Talk:The Young Turks/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 October 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


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[edit]

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[edit]

Oy vey. (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[edit]

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)


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's not a "strawman". — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

BON comment[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

From the article[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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? -- (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?[edit]

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? (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Look, here: 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[edit]

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.— Unsigned, by: Milesmcstylez / talk / contribs 05:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact[edit]

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! — Unsigned, by: / talk 17:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)