Hey, at least I'm not throwing pies at her.

I have to admit, I'm really enjoying how the conservatives are now desperately trying to fish for ways to feel oppressed.


I don't feel oppressed in the least. I'm a white male between the ages of 18-45 and I live in America, as far as lucky birth goes, I pretty much hit the jackpot. I got nothing to complain about that can't be matched X10 by 85% of the rest of the world. Now, I'm not big on Ayn Rand myself, other than reading Atlas Shrugged occasionally, but I do have a quote from an eminent American philosopher, Randall Graves, who points out "There's nothing quite so fulfilling as pointing out the short-comings of others."

And don't think people didn't do to her what I'm doing from the opposite side. Hey, at least I'm not throwing pies at her.

What "her"? That book was written by Michael Savage. Did you speak out against it when he said it? No I don't think you did, did you? It seems you're quite fine with people suggesting that members of a political group are mentally deficient, as long as it's not your group.

but I do have a quote from an eminent American philosopher, Randall Graves

I, um..I think you missed the point of that character. Randall Graves was written to be racist, bigotted, misintrhopic, mysoginistic, ignorant, dumb, lazy and a borderline paedophile with an addiction to pornography and a history of turning women gay. You SURE this is the character you want to emulate?

Who thinks she's got all the answers.

Like every pundit, regardless of ideology....

Though, I admit, it's not every day someone has the balls to admit he admires a character from a Kevin Smith movie...

Though, I admit, it's not every day someone has the balls to admit he admires a character from a Kevin Smith movie...

I wish I had Randal's ability to relax with difficult people.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. Everything you need to find the original interview is contained within the original post. You want it, go find it.

see, that's not how this works. you quoted something without providing the basic info of where you got it from. there's a word for that.

What "her"? That book was written by Michael Savage. Did you speak out against it when he said it? No I don't think you did, did you? It seems you're quite fine with people suggesting that members of a political group are mentally deficient, as long as it's not your group.

to be fair michael savage is more insane than conservative. i wouldnt think of tarring the general conservative person with the savage brush.

What "her"? That book was written by Michael Savage. Did you speak out against it when he said it?

Whoops, I thought you were talking about Ann Coulter. Mea Culpa. I didn't, no, but I'm sure plenty of other people did. I'm sure his rhetorical excess did not go either un-noticed or un-scorned.

No I don't think you did, did you? It seems you're quite fine with people suggesting that members of a political group are mentally deficient, as long as it's not your group.

And clearly, I'm alone in that. Nobody else in the world does that. Everybody else is willing to embrace and publicize every wart and flaw. I never claimed to be objective in any sense, on any topic.

I, um..I think you missed the point of that character. Randall Graves was written to be racist, bigotted, misintrhopic, mysoginistic, ignorant, dumb, lazy and a borderline paedophile with an addiction to pornography and a history of turning women gay. You SURE this is the character you want to emulate?

I did have an ex-girlfriend that became a lesbian after we broke up. I like to think that after me, no other man would do. As for the quote, that was a joke. The poster quoted seemed to be taking either the post or themselves or me a little too seriously, and it was an attempt to lighten things. Also, spell-check is our friend.

see, that's not how this works. you quoted something without providing the basic info of where you got it from. there's a word for that.

I did provide the basic info of where I got it from. Give you a hint: it's in the first two sentences of the post.

I did provide the basic info of where I got it from. Give you a hint: it's in the first two sentences of the post.

citations do not work that way

Anyone else getting the Ann Coulter ad in the first post?

citations do not work that way
To do Heinleinites' job, it looks (http://dirkworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/unending-rage-of-janeane-garofalo-never.html) like (http://www.geekmonthly.com/) it's from Issue 23 of Geek Monthly.

Regardless of whether you should regard a comedienne as the best source on recent research in neurology, what she is saying is absolutely correct (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12614): yes, indeed, researchers have found that conservatives and liberals have neurological differences. Of course, her value judgment that the conservative neurological condition is the defective one is an opinion rather than a fact.

Regardless of whether you should regard a comedienne as the best source on recent research in neurology, what she is saying is absolutely correct (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12614): yes, indeed, researchers have found that conservatives and liberals have neurological differences. Of course, her value judgment that the conservative neurological condition is the defective one is an opinion rather than a fact.
What's particularly intriguing is that we don't know which came first; is a person born with a brain that makes them inclined to become conservative/progressive, or is the brain shaped by a lifetime of being conservative/progressive? In the true manner of neuroscience, the answer is probably...both.

I whole heartedly agree with your point that "defective" is a matter of opinion. The problem is that we all have different views of what makes a "good" mind. You can see it in our national debates. Some people think it's good to encourage fact-based debates, while others feel that some subjects should be totally off limits. Obviously members of the first group would view a perpetually-critical mind as "good", while members of the second group might find it "defective." Etc. etc.

What's particularly intriguing is that we don't know which came first; is a person born with a brain that makes them inclined to become conservative/progressive, or is the brain shaped by a lifetime of being conservative/progressive? In the true manner of neuroscience, the answer is probably...both.
Damn those ethical guidelines about not being able to rear children in labs!

found the original article. here's the link:
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/02/12/woodstock-fas-exclusive-janeane-garofalo-preaches-obama-palin-and-bacon/

Damn those ethical guidelines about not being able to rear children in labs!

It's probably just as well. Kurt Russell was reared in a lab, and it turned him into an unstoppable killing machine able to dispose of a entire regiment of genetically-enhanced soldiers.

found the original article. here's the link:
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/02/12/woodstock-fas-exclusive-janeane-garofalo-preaches-obama-palin-and-bacon/

See? They did it. It wouldn't have been that hard for you to unravel my fiendishly clever puzzle of putting it right in front, F.S.

See? They did it. It wouldn't have been that hard for you to unravel my fiendishly clever puzzle of putting it right in front, F.S.

of course, i found it before i asked for your source. the point is that it is wrong to quote interviews without specifying where, exactly, you found them from. it helps with the whole honesty and transparency thing.

See? They did it. It wouldn't have been that hard for you to unravel my fiendishly clever puzzle of putting it right in front, F.S.
Although I found it, or at least a reference to it, not linking to the article is Bad Form.

*slaps wrist*

I really despise this kind of thinking, so full of us vs them, incompatible, uncompromising bullshit. It's exceedingly arrogant as well.

Janeane Garofolo has apparently taken time out of her busy schedule of doing…whatever the hell it is that she does, to provide free neurosurgery diagnoses. In an interview given to Ecorazzi, she disclosed the shocking truth: people are conservatives because ‘something is wrong with their brains.’

"Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world – that’s a fact not an opinion. Every single policy that “conservative republicans” have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us.”

‘Destroyed?’ Really? You might want to check your dictionary there, Janeane. Now, granted, the last ten years or so haven't exactly been Happy Fuzzy Kitten Land, but I think ‘destroyed’ is a bit histrionic. Carthage was destroyed. Pompeii, Hiroshima, Dresden…they were destroyed. We, on the other hand, endeavor to perservere. Also, you may want to check ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’, you seem a little fuzzy on those as well.

“ And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flatulation or masochism in some way.”

Why do ‘they still get a say? ’ For the same reason you get a say. Because that’s how democracy works. It’s like free speech, occasionally, you’re going to hear something you don’t like, but that’s price you pay. Besides, the only thing worse than a two party system is a one-party system. The real gem in that bit there is ‘self-flatulation.’ While it describes her speaking style well enough, I think the term Miss Garafolo is fumbling for like a thalidomide baby with butter on it’s flippers looking for a light switch in the dark is ‘self-flagellation.’

“The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty. First you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology."

Oh, it’s science. Why didn’t you say so? In that case, I’m sure you have the data from the study that was done, or can point to where it can be gotten. I've noticed that there seems to be a certain type of…well, call them ‘secularists’, I guess, for lack of a better term, who use the phrase ‘It’s science!’ the same way that fundamentalists of other stripes use ‘It’s God’s will’ or ‘Insh’allah’ and for much the same reason. The phrase, when used that way, usually carries the sub-text of 'you can't disagree with me now." While ‘It’s science!’ might make a dandy catch-phrase for Dr. Beaker’s Gonzo Science Hour on PBS Kids, Miss Garafolo might be advised to save it for times when she’s talking about actual science.

It really is neuroscience. I truly believe that it has something to do with their limbic brain. I really believe that some people’s limbic brain dominates more than others. Our limbic brain controls all our emotions and it causes us to be irrational. Our limbic brain goes into action when we’re ecstatic, frightened, when we’re having sex.

Miss Garafolo seems to be implying here that conservatives are more ecstatic, more frightened, or have more sex. Now, two out of those three aren't bad things, and the third is, at worst, a survivial mechanism. An evolutionary response, even.

"I really believe that if a neuroscientist examined the brain of somebody who identified as a conservative, they would find it’s wired differently."

Wait, wait..what do you mean ‘if a neuroscientist examined the brain…’? I thought the issue had already been settled beyond a shadow of a doubt. What happened to ‘It’s science!’ I don’t know, “people who disagree with me only do so because there is something wrong with their brains” is a dangerous road to start down, and there’s all kinds of nasty things at the end of it.

Now, I ask you, does the preceding interview give the impression of someone who is "well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened?" Doesn't sound like it to me, which, by her logic, can only mean...Janeane Garafolo: Conservative. Welcome to the Dark Side, Janeane. "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth, and taste..."

I'm trying to work out what's supposed to be wrong in all this.

It's reasonable to assume two different brain patterns, one which is solitarily survivalist, and one which is collectively survivalist. It's also not hard to see how the 'solitarily survivalist' mentality has been useful in history. But in this day and age, it does more harm than good.

She's wrong - the 'conservative' brain is only 'wrong' in the same way that vestigial gills are 'wrong' - that is, useless for whatever the current form is, and counterproductive.

'Conservative' brains are simply less evolved, if you like - they are throwbacks.

I'm trying to work out what's supposed to be wrong in all this.

It's reasonable to assume two different brain patterns, one which is solitarily survivalist, and one which is collectively survivalist. It's also not hard to see how the 'solitarily survivalist' mentality has been useful in history. But in this day and age, it does more harm than good.

She's wrong - the 'conservative' brain is only 'wrong' in the same way that vestigial gills are 'wrong' - that is, useless for whatever the current form is, and counterproductive.

'Conservative' brains are simply less evolved, if you like - they are throwbacks.

I think you're mixing individualists and conservatives up, not the same thing.

It's reasonable to assume two different brain patterns, one which is solitarily survivalist, and one which is collectively survivalist. It's also not hard to see how the 'solitarily survivalist' mentality has been useful in history. But in this day and age, it does more harm than good.

She's wrong - the 'conservative' brain is only 'wrong' in the same way that vestigial gills are 'wrong' - that is, useless for whatever the current form is, and counterproductive.

'Conservative' brains are simply less evolved, if you like - they are throwbacks.

I like how evolution has been boiled down to talking about "conservative brains" as if that has some real meaning. I guess you did define conservative as "solitarily survivalist," which is ever so much more factual-sounding.

of course, i found it before i asked for your source. the point is that it is wrong to quote interviews without specifying where, exactly, you found them from. it helps with the whole honesty and transparency thing.

Instead of handing something to you, I gave enough information for you to find it yourself, which is better. I never claimed to be especially honest or transparent, and while I am honest(for a given value of 'honest'), mostly because it's less to remember, I have neither the interest in nor the desire to be 'transparent.'

"and, as always, I'll carry you - kicking and screaming - and in the end you'll thank me." Look at me, I'm Tyler Durden. (that quote's a joke, too, by the way, just in case someone tries to accuse me of trying to emulate that, as well.)

'Conservative' brains are simply less evolved, if you like - they are throwbacks.

Quick question: How is saying the above any different from saying that Jewish, black people, Mexican's, or fill-in-the-blank's brains are less evolved, that they are throwbacks?

I think you're mixing individualists and conservatives up, not the same thing.

I'm not 'mixing up' anything. Conservative thought is selfish - it apportions blame selfishly, responsibility selfishly, and reward selfishly. It is self-serving. Thus - it is solitarily survivalistic.

Instead of handing something to you, I gave enough information for you to find it yourself, which is better. I never claimed to be especially honest or transparent, and while I am honest(for a given value of 'honest'), mostly because it's less to remember, I have neither the interest in nor the desire to be 'transparent.'

"and, as always, I'll carry you - kicking and screaming - and in the end you'll thank me." Look at me, I'm Tyler Durden. (that quote's a joke, too, by the way, just in case someone tries to accuse me of trying to emulate that, as well.)

So you don't source your claims because it's better for us to go hunting for it?

I like how evolution has been boiled down to talking


I'm not talking about it in terms of the progression of evolution per se - which was why I included the 'if you like' qualifier for my phrasing.

Both aspects would be 'evolutionary' factors, but neither would 'define' evolution, as you seem to be suggesting. And I never said anything to suggest that.


... about "conservative brains" as if that has some real meaning.


The 'conservative' brain in this context is not necessarily the physical component. I imagine it to be possible that people you might consider normal, could, somehow, have conservative children - which would mean that the problem is at least partially environmental.


I guess you did define conservative as "solitarily survivalist," which is ever so much more factual-sounding.

Factual-sounding is irrelevent.

Conservative thought is selfish - it apportions blame selfishly, responsibility selfishly, and reward selfishly. It is self-serving. Thus - it is solitarily survivalistic.

So it's 'solitarily survivalistic' due to some incredibly vague caricatures of conservative thought?

Instead of handing something to you, I gave enough information for you to find it yourself, which is better. I never claimed to be especially honest or transparent, and while I am honest(for a given value of 'honest'), mostly because it's less to remember, I have neither the interest in nor the desire to be 'transparent.'

"and, as always, I'll carry you - kicking and screaming - and in the end you'll thank me." Look at me, I'm Tyler Durden. (that quote's a joke, too, by the way, just in case someone tries to accuse me of trying to emulate that, as well.)


You failed to provide sources. You can thank the merciful denizens of NSG for allowing your thread to be discussed despite this major faux pas, but it's worth remembering that uncited source material is worthless.

You failed, in your OP. That failing was yours, as has been explained several times. Quit whining about it.


Quick question: How is saying the above any different from saying that Jewish, black people, Mexican's, or fill-in-the-blank's brains are less evolved, that they are throwbacks?

What a nonsensical question. Being 'Jewish', 'black' or 'Mexican' doesn't determine the mechanisms of your brain, or of your thought.

So it's 'solitarily survivalistic' due to some incredibly vague caricatures of conservative thought?

There is nothing vague about it.

Compare 'conservative' and 'liberal' thought, and you see the conflict between solitary and collective survivalism.

I'm not talking about it in terms of the progression of evolution per se - which was why I included the 'if you like' qualifier for my phrasing.

Both aspects would be 'evolutionary' factors, but neither would 'define' evolution, as you seem to be suggesting. And I never said anything to suggest that.

Oh - "evolutionary factors" then. So, having a "conservative brain" is an inherited trait?


The 'conservative' brain in this context is not necessarily the physical component. I imagine it to be possible that people you might consider normal, could, somehow, have conservative children - which would mean that the problem is at least partially environmental.

Your treatment of a political term (and a stereotype at that) as if it were a 'problem' is, to say the very least, simplistic.

It looks like you just want to describe anyone you disagree with as being an evolutionary throwback and you, of course, are inferred to be the evolved ubermensch.

There is nothing vague about it.

Compare 'conservative' and 'liberal' thought, and you see the conflict between solitary and collective survivalism.

I don't.

So you don't source your claims because it's better for us to go hunting for it?

I did source it. I stated exactly where I found it. I just didn't draw you a pirate's treasure map with little dotted lines that you could follow like you were Billy in 'Family Circus' and a big black X to let you know you'd arrived.

What a nonsensical question. Being 'Jewish', 'black' or 'Mexican' doesn't determine the mechanisms of your brain, or of your thought.

But a nebulous and varied(even among it's adherents)political philosophy does?

Oh - "evolutionary factors" then. So, having a "conservative brain" is an inherited trait?


As is having a 'liberal brain' - since they are both aspects of the same thing, and - at times - one aspect will be more useful than the other.

Which is why I also talk about the thought, and about the environmental factors that trigger one as dominant over the other.


Your treatment of a political term (and a stereotype at that) as if it were a 'problem' is, to say the very least, simplistic.


No, it's a problem. Our species is being held back by our self-destructive, isolationist urges.


It looks like you just want to describe anyone you disagree with as being an evolutionary throwback and you, of course, are inferred to be the evolved ubermensch.

I'm not saying the person is an evolutionary throwback, just their brain and/or mentality. If we could purify the gestalt mentality through some form of eugenic programming, that would be an easy answer, but I don't honsetly think it would be so simple - which means behavioural modification would (also) be needed.

No, it's a problem. Our species is being held back by our self-destructive, isolationist urges.


I don't know how you can apply the term isolationist to the republicans in anyway.

I don't.

You don't think that - for example - wealthy people using wealth to apply pressure that leads to results favouring the wealthy... could be described as self-serving or solitarily survivalistic?

I don't know how you can apply the term isolationist to the republicans in anyway.

Because I'm not using 'isolationist' in a 'oh-it's-the-1930's-and-the-world-is-on-the-brink-of-war-except-America' political specification. I'm using it to describe nationalistic, protectionist, militaristic and xenophobic structures.

You don't think that - for example - wealthy people using wealth to apply pressure that leads to results favouring the wealthy... could be described as self-serving or solitarily survivalistic?
Yes, but there's a big jump betwen claiming the above and claiming that these people have fundementally different brains to other humans.

But a nebulous and varied(even among it's adherents)political philosophy does?

Some 'conservatives' are less 'conservative' than others. That doesn't equate to 'variety', only to degree.

You don't think that - for example - wealthy people using wealth to apply pressure that leads to results favouring the wealthy... could be described as self-serving or solitarily survivalistic?

Do conservatives want wealthy people to apply pressure using wealth (whatever the fuck that means) that leads to results favouring the wealthy?

Yes, but there's a big jump betwen claiming the above and claiming that these people have fundementally different brains to other humans.

Someone else provided this earlier: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12614

The brain shapes the thought or the thought shapes the brain - either way, it looks like there is fundamental difference.

I also have to pick you up on your wording: "that these people have fundementally different brains to other humans"... no, they have the same brain, it just works differently. It either specialises in solitary survival, or collective survival.

Someone else provided this earlier: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12614
I'm aware of the study.

It's conclusion: mostly meh.

The brain shapes the thought or the thought shapes the brain - either way, it looks like there is fundamental difference.
It looks like, at the very most, that there is a 10% difference in error margin in observing a 'W' or a 'M' between one very small set of vaguely defined people and another very small set of vaguely defined people.

This is soooooooooooooo far away from saying that (a) we can divide people into solitary or collective survival types, and (b) that these divisions correlate with those US Americans who describe themselves as 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

It either specialises in solitary survival, or collective survival.
And I'd dispute the idea that conservatives are all about solitary survival while liberals are all about collective survival, or even vice versa.

Assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions...

I'm aware of the study.

It's conclusion: mostly meh.


You are aware of the study, though. Which is the point of the response to: "...there's a big jump betwen claiming the above and claiming that these people have fundementally different brains to other humans."


It looks like, at the very most, that there is a 10% difference in error margin in observing a 'W' or a 'M' between one very small set of vaguely defined people and another very small set of vaguely defined people.

This is soooooooooooooo far away from saying that (a) we can divide people into solitary or collective survival types, and (b) that these divisions correlate with those US Americans who describe themselves as 'liberal' or 'conservative'.


The solitary and collective survival types are not based on that study, although that study does support the mechanisms.


And I'd dispute the idea that conservatives are all about solitary survival while liberals are all about collective survival, or even vice versa.


All about? Didn't I already say that there are questions not of variety, but only of degree?

I have to admit, I'm really enjoying how the conservatives are now desperately trying to fish for ways to feel oppressed.

I got to endure 8 years of being told I'm a traitor, I'm a murderer, I have no moral values, and I'm destroying the country. I got told this not by a lone conservative comedian, but by my president, my vice president, countless members of the legislature, Justices of the Supreme Court, military leaders, and every single major news outlet in my country. I was told these things for one of two reasons: 1) I did not agree with the rush to war in Iraq, 2) I believe that all citizens of my country should have equal rights under the law.

The fact that conservatives have to go looking for B-list actors in order to find somebody who says something 1/10th as hateful and repulsive as what their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES say...well, forgive me for not being quite yet able to squeeze out a sympathy tear.

It's too bad that this is too long to sig...

“ And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flatulation or masochism in some way.”

Self-flatulation? You mean, like, farting on yourself?

Damn those ethical guidelines about not being able to rear children in labs!

"It's a special isolation chamber, see? The subject pulls levers to receive food and warmth. The floor can become electrified, and showers of icy water randomly fall on the subject. I call it - the Monroe Box"!
"Uh-huh. Well, it sounds interesting. How much will it cost to build?"
"Oh, that's the beauty part! It's already built. I need the money to buy a baby to raise in the box until the age of 30!"
"What are you trying to prove?"
"Well, my theory is that the subject will be socially maladjusted, and will harbour a deep resentment against me!"

She's just a comedian.

Exactly right. The only real issue is whether or not people out there actually give weight to her opinions. We do have a problem in our society when people who are famous because of their acting or singing talent suddenly think they've got all the answers just because they get a lot of money and attention.

Exactly right. The only real issue is whether or not people out there actually give weight to her opinions. We do have a problem in our society when people who are famous because of their acting or singing talent suddenly think they've got all the answers just because they get a lot of money and attention.

I don't think that's remotely true.

Yes, there are famous people who think they have the answers, but I don't think famous people are any more or less likely to think they have answers than anybody else. I've never heard a famous person utter opinions that I haven't also heard normal people say, in one form or another.

Literally the only difference is that when famous people say stuff, it's more likely to get media attention.

I don't think that's remotely true.

Yes, there are famous people who think they have the answers, but I don't think famous people are any more or less likely to think they have answers than anybody else. I've never heard a famous person utter opinions that I haven't also heard normal people say, in one form or another.

Literally the only difference is that when famous people say stuff, it's more likely to get media attention.

Absolutely, but it's different with celebrities because they seem to think they're entitled to the attention. You know, that whole "Don't you know who I am?" mentality.

Look at Sean Penn, who took it upon himself to go overseas and meet with hostile heads of state, as if somehow he were a more legitimate representative of American thought.

Self-flatulation? You mean, like, farting on yourself?

It keeps you warm.

It's too bad that this is too long to sig...

I don't think it is. I'm going to try.
EDIT: way too long, but I sigged some excerpts.

I actually remember some research that supported this claim... let's see what Google has

Exactly right. The only real issue is whether or not people out there actually give weight to her opinions. We do have a problem in our society when people who are famous because of their acting or singing talent suddenly think they've got all the answers just because they get a lot of money and attention.

You know youre one of my top 10 on here, but really, someone who listens to Rush shouldnt say that its bad if people take this comedian's comments seriously.

I dont know if you read Coulter, so Im witholding that salvo;)

Troll successful.

Troll successful.

Just because you don't like it/disagree with it doesn't make it 'trolling.'