Cenk Uygur's baggage is all on camera and it's disqualifying

[Alithea]

99. That's a fair question. Let me try to answer it...

I'm not sure I would describe it as low expectations, though perhaps you have a point.

Rather, I would say that:

1) If we are sincerely concerned about a problem (e.g. misogyny), we should attack it where it is worst, not where it fails to live up to perfection. Yes, I understand that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but I don't understand why the OP would want to so virulently attack Cenk, when there are much better targets, if her concern is actually misogyny. To take an example from, oh, just yesterday, this asshat:

2) I am less bothered by frat-boy crap said 20 years ago because:
(a) I was an adult 20 years ago and it was not that shocking then and much of it was in jest;
(b) I've seen frat-boys become grown men and I know that almost zero % of them went on to become progressives trying to fight the good fight, so if one of them does, I notice it as an exceptional move and I'm wiling to cut him some slack and forgive.
(c) I've worked in male-dominated environments where there was real discrimination against women; discrimination that impacted not only feelings and sensibilities, not only relative earnings, but also the continued ability to work and provide for one's family. There, I stood and spoke up and defended others, even when it was unpopular, and even at a cost to myself. These types of problems continue to exist, and I think we could more usefully turn our energies to trying to fix these real things, than in attacking someone on our side for having said things 20 years ago that no longer accord with his or society's standards (and cherry-picking the worst of what he may have said, as if this defines him as a person forevermore).

3) My comment was not really about trying to defend Cenk in particular (I don't feel strongly about him either way), but rather to voice some opposition to the almost fundamentalist fervor and atmosphere of vitriolic persecution that seems to have crept into the civic space in the last few years, and which leaves little room for reasoned discourse of ideas and policies on their merits. I find it chilling, and ultimately unhelpful towards our common goal of building a better society.
I'm reminded of this warning by Nietzsche: "But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangmen and the bloodhound look out of their faces."
On a lighter note, this too:

4) "trash talk about our Democratic leaders"
Firstly, I wasn't aware of this, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Secondly, now that I am aware, I still tend less towards blindly circling the wagons than I do towards learning what the differences on policy are, to see whether I agree or disagree. If I believe the ideas are better ones, that they would serve the Dems and the country well, I would support them. If I don't, I'd pass. (BUT, if we would lose the election with ideas like that, I'll reject them even if they sound good, because these are not times when we can afford to lose seats.) That said, I do think it's bad for him to criticize Democratic leaders too much if he intends to join the party. Infighting leaves us all weaker.


Well, that was long. I hope it wasn't too boring and that it provides some context. Thanks for posing the question; it gave me the opportunity to reflect and tease out my thoughts on this.