and I like them. It is an American cablenews program - and here I quote
myself and them from the last link:
Here they speak for themselves, on
The Young Turks site:
Young Turk (n), 1. Young progressive or insurgent member of
an institution, movement, or political party. 2. Young person who rebels
against authority or societal expectations. (American Heritage Dictionary)
The Young Turks (Winner - Best Political Podcast & Best Political News Site
of 2009) were the first original talk show on Sirius satellite radio and the
first live, daily webcast on the internet. But that is not the revolution.
We are a rare show that combines all of the news that people care about in
one place. We are not afraid to talk about politics and entertainment and
sports and pop culture. But that is not the revolution either.
The real revolution is in daring to be honest with people. We don't patronize
our viewers or lie to them. We have real conversations and deliver the news
This is true and no exaggeration either, and together with their obvious
intelligence and verbal excellence the main reasons for me to like them:
Even if one disagrees with them, at least they are not bullshitting you
AND give their reasons for holding their opinions, which is
another thing that rarely is seen or heard on TV, or skimped on if done
The above clips give a fair overview and some should give
you reasons to think.
The Young Turks gives a lot
I often use Wikipedia for four reasons mainly
it's good to consult an encylopedia if you want to know
or verify things, and Wikipedia is one - of a kind, for which see below
the Wikipedia is large and contains may entries, some
quite long, usually with external links
most of what I read on Wikipedia suited my purposes, in
that it gave me some information and gave some relevant links
as it happens, the browsers and search machines I use
often come up with some Wikipedia-article first or second.
Of course, for me the third point is most important: If
what I was offered had suited my purposes less (generally: get some
background information; occassionally: check something I believe I
remember), I would have used it less.
Also, not everything on Wikipedia I read was good, and
generally, for the things that really interest me, I am most helped by
ther external links (links to urls not part of Wikipedia), whereas it
stands to reason to expect that an internet encyclopedia operated on the
principles on which Wikipedia is said to be using - basically: it is a
wiki, and everybody can edit everything, in principle at least - will be
easily biased or partial, and indeed it regularly is.
However, there seem to be a few things rather seriously
wrong there, which essentially have to do with power and anonymity:
This is by Carl Hewitt, who I only knew a little about
from programming, and that only by reputation.
The article is interesting, and seems mostly right,
though I am afraid that what is proposed will not happen.
Also, it interested me for another reason: The parallels
I saw between Wikipedia and the two internet-forums about ME I have been
part of the last year, in such ways as this
I've been dismayed to observe a very powerful dynamic: the pushy
loudmouths always win. They scramble to the top of the hill, start
shouting, and relentlessly push back down the hill all non-like-minded
comers. And here's the big problem: the comers are rarely as relentless
as the pushers. They tend to cede the turf. So the pushiest and most
intolerant loudmouths always win, because they are inherently less
accommodating than their opposition. We've seen this dynamic in reality
TV shows, online communities, kindergarten, American politics, and, for
sure, on Wikipedia, which is like cyberchocolate to this sort of
Two bedrock policies at Wikipedia make it so: first,
everyone's effectively anonymous (and many are completely so), and as
we all know from driving, people act their very worst in an anonymous
public flow. And, second, the Wikipedia credo involves a very low
degree of moderation (though it's gradually ratcheted up a bit over the
years), and, as any Somali (or Usenet discussion participant) will tell
you, anarchy is not a felicitous condition for human communities -
though, like Communism, it sounds great on paper.
(Jim Leff, quoted in note (i) of
Corruption of Wikipedia)
This parallels what I have seen on the ME-forums, and
indeed seems to be typical for the vast majority of all manner of "social
forums" - unless they are exceptionally well moderated, and not anonymous
- that tend to soon become the tool of a small group for self-promotion
or their own special interest - except that publicly will always be
presented as "for Our Community".
Indeed, there are two more things involved than "the
pushy loudmouths always win"; ",
everyone's effectively anonymous "; and "a very low degree
of moderation " (that seems mostly incompetent and/or biased, as it
There is a positive verbal terrorism of anonymous,
conformistic, totalitarian dumboes that protest anything that is "not
normal", not according to their ignorant prejudices, who actively try to
pull down everyone who excels to their own level, quite often for that
very reason (minority of the better ones are accused of elitarian or
inappropriate language or blamed for any criticism of any kind), that is
also very dishonest
These majorities of average levellers "for Our Community"
are played upon and used by the more clever pushy loudmouths, who try in
fact try to take over "Our Community" for their own ends or fame or
amusement, always in the name of "Our Community", and generally by
manipulative, dishonest, very often grossly impolite aspersions,
accusations, innuendo etc.
So that is one of the other things I learned over the
last year, or indeed allowed myself to oversee, until it happened
again, and again
and again and again
(etc.) : "people act their very worst in an anonymous public flow",
and indeed the very worst get to the top, precisely because they are the
very worst, and manage - as all through history - to manipulate the
cognitively challenged majorities.
In politics, and wherever people gather and something -
fame, status, an audience, money, power - is available. It's the cruel
egoistic and stunningly stupid ape in most men and women that seeks to
get out, and especially when functionally anonymous or otherwise without
fear of any personal sanction: Then you really meet or at least see the
beast in men, and indeed women too, and you can understand why there
never can be a better world without a better human average:
To end on a somewhat happier note, for those who care
about real philosophy and real philosophers: Here is
with which I have nothing to do, nor ever had, which
opens with a very friendly link (I quote):
Indeed, they link in fact to my philosophy-pages, where
there is a lot more, but just in case you can't wait to go there
Have fun, if thus inclined!
(*) Am I a
Check out the link, and also this one:
Remarks (namely on 'On
'The Logic of Moral Discourse''). That is: Yes, roughly in
Mill's and De Tocqueville's sense:
Political Texts. But not in some others, and I am not a
libertarian in the US sense.