{"id":20,"date":"2015-03-28T22:57:43","date_gmt":"2015-03-28T22:57:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/?p=20"},"modified":"2015-03-29T00:03:34","modified_gmt":"2015-03-29T00:03:34","slug":"the-curious-case-of-cenk-uygur","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/2015\/03\/28\/the-curious-case-of-cenk-uygur\/","title":{"rendered":"The Curious Case of Cenk Uygur"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Certain issues tend to stir up so much emotion that any related discourse can feel futile to the point of masochism. This fact is never more apparent than when listening to <em>The Young Turk\u2019s<\/em> Cenk Uygur rant and rave about Islamophobia. I\u2019m a fan of <em>TYT<\/em>, but Uygur has struggled to make sense on this issue for years now. Much like Bill Maher on the topic of vaccines, the <em>TYT<\/em> anchor is the absolute picture of confusion whenever the subject of Islam is raised.<\/p>\n<p>Since the latter part of 2014, one of the main targets of Uygur\u2019s misplaced rage has been Sam Harris. This finally came to a head when Uygur and Harris engaged in a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU\" target=\"_blank\">3 hour conversation<\/a> designed to clear up various distortions and misrepresentations of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.samharris.org\/blog\/item\/response-to-controversy\" target=\"_blank\">the latter\u2019s views<\/a>. The conversation itself was compelling and well worth watching, but the fallout has been less than satisfying for anyone who values intellectual honesty. Based on the content of Uygur\u2019s still-frequent tirades, one could be forgiven for thinking the conversation never actually took place. Nothing, it seems, has changed.<\/p>\n<p>The <em>TYT<\/em> host was particularly fired up during the March 27 broadcast of <em>TYT Live<\/em>. While discussing\u00a0whether anti-Muslim animus is the new McCarthyism, Uygur lambasted Harris and those who agree with him on the subject of Islam, dismissing them as faux-progressives in a confused rant that should be permanently featured on the \u201cNo true Scotsman\u201d Wikipedia page. The irony here is that Uygur is much closer to the political center than liberals like Harris, Maher and many of their allies on this issue.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Is Anti-Muslim Bigotry The New McCarthyism?\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/6NmO_Jhap0k?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Not content with his usual gymnastics routine when covering stories related to Islam, Uygur chose instead to employ the \u201cnuclear first strike\u201d canard that is so often leveled at Harris. Past references to this easily debunked meme could be chalked up to ignorance, but he knows better at this point. Is it conscious misrepresentation or has Uygur forgotten that the relevant passage in Harris\u2019 first book, <em>The End of Faith<\/em>, is filled with caveats? This fact was explained in painstaking detail during the pair\u2019s conversation.<\/p>\n<p>Towards the end of said conversation, Harris made a point that is often overlooked and is worth\u00a0repeating.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Much of my discussions\u2026 have been an effort to get to ethical bedrock. I write and think as a philosopher. In the context of having a philosophical discussion about ethics and right and wrong, you can say many things that seem crazy outside of a philosophy seminar but in a philosophy seminar are totally legitimate. In a philosophy seminar you can say: \u2018Why can\u2019t we eat babies? What\u2019s wrong with eating babies?\u2019 That is a completely insane thing to say in the world. That is the kind of thing that, if quoted out of context, makes me look like an asshole. But the reality is if you\u2019re trying to get to the ethical bedrock of good and evil, starting the conversation with, \u2018Why can\u2019t we eat babies? Give me an ethical argument as to why this is really, really wrong?\u2019 is a totally legitimate thing to do\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Clear the Air on Religious Violence and Islam\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/WVl3BJoEoAU?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Context really does matter. If an opinion is too nuanced to be squeezed into a two minute rant, that\u2019s just too bad. We don\u2019t get to falsely summarize someone\u2019s views for the sake of convenience. Let\u2019s illustrate this point with reference to part of Uygur\u2019s diatribe\u00a0in the first video:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>According to Sam Harris\u2019 book, hypothetically, what if we did a nuclear first strike on them? I mean, after all they are <em>Muslim!<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Now, let\u2019s reword that quote and replace the nuclear first strike canard with something else Harris has said.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>According to Sam Harris, hypothetically, why shouldn\u2019t we be allowed to eat babies? I mean, after all they are <em>babies<\/em>!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Does it occur to anyone else that the inclusion of the relevant context might save Sam getting a visit from Child Protective Services? When a view is expressed within a hypothetical context, the details of said hypothetical tend to be important.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s unfortunate that Uygur is so unbearable on this issue. It has become difficult to rely on <em>TYT<\/em> as a news source, which is unfair to co-hosts like Ana Kasparian and Dave Rubin, both of whom are extremely likable. One wonders what goes through their minds when they notice the superpuffedness of Uygur\u2019s chest as he prepares to launch into another of his tiresome, self-aggrandizing rants. He is the reason I cancelled my premium <em>TYT<\/em> membership months ago, and one look at the feedback on <em>TYT\u2019s<\/em> YouTube videos tells me I\u2019m probably not the only one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Certain issues tend to stir up so much emotion that any related discourse can feel futile to the point of&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":75,"featured_media":26,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,5,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-news","category-secularism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/75"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/flyingscotsman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}