As a former fan and paid subscriber of The Young Turks network, I know my way around Cenk Uygur’s sense of humor. He’s a funny guy, no doubt, even for a liberal. Like myself, he also has a taste for saying things that will outrage people (even if they’re just true, boring statements.) While he mostly tortures traditionalist Conservatives by picking apart almost all of their beliefs whilst laughing about it, Cenk has also annoyed Socialists and Libertarians with his unjustified support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election over Jill Stein, even in the solid-blue state of California.
My decision to end my support for The Young Turks was actually at a very specific moment. Listening to their premium podcast on a roadtrip, Cenk was giving a rundown of the stories he’d be covering in that hour. He said there was one story that blew his mind, because “white people have no idea how good they have it in this country.” (Unfortunately this was stated in a premium podcast episode that I no longer can link to.) Although an obnoxious statement on its own, this claim was the centerpiece for a revelation I’d had growing in my head for a long time: Cenk Uygur is a racist.
Constantly covering white-on-black crime, the shootings of unarmed black civilians by white police officers, but never covering the very frequent shootings unarmed white civilians, and proudly repeating the nonsense claim that Black Lives Matter is a progressive social movement while All Lives Matter is absolutely racist, Cenk Uygur has been biased in one way or another for his entire career. I don’t mean political bias, which is to be expected of political commentators. I mean racially, sexually, religiously, culturally, and ethnically biased. Cenk has respect for groups he views as “oppressed,” be it women or minority communities, but when it comes to groups he views as “in power,” (white men, in his fantasy world) he regards them with suspicion and disregard.
Now, however, Cenk’s virtue-signaling has hit quite the road-bump, as he has been ousted from a group which he helped create, Justice Democrats, for some jokes he made just about two decades ago. Here is an excerpt from one of these ancient blogposts, also one of the least hard-hitting things I’ve ever read:
“Rules of Dating
There are some hard and fast rules of dating. Women, ignore these at your peril.
Rule 1: There must be some serious making out by the third date.
If I haven’t felt your tits by then, things are not about to last much longer. In fact, if you don’t get back on track by the fourth date, you’re done.
Rule 2: There must be orgasm by the fifth date.
No, ands, ifs, or buts. If I haven’t unloaded by this time, things are intolerably slow. There will be no sixth date to give you a second chance. If you haven’t delivered by now, you’re done.
Rule 3: There must be sex by the second month of dating.
There are a lot of allowable exceptions to this rule, but they all involve orgasms. I’ll let you slide if for unseen circumstances we haven’t gotten to see each other much, and you have been providing me with some excellent orgasms in the meanwhile.”
While the choice of language here by Uygur is rather unappetizing and distasteful (to my eyes, at least,) he’s simply stating his dating preferences. The irony is that the Justice Democrat feminazis and Cenk’s older self are actually advocating for telling people who to date and how to date them, despite a central message of feminism being personal choice. The blogpost is younger Cenk’s set of rules and requirements for dating him. Since dating someone is opt-in, women are (and most likely were) free to read his blog post and decide not to date him. Should young Cenk be forced to date a “prude” if he doesn’t want to, or should Cenk have the freedom to do what he wants with his own body?
The Justice Democrats group, which I have (regrettably) previously donated to, focuses on electing Democrats to Congress and the Senate who refuse corporate and super-PAC donation money. Conceptually, this allows said elected officials to rule the will of their voters, rather than the will of their donors. A noble cause indeed, shamefully ruined by regressive-feminist internal politics. Originally I halted my reoccurring donations for fear that Justice Democrats was going out of its way to choose female and/or minority candidates for the sake of forced diversity, but this story would have sealed the deal had I still been donating.
At the end of his controversial blogpost, he makes a point that isn’t too far-off:
“I might seem like an asshole for pointing this stuff out, but there is no reason to hate the messenger. These rules are out there whether you like it or not (or whether your particular boyfriend has crystallized them in his mind, every guy has an internal gauge that are roughly within these parameters), so it’s better that you know. I’m trying to help.”
It’s a shame that so many of the same people who support great economic policy like single-payer healthcare or higher taxes on the very wealthy are also miserable, offendable cunts. While Cenk’s essay is quite obnoxiously worded, there is quite a bit of truth to what he said, let alone the fact that it would be an amusing, satirical read of intentionally-provocative literature even if it wasn’t true.
Sadly, Cenk bucked almost all of his politically incorrect humor in exchange for the privilege of begging approval from wealthy feminists and donors. Read his pathetic response to the ousting from Justice Democrats:
“If someone said that today, I would heavily criticize them on the show and rightfully so, and I have. I’ve criticized myself over the years,” he added. “I had not yet matured and I was still a conservative who thought that stuff was politically incorrect and edgy. When you read it now, it looks really, honestly, ugly. And it’s very uncomfortable to read.”
Funny, I wasn’t uncomfortable reading it all, even though I didn’t quite agree with his demands. If a woman ever wrote such things about her dating preferences, I wouldn’t be offended either. This is basic dating culture: people have preferences and desires. To criticize his former writing is to criticize reality, which he hypocritically (but accurately) accuses Conservatives of doing in regards to climate change.
Poor Cenk. I do hope things work out well for him. He’s only wrong half the time, anyways.