Talk:The Young Turks/Archive1

Something
Something needs to be added on this Sam Harris controversy. TYT is misrepresenting him terribly: Sam Harris v TYT --Jern (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems to see a need to use the term Apartheid
And now for some reason, I have to raise it at the talk page. Well, you can see for yourself in the edit history, which version would you wish to keep? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems to have a severe aversion to the use of evocative terms
Oy vey. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Well one certain Mona tries to insert that word left and right. Given that TYT is not about Israel and actually only covers the topic about the media average amount of time, there is a question whether we should really risk severe edit wars over such an offhand remark. After all, the word is highly controversial and as my wording is the older one, you have to argue how yours is significantly better instead of just reverting. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems to like unnecessary subsections
Also, Yiddish. Though I am as guilty of that as the rest of the mishpoke here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixing
I've been working out on how to make it more objective and even-handed. I actually love the snarky comments at the beginning, and I rearranged the arguments so it's less bashing while keeping the nuance. Should I do more or is it good enough? Serocco 08:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"I've been working out on how to make it more objective and even-handed." Well, it looks like you've still got a lot of work to do. Of course, this being the "Rational" wiki, I don't expect much to happen. It's not just "trolls" calling out TYT for the obvious bias they have towards certain groups and ideologies. There are numerous videos that show this and their anti-white attitude. Being so "rational" though, you should already know this. FYI, if someone is pointing this out on a video that is about racism...it's not a "strawman". &mdash; Unsigned, by: 50.82.104.230 / talk / contribs

BON comment
Were it the case that I wanted people to be certain that I wasn’t denying a historically established genocide, I’d be sure to confirm my acknowledgement of said atrocity in a released statement intended to put the matter to bed. Something like: ‘Of course I now accept the Armenian genocide happened’ would do it for instance.

The above simply reads as someone who just doesn’t want to talk about it and is hoping it will all go away, rather than someone who wishes to set the record straight.

But unfortunately, Cenk can only manage to concede he was mistaken for ‘confusing’ himself for a ‘scholar of history’ rather than being mistaken about historical fact. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 194.118.8.148 / talk / contribs

From the article
Sort this out here, not in the article. Copied from the article:

''Astute readers of this article might notice an ongoing edit war with regards to the content of this passage. In the interest of eventually finding a happy balance, here are a few factoids that may or may not survive the haggling process:'' - Cenk Uygur's three favourite books are the Qur'an, Mein Kampf, and the Qur'an again - Cenk Uygur, Osama Bin Laden, and George Bush are all the same person - Cenk Uygur personally flew both planes into the World Trade Centers on 9/11 - Cenk Uygur's favourite drink is the Taqiyya Slammer - Sam Harris is kind of a big deal - Sam Harris' office smells of rich mahogany, and he has many leather bound books - Sam Harris is the greatest human being to ever turn oxygen into carbon dioxide - Sam Harris once traveled back in time and singlehandedly caused the Renaissance and the Enlightenment --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that was just a snarky, and pretty funny "guideline" that mocked the whole thing. I personally think we shouldn't have that in at all, because it clutters the article.Serocco 08:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I intended it more as an inverse parody of the direction the article was taking, i.e. making Cenk out to be some misunderstood martyr while Sam was the devil incarnate, so I decided to do the opposite in an only slightly less subtle mannerMilesmcstylez (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think we should keep it off, because it takes focus away from the article. I've reworked some of the lines and added some more, including a TLDR version at the very end, and I hope it's good enough. Serocco 08:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose turning this into a Fun article
So we can use over-exaggerated criticisms of them like we do for our article of the Democrat Party. It adheres to our snark, so let's go with it.Serocco 20:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Some problems with sources used to prove snark
There are plenty of things to be critical about concerning the TYT network, but I'm particularly alarmed by the presence of some statements that have spurious sources. For example, there's no explanation for Keith Olbermann being linked to this organization, and none could be found investigating his page either, but a more telling example is footnote [25]. Footnote [25], while indeed written by an Armenian-American, is in no way a 'fellow Armenian' as the article seems to apply. It attacks her viciously and insinuates that she denies the genocide because her boss has been wishy-washy on the subject, and she responds rationally and appropriately by telling the writer that Cenk has done nothing but helped her career and has been an excellent boss. As a result, the writer proceeds to edit her words-- yes, the words have been edited, I find it unlikely she would bold and mark words 'red' in an email or reply to the writer-- and begins to attack Ana on a completely different issue without addressing her counterarguments. Since the author is is neither interested in actual debate nor in civil conversation, it's clear that they're a HEAVILY BIASED source. You wouldn't trust a scientist paid by Coca-Cola telling you that soda is healthy because they have a extreme monetary bias, so why can we trust a source with extreme emotional bias? --71.195.177.125 (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While our goal is explicitly not to present a neutral point of view, your complaints don't seem completely unreasonable. Give the article an edit and show us if you will tilt it in the direction of some other bias, or "merely" undo the specific things you describe above. Even so, there's no guarantee your changes will stick — but please, show us what you got regardless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The majority of the article seems to be heavily influenced by this blog. Leuders (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. Just casually reading through the less dense parts of the article, I've found at least three verifiably bogus claims. I'm afraid to look deeper. Leuders (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Insufferable assholes?
I'd like to know your reasoning for having TYT in a category which is mostly for murderers and right-wingers who make a living stoking hate/fear against the helpless. I can get supposedly-liberal Russian tools Julian Assange and Jill Stein being there, especially after Assange basically said "Seth Rich may have been the DNC leaker, dunno, not telling anything although we should investigate his oh-so-much suspicious death" despite knowing perfectly well that he wasn't said leaker. I even get TheAmazingAtheist being there, even if I've liked several of his videos, because I know he's basically a textbook case of clinical narcissism, plus his Moral Event Horizon with the rape victim. Yeah, I get those. But this, this I don't get. It's because they are bad at covering foreign affairs (which is true, they are and we should point it, but it doesn't justify this)? It's because of that genocide denialism which Cenk retracted? It's because of the stupid yet mostly harmless "Chelsea Clinton: Hot" video? It's because they picked a fight against Alex freakin Jones? (Come on, act like such a dignified and professional "journalist" wasn't asking for it. I'm begging you here.) If the Rational Wiki is so biased-but-rational I'm sure it knows what the Trump presidency is and what it means for all of us. And here you are, calling people who also know it and fight against it with all their forces "insufferable assholes", thus helping to discredit them for the sin of... being flawed and Cenk Uygur having a bit-too-big ego, as far as I know. Yeah, seems rational to me. Explain it to me, but if you can't, please set your priorities straight. (Lord Nox (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC))
 * How the fuck is Jill a russia tool? 213.41.236.78 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, here: https://rantt.com/the-other-russian-connection-jill-stein-87499f1a3a25. But I'm not here to debate that, I don't care tbh. (Lord Nox (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC))

Sam Harris is apparently apparently Pazuzu and/or General Custer
Seriously, wtf is with the constant edits taking potshots at Sam? I keep trying to fix them to make the article sound less like a Reza Aslan wet dream, but I'm getting some pushback here. I've since added some intentionally snarky passages to try to barter down to something reasonable, but I can't believe it actually came to the point I had to take the Fight Club approach of intentionally adding things just to barter back to something more reasonable.

Fun fact
This might be a small detail, but the note regarding Ana's job at Cal State suggests a doctorate is required to teach a journo class, which is not always true. The requirements depend on the institution and/or faculty. I suggest the following amendment: "Fun Fact: Kasparian, having a Bachelor's in Journalism and a Masters in Political Science, is teaching a journalism class at Cal State-Northridge. Here is the class syllabus from 2013. And here is her RateMyProfessor page." The change is obviously devoid of snark (which might offend some), but it's more accurate. Cheerio! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 94.254.2.225 / talk 17:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Category: insufferable assholes
Since someone asked, I personally have no problem with removal of the insufferable assholes category. It seems a holdover from a previous edit by BoN's with axes to grind anyway. From my casual watching of the show, I think it's fair to say Cenk is an aggressive cheerleader for the Left, he once was on the wrong side of the Armenian thing, and TYT runs some "entertainment" stories that are groan-worthy. But that shouldn't be the whole article, should it?

I'm not well versed in the Uygur/Sam Harris feud of 2014, but at present, the article offers only confusion rather than insight and analysis. And the unfunny adolescent insults (added by the BoN's) spread all over the article should be removed, and more thoughtful, missional coverage and criticism written. Oh, and if specific criticism has alt-right and conservative origins, it needs to be attributed to that, instead of being stated in RW's voice (as I sadly discovered here).

Also could use an update to cover life after 2014, i.e. TYT's Bernie v. Hillary positions during the 2016 election, commendable Standing Rock activism, anti-Trump, anti-authoritarian stances, etc. Leuders (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That someone was me and yeah, you and I have pretty much the same opinion about both TYT and this article. (Lord Nox (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC))
 * It was an odd article. More like someone's personal Reddit rant rather than on-mission and readable. I did a needed update. Leuders (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore "Conspiracy Theorist" smear
I have removed the part where Jimmy Dore is referred to as a conspiracy theorist. This is a smear perpetrated by a certain Washington Post article. Here's the quick rundown. Jimmy Dore posted this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKawchvHsEg which details allegations about murder. However, at the end of the video, he concludes with something along the lines of "Well, that's interesting stuff, but we, unlike the mainstream press, are not believing what this guy says and so we await more evidence to pass judgment." This time stamp is even linked in the first pinned comment on the video to head off allegations that he believes this conspiracy.

Later, a reporter for the Washington Post, David Weigel, smeared Dore in an article claiming that he bought this conspiracy, even though Dore's video claims no such thing. Here is a video from Dore detailing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Owre_FLdc

So, in sum, the video linked to by a RW editor which was used to justify even sarcastically calling Dore a conspiracy theorist does not justify it at all, and in fact in the video Dore denies believing in said conspiracy. I will not have RationalWiki be used to unjustifiably smear anyone. The original smear edit is currently the only contribution to this site made by its editor's IP address. It was not made by an established user, so I feel justified in removing it. I would be willing to accept Dore as a conspiracy theorist when he actually professes to subscribe to any conspiracy theories. I will accept him as being snarkily referred to as one when he entertains a conspiracy notion. However, I would need a source for those assertions, and the previously linked video in this article was not a valid source for that. YB indeed! 17:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ, calm down. I'm not a big fan of strikethru humor, but it seemed like a harmless snark to me rather than a "smear". Of course we're not saying Dore is an actual conspiracy theorist. People have noticed that he does occasionally make noises like one though, and that's what the joke/snark refers to. Leuders (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I made the edit and I stand by it, if you watched the actual video he said he wants a new investigation, which raises eyebrows, he's even laughing like a fucking maniac when he brings it up, also it's not the only time he's brought it up, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFZOz_TYF8, he's peddled a lot of other conspiracy theories as well, like for example, claiming Hillary Clinton may have Parkinson's disease :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gH68X50ajs, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JwLmuhnsxY, the chemical attack in Syria being a false flag :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMyPy94blk, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnSAB4qeDug, and that Russia didn't help trump win (he usually responds to stories that attack Russia/trump/Julian Assange with ad hominem attacks against the people reporting it, since he has no vaild arguments against them) :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTsch129Zwg, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85B7mdAY4LQ, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMZLf3AUz_s, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yPtUzzYpDk, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqicxa6O4HA, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0TFcJX4Mp0,. Jaydogg1994 (talk)12:57 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let it not be said that I'm unreasonable. I thought that the Seth Rich video was not an example of him buying conspiracy theories, seeing as how he says he doesn't buy it. However, I said I would be open to examples of him entertaining conspiracy notions, and I believe that the "Hillary has Parkinson's" is a valid example. As such, I would be fine keeping the strikethrough humor with that one as the linked reference. Thank you, other folks, for doing the legwork in rounding up examples for me. I'm lazy. YB indeed! 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Suspicion that a politician has an illness isn't a "conspiracy theory." Nor does Dore deny that Russians had anything to do with the election; what he does say about Russia hysteria (which Pussy Riot, btw, agrees with --that it's hysteria) simply is not accurately characterized as a "conspiracy theory." Dore is many things, but conspiracy theorist is not among them. Disagree with his take on the Russia hysteria if you like, but label it correctly. Snark is great, but should be rooted in something the target actually does.--Tea Sagan (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * actually it is a conspiracy theory to suggest it, especially when the doctor who started the rumor is a conspiracy theorist http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/, and also, dore's reason for denying that the Russia story is true is because he thinks it's a cia plot to discredit WikiLeaks :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmGsAMZ405c, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMZLf3AUz_s, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yPtUzzYpDk, he also fell for James O'Keefe's bullshit cnn undercover videos :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0TFcJX4Mp0, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqicxa6O4HA, he's a scorned Berniecrat who doesn't care about fighting trump and, what's worse is he actually thinks that the people that are fighting against trump are liars and criminals, it's okay if you're a dore fan, but you gotta accept that he's conspiracy theorist and denialist, take you're fanboy shit elsewhere. Jaydogg1994 (talk)09:11 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? How rude you are. Yes, I do watch Dore, and have for a long time, so I'm positioned to know what he actually says, over time, and how he says it. Dore is not a conspiracy theorist, not even if Snopes dubiously applies that word to a single physician -- NOT JIMMY DORE -- regarding speculation about Clinton's health problems. This isn't Illuminati- level crap, and yes, the CIA does do actual evil stuff (what, you think the Intelligence Community is in love with Julian Assagne?!). This isn't the feverishness of Alex Jones; it's documented and known. Is there some reason I, as a Dore watcher who actually knows his work, am not welcome here? You act as if I need to leave and let you just write as you please. Is that the case at this site?


 * And about the Trump and healthcare -- Dore addressed that last January, in the context of Trump having insisted EVERY American should have healthcare. If Trump had kept that promise, then on that single, discrete issue, Trump would, in fact, have been better than Clinton. (Or do you object to universal healthcare?) But of course he didn't, and Dore has long since covered the fact that Trump didn't mean that shit one bit -- Dore ridicules Trump mercilessly as "Donny Tiny Hands" Hating on Dore is one thing, but it should be done honestly about what the guy actually broadcasts without cherrypicking in time.--Tea Sagan (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't want to fight over this stuff about TYT supposedly being a "mirror" of RW TV. That's wrong and insulting of smart people and a smart audience. Is there some compromise language you could accpert that acknowledges that some have made that claim, but not having the text support it with no qualification? I watch TYT, and especially Dore, and it just isn't at all like FOX. It just isn't. I require reporters to be careful with facts, and Fox is a goddam joke on that score, while TYT is very careful. It just is.--Tea Sagan (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * he said the chemical attack on Syria was a false flag :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMyPy94blk, and he thinks that the story about Russia and trump is being made up by the cia to discredit WikiLeaks:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMZLf3AUz_s, you can't dispute that he's a conspiracy theorist I won't compromise on that at all, the rest of the people on TYT are not like fox news at all I agree with you on that point only. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The CIA *does" do shit like that. It is literally IN THE BUSINESS of conspiracies. That's not what people mean by "conspiracy theories." It isn't remotely implausible that the intelligence community wnats to "get" Julian Assange give that he's, you know, declared war on them and embarrassed them. If you insist on including the Syria stuff or the CIA stuff I equally insist on inserting text as to why it's not only correct by reasonable. Either that, or it can all be omitted. Your choice. But I do insist on including some of Dore's excellent work on the crazy nonsense the MSM, including Maddow, has been spewing about Russia (talk about conspiracy theories). And btw, Hillary Clinton believes she's been the victim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Does that make her a "conspiracy theorist," or does it make her right?--Tea Sagan (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unseemly speculation about a candidate's health is common to campaigns and partisans. Or do you think Team Obama and their supporters were pushing a "conspiracy theory" about John McCain and Alzheimer's?--Tea Sagan (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obama didn't push the McCain Alzheimer's story, that was a reporter from The Daily Kos who did, It may not be a conspiracy theory to speculate on a candidate's health but it is both slanderous and loathsome. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 09:43 26 July 2017