Victoria Jackson + Fox News = Instant Hilarity

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Comedy, Media, Obama, Partisan Hacks

You’ll remember Victoria from Saturday Night Live fame and the fact that she thinks Obama is the anti-christ.

Cue hilarity…



Yes, Glenn Beck has taught Victoria Jackson well.

And that’s all that really needs to be said…


This entry was posted on Saturday, March 27th, 2010 and is filed under Barack, Comedy, Media, Obama, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

50 Responses to “Victoria Jackson + Fox News = Instant Hilarity”

  1. Chris Says:

    wow. I think the right wing media has unleashed a beast they can’t control, one that’s going to bite that hand that feeds it.

  2. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Victoria Jackson Joins The Tea Party And Hillarity Ensues Says:

    [...] H/T: Justin Gardner [...]

  3. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Victoria Jackson + Fox News = Instant Hilarity -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Donklephant. Donklephant said: DONKLEPHANT: Victoria Jackson + Fox News = Instant Hilarity http://ow.ly/16U5d7 [...]

  4. Jim S Says:

    Why, yes, she is perfectly representative of the Tea Party activists in every way.

  5. lisa Says:

    how did she get to be so mean —yes siree–the worst thing in the world is for children to have health care

  6. gerryf Says:

    You guys don’t get it. Victoria Jackson is this generation’s Andy Kaufman–her life is 24 hours a day and 7 days a week of being performance artist. It is the most brilliant performance since, well, Andy Kaufman.

    On her death bed, she’s just going to say, “I was just kidding. I cannot believe any of you bought that. Do you really think anyone could be that dumb?”

    At least I hope so….

  7. jaygade Says:

    Yeah, there’s no way this can be real. I mean, seriously. “Pre-scie-ent”??

    Was she really on O’Reilly? ‘Cause I don’t watch any of that stuff. *checks Youtube* yeah, I guess she was.

    Weird.

  8. gerryf Says:

    Think about it…if you wanted to make Fox News or the right look absolutely ridculous, how do you do it?

    If you’re actually rational and can debate a point, they either won’t let you on or they will cut you off or edit you out before you make them look to bad. They let you on just enough to make it appear they are being fair and balanced, but in reality they talk over you or give the right the last word and send you packing.

    Now, if you put yourself out there as a “conservative”, and maintain the facade consistantly, they will let you go on the air and ramble on and on.

    Fox and the right are so desperate for any “celebrity” to back their horse they let you say whatever you want. Jackson uses the opportunity and appears absolutely bat-crap crazy, essentially poking fun/parodying the right to highlight the absurdity of the position.

    It’s subtle. It’s brilliant. I’m surprised more people don’t get it.

  9. Agnostick Says:

    You’re missing one very important point, gerryf: This is not a “facade.”

    This is the real Victoria Jackson espousing her real political views.

    She’s a lifelong conservative. Now, she may be pulling these stunts to get herself back in the spotlight–but her views and opinions are 100% authentic.

    Agnostick
    agnostick@excite.com

  10. gerryf Says:

    No way–no one is that….that…crazy and not institutionalized. It’s performance art, I tell you. Theater of the absurd.

    I don’t know how she doesn’t just crack up in the middle of it. She’s a true genius.

  11. Stress N. Strain Says:

    Geez, you know it’s bad when Steve Doocey comes across as grounded and reasonable.

    Also, the “dumb blond” schtick no longer works when you’re old and fat.

  12. Chris Says:

    Gerry haven’t spent much time outside lately? There’s plenty of crazy people out there, even “normal” people believe the same things that she does, because those with authority are telling them these things and many people believe whatever they are told.

  13. gerryf Says:

    You guys obviously missed the SNL Weekend Update episode where she ripped off a blonde wig, spoke in a normal voice and said, “OK, no more of the dumb blonde schtick. For now on, I’m only going to be discussing serious political issues.”

    And Dennis Miller is in on the gag, too.

    C’mon, he used to be funny and intelligent….you don’t think he’s really the same guy you see on Bill O’Reilly these days?

    They’ve infiltrated the right to satire their stupidity.

    I should probably not continue talking about it–don’t want to blow their cover….

  14. Recruitment-man Says:

    OMG! she is really crazy! =)

  15. Chris Says:

    There are still countless numbers of people that believe that crap.

  16. kranky kritter Says:

    I do wonder what the entire deal is with Jackson. Gerry, for your hypothesis to be true, she has to be some sort of Andy Kaufman level genius, or working an Ann Coulter angle. And let’s face it, there’s growing evidence that some or even many conservatve rabble rousers are insincere schticksters. I would count both Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter in that group. I don’t believe either Beck or Coulter believes what they are saying to anywhere near the extent they present themselves. Beck and Coulter are IMO performance artists, and a huge part of the art is keeping that fact WAY on the down low to the adoring minons. I think they are both postmodern political opportunists. And maybe Jackson is trying to carve out a seat on that gravy train. Does she get appearance fees, and paid travel, lodging, and meals?

    Still, I’ll class Jackson as innocent until she’s been proven guilty over time. I’ll take her at face value as a Florida-born self-professed christian fundamentalist who has a theater degree from Palm Beach Atlantic University. Evidence she’s a deep or serious or insightful thinker on the American condition? None so far.

    But hey folks, don’t misunderestimate the level of both kookery and garden variety gross misunderstanding out there in the public. First, many folks are at best haphazardly informed. _AND_ second, its easier than ever to customize the information you receive to screen out anything you find dissonant.

    The result is a very fertile environment for narrowmindedness…a hothouse of like-minded kooky flowers.

    Victoria Jackson? Maybe a kook. But let’s face it, for every belligerent, kooky, righteous, know-it-all celebrity on the right, the left has a platoon. Even if Jackson is more right-kooky that many well know left-kooky celebrities are left-kooky, one glaring fact remains. And that fact is that we should not grant people credence because they are celebrities. People who don’t know what they are talking about deserve to be tuned out, no matter how famous they are.

    Where’s VJ’s insight? That Glenn beck is right to call progressives the 21st century equivalent of communists? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  17. the Word Says:

    kk wrote
    Victoria Jackson? Maybe a kook. But let’s face it, for every belligerent, kooky, righteous, know-it-all celebrity on the right, the left has a platoon.

    What a stupid statement. No matter what the right says or does some simpleton backs it up with “they are no different than the left.” You even say they aren’t as bad. I must say BULLSHIT!

  18. Chris Says:

    I think KK was referring to specifically to celebrities. He is right, there are certainly more politically active left wing celebrities. The difference being that left wing celebrities are at least informed and able to process facts and use reasoning.

  19. the Word Says:

    That isn’t, however, what he said or implied. The moral equivalence argument is tedious and IMO specious. Saying it doesn’t make it so and IMO it furthers the problem.

  20. Chris Says:

    Here is the direct link to the harris poll highlighting the insanity of the right wing and the damage that having unaccountable media has done:
    http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

  21. gerryf Says:

    Well, in defense of KK–not that he needs me to defend him–you guys are missing the real point of that paragraph, which is being a celebrity does not bestow upon it any kind of credibility when it comes to political insight.

    He wasn’t exactly lining up left and right wing crazies and trying to come up with a ratio.

    And for the record, Victoria Jackson is a bat-crap crazy right-wing paranoid delusional bird brain, OK. I was trying to make an absurd thesis in the same vein as I was implying Jackson’s entire act is a satire of the people she is supposedly supporting.

    I am no Andy Kaufman. I just cannot sustain the energy needed to keep it going or rise to the level of absurdity necessary to reach the point where everyone gets my satire of an ersatz satire.

  22. Chris Says:

    I realize that gerry and he’s totally right :) But who is worth listening to? I think we’ve broken that model with the invention and widespread embrace of the “blog”: where some a$$hat with an opinion allows other a$$hats with opinions to comment on his opinion. :-P

  23. the Word Says:

    gerry-Sorry I was processing the statement in English. I’ve been told for decades by one party that celebrities and sports heroes are idiots and should shut the hell up and then oddly enough that party seems to be the one who elects them. So when someone tells me most of them are in the opposite party it causes me to pause.

    The Democrats had Bill Bradley the Republicans have Jim Bunning. I do think there is a difference in intellect and capacity there but that means I am making one of those terrible judgments again.

  24. the Word Says:

    To clarify, I realize that many celebrities are liberals. I don’t know of many of the Victoria Jackson caliber (I’d be curious who would be) who are and certainly not such a preponderance that I would say more are Democrats than Republicans.

  25. Antoine Says:

    THANK you gerryf;

    In quickly checking out how many sites would pop up on Google and put forward the theory that she’s making the right-wing buffons the butt of a Kaufmanesque joke, I was surprised that few mentioned that SNL episode with the brown hair and deep voice.
    I mean, even I saw it, and I was a Montreal francophone in his early teens, at the time! lol

    I do hope it’s what’s going on, that her cop husband is a big lefty, and that even though she’s obviously a practicing christian, she’s bashing the fringe.

    If not… Poor child… lol

  26. Montana Says:

    This is what happens when you have too many Whitecastle fast food munchies. Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames. Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed. They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in. The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist. But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that?

  27. kranky kritter Says:

    I think KK was referring to specifically to celebrities. He is right, there are certainly more politically active left wing celebrities. The difference being that left wing celebrities are at least informed and able to process facts and use reasoning.

    Right, that’s why I said:

    But let’s face it, for every belligerent, kooky, righteous, know-it-all celebrity on the right, the left has a platoon.

    Plain English.

    That isn’t, however, what he said or implied. The moral equivalence argument is tedious and IMO specious. Saying it doesn’t make it so and IMO it furthers the problem.

    It’s EXACTLY what I said. At best, you read my post carelessly and missed its plain meaning.

    But as an independent, I find precious whining about “moral equivalence” tedious whether it’s the right or the left sporting it. I stomached 8 years of sanctimonious, full-of-crap, self-righteousness by the left when Bush was President. And now we’re a year into sanctimonious, full-of-crap, self-righteousness by the right, in response to the Obama Presidency.

    Maybe you can’t do the math, but I sure can. What’s tedious is the left and the right making mirror-image arguments about the other side, over, and over, and over. And over.More Americans get this every day.

    Is the right foaming at the mouth way more than the left these days? You betcha, and saying it’s because on their patriotic love of country, just like anti-Iraq-war protesters circa 2003. If you can’t see these obvious parallels, you’ll never understand the real problem. Bipolar disorder.

  28. the Word Says:

    kk –
    It’s too tedious to deal with even against the ALL CAPS onslaught, but I’m guessing there is a platoon of left-wing atheist militias hoping for Armageddon too?

    Do you ever see anything worth noticing or is the whole world grey?

  29. kranky kritter Says:

    Do you ever see anything worth noticing or is the whole world grey?

    That’s the best you can come up with, an unsupportable premise? I’ve identified a bipolar disorder, which is nothing like “all grey.” Keep humping your sterile pole, I’m sure that next time it’ll bear fruit.

  30. Chris Says:

    “Is the right foaming at the mouth way more than the left these days? You betcha, and saying it’s because on their patriotic love of country, just like anti-Iraq-war protesters circa 2003. If you can’t see these obvious parallels, you’ll never understand the real problem. Bipolar disorder”

    The difference being there was a legitimate concern in 2003. Now, protesting because the elected president is a communosocialfacistmuslim, or aka the anti-christ is .. well, fricking retarded. Bush was burned in effigy not because of the color of his skin, but because of his actions. Obama hasn’t done much yet to be pissed about, even though I’m not happy with the majority of his decisions, none have been bad enough to go on a march about.

  31. WHQ Says:

    But as an independent, I find precious whining about “moral equivalence” tedious whether it’s the right or the left sporting it. I stomached 8 years of sanctimonious, full-of-crap, self-righteousness by the left when Bush was President. And now we’re a year into sanctimonious, full-of-crap, self-righteousness by the right, in response to the Obama Presidency.

    Complaints against (incorrect) characterizations moral equivalence aren’t the same as sanctimonious, full-of-crap self-righteousness. I don’t think anyone would try to justify sanctimonious, full-of-crap self-righteousness, though they might deny being guilty of it. Plenty of people, as it would seem you are now doing if I’m reading you correctly, KK, will admit to and defend their own characterization of moral equivalence.

    Sometimes outrage is justified and sometimes it’s not. I’d say outrage over the disappearing and torturing of hundreds of people, killing of hundreds of thousands and displacing of millions is more justified than the outrage over some fairly moderate steps toward health-care reform. That’s my opinion, of course. You’re free to persuade me otherwise.

  32. kranky kritter Says:

    I’m unconvinced that it’s an especially useful path of political discussion to draw a line between warranted outrage and unwarranted outrage, and then place the various cases of outrage on either side.

    And I’m pretty sure that most partisans would put all theirs on the warranted side and all the other teams on the unwarranted side.

    But I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that I’m sometimes guilty of doing that kind of sorting. When I do, I try to complain about the silliest and most manufactured kinds of outrage. Like the evergreen sort that changes with the party in the white house. For example, Lamar Alexander bitched the other day about Obama making recess appointments, like Obama was subverting the public will. Even though congress has ample authority to advise and consent on these appointments. Even though recess appointments are necessary precisely because congress fails to act in a timely fashion.

    Sometimes outrage is justified and sometimes it’s not. I’d say outrage over the disappearing and torturing of hundreds of people, killing of hundreds of thousands and displacing of millions is more justified than the outrage over some fairly moderate steps toward health-care reform. That’s my opinion, of course. You’re free to persuade me otherwise.

    This is a great example of exactly where I think its counterproductive to try to ascertain degrees of righteousness. If you’re a pacifist, obviously you’ll be more outraged by war than by gross gov’t overspending. If you’re a fiscal hawk, of course you’ll be more troubled by the kind of spending that threatens government solvency than you will be by a war that was after all unanimously (IIRC) authorized by congress.

    I think both groups you mention have ample reason to be troubled. But I find outrage to be an unreliable and often counterproductive fuel. I’m not interested in trying to persuade you that the Iraq war is not more outrageous than HCR. But I would like to persuade you of this: You will not reach a fruitful outcome in any discussion between the partisan sides if the discussion concerns whose outrage is more justified.

    Now, protesting because the elected president is a communosocialfacistmuslim, or aka the anti-christ is .. well, fricking retarded. Bush was burned in effigy not because of the color of his skin, but because of his actions. Obama hasn’t done much yet to be pissed about…

    Hmm. Not everyone was/is outraged by the war. I know for a fact that some people who hated Bush thought of him as a dummy and a redneck. These folks despised Bush irrespective of his actions. I am just as sure that many folks today despise President Obama irrespective of his actions. But far from all of them. If you are a fiscal hawk who thinks the government needs to spend within the confines of its available resources, Obama has done plenty to be pissed about. Irrespective of how fiscally responsible the previous administration was. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone here said “the difference is that we were justified, and they’re not.”

    It still stuns me how many partisans fail to perceive the broad anti-establishment tone in current public sentiment, which transcends partisan viewpoints.

  33. WHQ Says:

    But, KK, sometimes one side is worse than the other. I’m just not talking about the complaining coming from those on the left or right, but the actions of those in power. And it’s not just a matter of whether people agree or disagree with what those in power do. It’s a matter of how strongly they disagree and how they express that disagreement.

    You must have some opinions of your own on these things, and you must have some opinion about how reasonable the opinions of others are. Yes, there will always be some bat-shit crazies on either side. But look at high-profile media pundits. Do Olberman and Maddow hold a candle to Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity or Coulter? Does the left have groups like the right’s militias in any kind of numbers?

    I personally think people who are really pissed about Iraq and torture have a more understandable basis than those who are really pissed about health-care reform. I can understand thinking that the particular legislation that was passed constitutes bad policy, but is it a moral outrage? Is it the kind of folly that will leave thousands upon thousands of people dead or maimed? Is it normal for people to throw bricks through legislators’ office windows over it? Did people do that over the AUF votes?

    The Bush administration was dangerously, disasterously, reprehensibly bad. It will go down in history as one of the worst. Obama’s been in office just over a year and right-wing militia groups have increased 80%. People are spitting on legislators and using racial epithets against them in person, like right at them in DC. Over formerly Republican proposals to reform health care.

    Just because people here say they’re justified and the other guys aren’t doesn’t mean it’s not true sometimes. I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody said, “People always say that.”

    You will not reach a fruitful outcome in any discussion between the partisan sides if the discussion concerns whose outrage is more justified.

    Since you’re apparently not partisan, what does this have to do with our discussion?

  34. Chris Says:

    KK,
    I can easily say that actions with a result of possibly 1,000,000 innocent people being killed is more outrageous than increasing the budget gap. If you think the opposite than you are a morally weaker person.

  35. kranky kritter Says:

    I can easily say that actions with a result of possibly 1,000,000 innocent people being killed is more outrageous than increasing the budget gap.

    You sure can. Are you in fact saying this? I can easily say that we don’t know what the long-term outcome would have been for Iraq, the region, and for America had we not invaded. I don’t personally think your calculus is the way to go but if we go that way, then we would have to count up all the Iraqis that might have been murdered and oppressed in future generations had Saddam Hussein not been overthrown. The primary problem with your calculus here is that it suggests that taking up arms against inhumane oppression would always be wrong if many people were to die.

    I didn’t think we should have invaded Iraq, but I think that if the long-term result is a stable flourishing semi-democratic Iraq, then it will have been worth it.

    If you think the opposite than you are a morally weaker person.

    That you believe this does not trouble me. You seem unable to consider that it’s not a question of opposites but rather of differences. Other folks don’t see the Iraq war only in terms of casualties, as you do. And you seem to have no respect for such perspectives.

    By the way, I did not say that I think the opposite. I said that I don’t think it’s fruitful to try to determine whose outrage is more morally justifiable.

  36. WHQ Says:

    I can easily say that we don’t know what the long-term outcome would have been for Iraq, the region, and for America had we not invaded.

    You can easily say that about any taken course of action in the absence of an alternate universe in which to test not taking that action. So what? If that’s the bar, then there’s no point discussing the merits or demerits of anything that’s been done. You’ll never know what would have happened otherwise.

    And I can’t speak for Chris, but I don’t see the Iraq war only in terms of casualties. I see it in terms of the necessity for incurring the casualties and other costs. It’s nice you think that a flourishing semi-democratic Iraq would make it all worth it.

    Then again, we don’t know that that wouldn’t have happened, anyway, even if we didn’t invade at far less cost to us and the Iraqis. We had better count up all the Iraqis that wouldn’t have died to achieve a flourishing semi-democratic Iraq without our invasion.

    Another thing to consider is that we still don’t have a flourishing Iraq, semi-democratic or otherwise. What we do know is that lots of people died and were displaced, maimed and tortured.

    Too bad about the WMDs, too, now that the reason for going was something else.

  37. WHQ Says:

    I said that I don’t think it’s fruitful to try to determine whose outrage is more morally justifiable.

    Right. We should never consider moral questions. Where would that lead us?

  38. Chris Says:

    KK your attempt to ride the middle lane is coming off as somewhat silly now. We are not talking about what-ifs, but what is.

  39. kranky kritter Says:

    But, KK, sometimes one side is worse than the other.

    According to what sort of overarching semi-objective standard? Who decides? Umpires? Referees? Diplomats? The UN? Some other political council?

    I’m just not talking about the complaining coming from those on the left or right, but the actions of those in power. And it’s not just a matter of whether people agree or disagree with what those in power do. It’s a matter of how strongly they disagree and how they express that disagreement.

    Not sure what you’re getting at here. Tell me more.

    You must have some opinions of your own on these things, and you must have some opinion about how reasonable the opinions of others are.

    I sure do. And I often refrain from expressing my views if I think doing so will lead to a deterioration of a good conversation. I blog in a search for insight and to gain more understanding of people who think differently from me.

    Yes, there will always be some bat-shit crazies on either side. But look at high-profile media pundits. Do Olberman and Maddow hold a candle to Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity or Coulter? Does the left have groups like the right’s militias in any kind of numbers?

    For the most part, I find myself unable to gain any personal insight or understanding by trying to rank such folks. Instead, I view all of them primarily as folks who are part of the problem. They’re salesmen of anger and self-righteousness. Olberman and Maddow are certainly embarassing partisan clowns, not unlike Hannity. Malkin I am not especially familiar with, but she seems comparatively unskilled to me. Limbaugh I do not take very seriously. Obviously, he is in a sense “worse” than the news folk. But he’s also the real forebearer of all this crap, so in my mind he’s his own category.

    I will say that Beck and Coulter are an especially sick and twisted modern manifestation of infotainment and manufactured reality. I believe that both of them are post-modern performance artists whose primary goal is self-aggrandizement via the vehicle of telling alienated people what they want to hear. In Kranky’s republic, they’d be creatively punished. As would Michael Moore. Sent to a-hole island. Guilty of spewing sh!t.

    I personally think people who are really pissed about Iraq and torture have a more understandable basis than those who are really pissed about health-care reform. I can understand thinking that the particular legislation that was passed constitutes bad policy, but is it a moral outrage? Is it the kind of folly that will leave thousands upon thousands of people dead or maimed? Is it normal for people to throw bricks through legislators’ office windows over it? Did people do that over the AUF votes?

    I appreciate that you’ve said that this is your personal view. But again, I don’t think this is useful calculus. What’s the point in making this comparison? Is it to invalidate the emotions of one group? Or what? Consider for example, that I think it must be much worse to suffer the death of a child than the death of an aged parent. Does this mean that I think the grief of someone who has lost an aged parent is unwarranted? Would I go to this person who has lost their parent and tell them their emotions are wrong? Would I look down on a friend who was deeply upset by the loss of an aged parent because I had another friend who had lost a child and seemed to be coping better? No to all of that. First, I’d understand that the person grieving the loss of an aged parent deserves my compassion. Were I to judge my friend for being, let’s say, too overwrought, that would really be about ME, not them.

    The Bush administration was dangerously, disasterously, reprehensibly bad. It will go down in history as one of the worst.

    I don’t agree. But then, I tend to develop substantial empathy for even Presidents I never liked. I thought Bush was an awful choice, out of his league as President on a good day, and over his head in the wake of 9/11. But in the end I think America largely “got away” with Bush. Further, I think there’s a good chance that post 9/11, wejust might have been ill-served by a reasonable even-tempered thoughtful President who ordered a proportionate response. A strong case can be made for the rare disproportionate response.

    Obama’s been in office just over a year and right-wing militia groups have increased 80%. People are spitting on legislators and using racial epithets against them in person, like right at them in DC. Over formerly Republican proposals to reform health care.

    I share your concern with the troubling turn in public tone here in America. Since it’s most virulent among folks who are IMO unpersuadable, I see no alternative to letting folks cry themselves out. I think that a LOT of this is related to the additional stress of awful economic times. If you buy Obama as the democrats’ Reagan, look back to level of hand-wringing and apocalyptic rhetoric on the left when Reagan was elected as 80s bad economic times unfolded. By the way, what’s your source for RW militias up 80% Who did this alleged census?

    Just because people here say they’re justified and the other guys aren’t doesn’t mean it’s not true sometimes. I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody said, “People always say that.”

    True according to who? Who’s the scorekeeper? You? Me? Chris? By what authority is it true that the other guys are unjustified, even though in their hearts, those other guys truly believe that they are justified?

    You will not reach a fruitful outcome in any discussion between the partisan sides if the discussion concerns whose outrage is more justified.

    Since you’re apparently not partisan, what does this have to do with our discussion?

    It has to do with finding ways to communicate with people who are partisan, and avoiding the common ruts that blog discussions run into. I don’t like it when the talk devolved into a flame war of comparative political demonology, or CPD, a term Tully coined. Every CPD bout unfolds the same way. I’ve become convinced that CPD is best avoided. I’m sorry that you see this point as unrelated to the discussion.

  40. kranky kritter Says:

    KK your attempt to ride the middle lane is coming off as somewhat silly now. We are not talking about what-ifs, but what is.

    Is this supposed to be deep? It just sounds idiotic to me. Perhaps if you cared to expound, I’d understand.

  41. kranky kritter Says:

    I said that I don’t think it’s fruitful to try to determine whose outrage is more morally justifiable.

    Right. We should never consider moral questions. Where would that lead us?

    WHQ, it’s not like you to put words in my mouth. I did not say this, as you know.

    Recall that this is, after all, donklephant, where one goes if one is

    tired of the rhetoric, bomb-throwing and partisan hackery? Here we offer a respectful, honest forum for people who want to have a conversation about politics, the world and beyond.

    My comment that you’re quarreling with is directed at the spirit Justin is invoking. In the context of avoiding rhetorical bomb-throwing in a discussion among folks at different points in the political spectrum, I maintain that it’s not fruitful to focus on whose outrage is more morally justifiable.

    Further, I’ve come to this belief practically by collecting data. I have read and been involved in countless threads where 2 or more participants have had arguments about which side is better or more justified. It never ends well. No minds change, no insight is ever gained aside from gaining a gradual awareness of the futility of participating in the inevitable devolution of the discussion.

  42. WHQ Says:

    I don’t have much of a problem with most of your reply, KK. This discussion is proabably pointless. But this confounds me:

    True according to who? Who’s the scorekeeper? You? Me? Chris? By what authority is it true that the other guys are unjustified, even though in their hearts, those other guys truly believe that they are justified?

    The implications of this are that we shouldn’t discuss the merits of any proposal, since none of us has the authority to judge what is or is not justified. We should have no law. We should have no debate. It also means that you can’t say anything regarding what I think about who is or isn’t justified, since you are not qualified to say whether or not I’m justified in thinking what I do. It’s nihilism AFAICT. You must have something else in mind.

    These don’t confound me, but I thought I’d respond:

    What’s the point in making this comparison? Is it to invalidate the emotions of one group? Or what?

    It’s more about actions than emotions. I really can’t see into people’s hearts. So, when I say “pissed,” I probably should say “pissy.” I’d expand that to say that I don’t really care how people feel so long as they can behave themselves, so discussions of emotion are proxies for discussions of behavior. With that:

    Consider for example, that I think it must be much worse to suffer the death of a child than the death of an aged parent. Does this mean that I think the grief of someone who has lost an aged parent is unwarranted? Would I go to this person who has lost their parent and tell them their emotions are wrong?

    If you had a friend who, say, started drinking too much and behaving recklessly and treating friends and family badly as the result of their grief, you would probably have to say something about it if you were a good friend. So it’s not so much a matter of whether it’s a child or parent who was lost, but whether the grief process is healthy.

    Your comparison is loaded (or not loaded enough?). Let’s say we compare losing a child to getting a dent in your BMW. Might you find it inappropriate for someone to grieve a dent in his BMW in the way you would expect someone to grieve the loss of a child? It’s not that I’m saying this comparision is proportional to Iraq v HCR, but I don’t think yours is either.

  43. kranky kritter Says:

    The implications of this are that we shouldn’t discuss the merits of any proposal, since none of us has the authority to judge what is or is not justified. We should have no law. We should have no debate. It also means that you can’t say anything regarding what I think about who is or isn’t justified, since you are not qualified to say whether or not I’m justified in thinking what I do. It’s nihilism AFAICT. You must have something else in mind.

    Nah, the implication is that we’re well-served in political discussions to try to be very aware of when we are talking about what we think (our opinion) versus objectively verifiable reality. So, if you for example you’d said “this time I really think the right is less justified” instead of phrasing it as a truth claim that implied an external source of verification, I’d have had no problem.

    Plus, try to remember that I’m speaking in the context of trying to have a useful discussion among variant perspectives, here at donklephant. I’m not making a “one should never” claim. It’s a conditional. If you want to have a fruitful discussion in context x, refrain from practice y.

    Let’s say we compare losing a child to getting a dent in your BMW. Might you find it inappropriate for someone to grieve a dent in his BMW in the way you would expect someone to grieve the loss of a child?

    Indeed I might think this. But would I say anything to that person? If so, why? For me, or for him?

    It’s not that I’m saying this comparision is proportional to Iraq v HCR, but I don’t think yours is either.

    Whether my comparison is proportional wasn’t really my point. My point is that the original comparison should be avoided because it leads to an easily predictable dead end which does no one any real good.

    What I’ve heard you saying, in essence, is this:

    Anti-war folks are justified in seeing the Iraq war as basically an unmitigated catastrophe that served no good end, and any folks who disagree with this are, well, simply wrong.

    And, anti-HCR folks are not really very justified in being extremely upset by the passage of HCR (apparently regardless of whether they are upset due to the details of the new program, the questionable accounting, the method by which it was passed, or that it was passed despite majority public sentiment against it).

    And the reason that this 2nd group’s feelings are not very justified is that HCR can’t possibly feel as bad to anyone with the proper moral perspective as America’s invasion of Iraq. Regardless of whether folks in the 2nd group feel as troubled by the Iraq invasion as you do. In fact, you think that folks who are not appalled by the Iraq war are morally defective.

    Does that sum it up? I’ve made a good faith effort to summarize what I’ve heard you saying and implying,., and if I’m missing something please straighten me out.

  44. Chris Says:

    …”people should not be afraid to declare that certain acts are right and others are wrong. A person who would spill battery acid on a girl for trying to learn to read, for instance, he said, is objectively wrong…”

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/25/ted.sam.harris/index.html

  45. WHQ Says:

    Anti-war folks are justified in seeing the Iraq war as basically an unmitigated catastrophe that served no good end, and any folks who disagree with this are, well, simply wrong.

    I’m not sure how many anti-war folks actually see it that way. I don’t. It’s far too absolute for me. I’d say too many unnecessary (and unnecessarily) bad outcomes came of it. Specifically, words like “unmitigated” and “no good end” are too absolute for me, particularly with regard to an endeavor as large and complex as the Iraq war. So far, your summary is off.

    And, anti-HCR folks are not really very justified in being extremely upset by the passage of HCR (apparently regardless of whether they are upset due to the details of the new program, the questionable accounting, the method by which it was passed, or that it was passed despite majority public sentiment against it).

    And the reason that this 2nd group’s feelings are not very justified is that HCR can’t possibly feel as bad to anyone with the proper moral perspective as America’s invasion of Iraq. Regardless of whether folks in the 2nd group feel as troubled by the Iraq invasion as you do. In fact, you think that folks who are not appalled by the Iraq war are morally defective.

    I thought I made it clear in a reply that I don’t really care how people feel so long as they can behave themselves. I don’t do mind crimes. So, again, your summary is off.

    This is getting too meta, mainly because you were right that the discussion was pointless, at least when it’s being had with someone who thinks it’s pointless. Now we’re having a pointless discussion about whether or not the original discussion was pointless. That or a pointless discussion about what each of us was really trying to say during the original pointless discussion.

  46. Chris Says:

    “In fact, you think that folks who are not appalled by the Iraq war are morally defective.”

    I agree with this statement.

  47. WHQ Says:

    So, if you for example you’d said “this time I really think the right is less justified” instead of phrasing it as a truth claim that implied an external source of verification, I’d have had no problem.

    Maybe I failed to do that at some point or another. But…

    I’d say outrage over the disappearing and torturing of hundreds of people, killing of hundreds of thousands and displacing of millions is more justified than the outrage over some fairly moderate steps toward health-care reform. That’s my opinion, of course. You’re free to persuade me otherwise.

    and

    I personally think people who are really pissed about Iraq and torture have a more understandable basis than those who are really pissed about health-care reform.

    As I later clarified, discussion of people’s feelings is a proxy for a discussion of their behavior. That’s what counts and what can be observed – how they act. Either way, yes, I’m stating opinions (while stating that I’m stating opinions).

  48. WHQ Says:

    Here’s a URL for some info on the rise in militia groups. My number was off – too low.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/us-surge-rightwing-extremist-groups

  49. the Word Says:

    Balance it out….

    What about all of the LeftWing Militia Groups?

  50. truetolife Says:

    Let’s face it. The left will NEVER be right!

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: