The progressive principle of inclusivity, which is often seen as its greatest strength, emphasizes openness and acceptance across all differences, even those that might challenge the community.
Historically, social psychology and organizational behavior research underscore that inclusivity does not mean an uncritical acceptance of all viewpoints, but rather a commitment to fostering an environment where diverse ideas can coexist and be engaged constructively. In this context, even if Ana Kasparian were to express beliefs or behaviors that diverge sharply from The Young Turks’ (TYT) progressive platform, moving towards more conservative or even extreme-right viewpoints, the TYT community’s response would benefit from remaining inclusive rather than exclusionary.
Social Identity Theory and Intergroup Contact Theory both reveal that individuals thrive in groups that reflect a range of perspectives, and communities built around inclusivity have been shown to foster resilience and adaptability. While ideological differences can create tension, research suggests that communities committed to psychological safety and open dialogue, hallmarks of the progressive ideal, are better equipped to handle these tensions constructively. If TYT were to embrace Ana Kasparian as part of the community, even amid differing beliefs, this act of inclusivity could reinforce community cohesion and lead to positive outcomes that align with TYT’s core values of tolerance and open debate.
This inclusive approach also aligns with progressivism’s greatest strength: creating spaces that challenge the status quo while embracing the full range of human experiences and beliefs. History shows us that social movements and activist groups rooted in progressive ideals thrive when they maintain inclusivity even amidst internal ideological shifts. Excluding a longtime member like Kasparian could lead to a form of ideological purity that contradicts the progressive ethos itself, potentially alienating current supporters and reducing the diversity of thought that fuels TYT’s impact.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74–82.
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. APA PsycNet
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087
Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Stevens, S. T., & Anglin, S. M. (2016). The politics of social psychological science: Distortions in the social psychology of intergroup relations. In P. Valdesolo & J. Graham (Eds.), Social psychology of political polarization (pp. 165–196). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. University of Chicago Press.
I"m not educated or knowledgeable in the details of these areas, but:
I think as a general principle that I’m admiring of TYT if it gives Ana space to go through this difficult evolution of views.
I think there’s a limit to how tolerant TYT should be. There is no point to my tuning in if the show is so tolerant of such a difficult matter that half its hosts are off on an extreme right wing journey. If Ana’s journey did take her into extreme-right territory and had her stay there instead of just bravely being open to all ideas in order to improve her grounding, then she should no longer be a main host, but at most an occasional thoughtful representative of a different viewpoint from whom we can learn.
@jlaz Well of course, if her hosting becomes problematic, it is not unreasonable for Cenk to let her go or take her off the show. I just want to make sure that everyone remembers that excommunicating her from the community is only harmful to her and to the TYT community overall. I am pointing out that the progressive ideal of inclusivity only works when we welcome and support all members of our community.
Given the dues she’s paid and watercarrying she has done, I myself as a viewer [who hates what the Repubs have become] am completely fine with her remaining on. I am just not reading those intentions on her part right now…
@vanidackp I could not agree with you more, and I appreciate your writing this. Creating an exclusive environment with impossible rules for acceptance is a recipe for extremism that will eventually implode within itself, but not before leaving a path of hurt and destruction in its wake. I want to hear different ideas and learn various ways of looking at issues, and the day that is no longer acceptable is the day I walk away. Why are so many people so damn resistant to even just hearing what someone from the Right has to say? We’re all in this together, most people are just trying to do the right thing, and we can only survive with genuine understanding and empathy.
Inclusivity I believe is the best way to go here. This countries desire for change is the reason Donald Trump won the first time. The problem is the country really didn’t know him like NY did.
There are both similarities and differences within left-wing and right-wing policy frameworks, but the level of coherence within each side depends on the context, the specific country, and the issues at hand. Generally speaking:
1. Left-Wing Policy Coherence: Left-leaning ideologies—often associated with social democracy, socialism, or progressivism—tend to coalesce around themes like income equality, social welfare programs, labor rights, and environmental protections. This cohesion stems from a common belief in the role of government to address systemic inequalities, promote social justice, and ensure a baseline standard of living for all citizens. Though the left can vary significantly, especially between moderate and more radical approaches (like social democracy vs. democratic socialism), these groups still tend to support policies like universal healthcare, progressive taxation, and stronger environmental regulations.
2. Right-Wing Policy Coherence: Right-wing ideologies, which can include conservatism, libertarianism, and nationalism, are often more diverse in their policy stances. However, common threads tend to include a preference for limited government intervention in the economy, a focus on individual responsibility, and an emphasis on traditional values or national identity. While there is coherence around these themes, disagreements arise, especially between libertarians who favor minimal state intervention and social conservatives who may advocate for government action to uphold cultural or religious values. Additionally, economic conservatives may prioritize free-market policies, while nationalist factions could advocate for protective trade measures.
Global Context and Regional Differences: In practice, the coherence of left-wing or right-wing policies can vary by country. For example, European left-wing parties may be more unified around welfare policies due to their shared social democratic heritage, while in the U.S., left-leaning factions show more variation between moderate liberals and progressives. On the right, similar divergences occur: American conservatism is distinct from European conservatism, where welfare programs are often more accepted even within right-wing platforms.
4. Areas of Common Ground: Both sides may sometimes overlap on issues like supporting small businesses, promoting infrastructure investment, or improving education, though the methods they propose may differ substantially.
Overall, left-wing policies may appear somewhat more coherent due to shared values around social safety nets and equity, whereas right-wing policies are often broader in scope but face more internal diversity due to the spectrum from libertarian to nationalist positions. However, the extent of this coherence or diversity depends greatly on specific political contexts.
Left-wing and right-wing political ideologies often emphasize different approaches and values, but there are notable areas where they sometimes converge or overlap in objectives. Here are a few similarities that can occur between left-wing and right-wing policies, especially when considering the diverse political landscape in different countries:
1. Economic Support for Small Businesses: Both left- and right-wing groups frequently advocate for supporting small businesses, although for different reasons. The left may support small businesses as part of an anti-corporate stance, seeing them as essential to local economies and workers’ rights. Meanwhile, the right often sees small businesses as a means of promoting individual entrepreneurship and reducing dependency on government.
2. Infrastructure and Job Creation: Both sides can agree on the importance of infrastructure development to create jobs and improve quality of life. While left-leaning groups may focus on the public benefit of projects like roads, public transport, and green infrastructure, right-leaning groups might support them as investments that enhance economic growth and national competitiveness.
3. Privacy and Civil Liberties (Depending on Context): In some areas, both left- and right-wing groups may unite in opposition to government overreach and surveillance, though this depends on the context. For example, both libertarian-leaning conservatives and progressive-leaning liberals can share concerns about excessive state surveillance, the infringement of individual freedoms, and issues of digital privacy.
Education Reform: Both sides often see education as a critical area for national improvement, though they differ on methods. For instance, left-leaning advocates may emphasize equitable access and funding, while the right may focus on school choice and accountability. Both, however, aim to improve educational outcomes for future generations.
5. Support for Working-Class Populations: Although their methods and motivations differ, both left- and right-wing groups sometimes support policies aimed at helping the working class. The left often advocates for workers’ rights, minimum wage increases, and stronger labor protections. The right might champion tax cuts or deregulation that they believe will create jobs and strengthen wages.
6. Healthcare (Depending on Country): In some countries, there is bipartisan support for making healthcare accessible and affordable, though the approach varies. The left may push for universal healthcare systems or stronger government roles, while some right-leaning groups might seek to make healthcare more affordable through free-market competition or policy adjustments.
7. Foreign Policy Realism: While foreign policy often varies widely, some left- and right-wing groups advocate for caution in military intervention abroad. For instance, both left-leaning anti-war advocates and right-leaning isolationists or nationalists may oppose foreign intervention, though for different reasons.
8. Environmental Conservation: Environmental conservation can sometimes receive cross-party support. While the left may focus on climate action and regulations for sustainability, right-leaning advocates in rural areas might promote conservation for the sake of preserving hunting lands, water resources, and local ecosystems. Some conservative factions also support market-based environmental solutions, like tax incentives for green energy.
These areas of convergence illustrate that while left- and right-wing ideologies generally differ on principles and methods, they sometimes share common goals or concerns—though they may approach these issues from different values and perspectives. The extent of overlap often depends on cultural context, historical background, and the specific policy issue at hand.
I think we should hear Anna out and not condemn her.
hi @vanidackp, to be clear: so far as I know, she hasn’t come close to doing anything to warrant removal, and in fact has done plenty to warrant continuing to value her strong contributions. I would be intensely upset if she were ever removed without extremely good cause which, so far as I am concerned, she has not given.
I am just really disappointed when she tells people to stop listening if they don’t agree with her. Everyone on the network works very hard to grow TYT and comments like that (and she has said it many times) really are disheartening. I think at this point we need to put together a GoFundMe for a therapist, so she has someone to yell these ideas at.
Being a longtime Mental Health Therapist, who is now retired, I have to disagree that a therapeutic referral is warranted here. For more details as to why I believe this, I would point you to the 1992 book called “We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy – and the World’s Getting Worse,” which was a collaboration between James Hillman and Michael Ventura. Simply put, “the two authors agree that Psychotherapy, as it is currently conceived, is inadequate to deal with modern anxieties and neuroses,” and – by the way – this was before it got even worse with the development of short-term Cognitive Behavioral Therapy combined with Psychiatric numbing as a cure to what ails one. I would also add that therapy is not intended to be a place to simply vent without taking action after gaining some insight about one’s own projections and reluctance to find something different until they find something that consistently works in their lives. Besides, TYT and the Progressives foolishly backed the Democrats, despite them being funded by the same Billionaire Elites that funded Trump and his Cronies. I hate to state the obvious here, but the lesser of Evils is still Evil. Yes, whether you like what Ana is becoming or not, I would say that the direction of TYT is still very much up in the air. Besides, I can’t be the only person who remembers that Kamala Harris was a key figure in bringing down NewTimes Publishing, which actually funded the closest thing to Independent Media that has ever been seen in this country. How did Progressives really believe that she was the Candidate to lead the World going forward? Besides, I would argue that most Democrats are under the elusion that they are on the Left, when, in fact, they are really Right Leaning Centrists. Did People really believe that the Lincoln Project had moved over to the Democratic side because they had simply come to their senses? Wow, there is a lot to shovel here, and I am afraid that I don’t have a big enough shovel to handle this particular Project.
I am interested in what you think is the solution for someone struggling with problems. Everyone points to therapy so if there is something we are missing I am interested. My suggestion that Ana seek therapy is a little bit tongue
in cheek but I recognize that she is dealing with undue, unwarranted and untrue criticisms from all corners and she needs a release. I am not necessarily against a good rant right at her audience. But when the period on the sentence at the end of the rant is to implore people that disagree with her that they should leave the channel - that is going too far. I can listen to her when she has a co-anchor but I have given up on listening to her solo shows.
Kamala Harris ended up being our candidate because we have a stupid process. The process has learned all the wrong lessons and is manipulated by people that believe they are doing what is best for the party. Whatever we learned about Kennedy/Carter primary we need to forget. We have candidates that run in exactly the same lane (Warren/Sanders). And really we select for people that are good at campaigning and not necessarily leading. The other thing is we don’t have elections often enough to really learn anything. Every election is a thumbprint.
I agree that the chiding and the whole “if you don’t like it you can just leave” mentality get old quick. Paying to hear someone yell at me and insult my intelligence regularly is something I have no interest in. My hope was that TYT was becoming a place where all sides can respectfully come together–and I was excited for that, you know? Because of some classes I’ve been taking, I haven’t been able to keep up with watching the main show, so I’ll have to see what I’m getting myself into the next few weeks here. I’m not gonna lie, it makes me sad.
@vxweers I defended Ana at first, but Cenk and Ana seem to be going down this whole rant at us rabbit hole now. Maybe I missed the signs that this was happening. Anyways, I took Ana’s advice and I unsubscribed from Cenk and Ana’s show. I’m still subscribed to all the other shows that are part of the TYT network. Sometimes, when someone tells us to go away, it’s not a bad idea to do just that.
If you are danger to yourself or others, get help immediately and psychiatric and cognitive behavioral therapy is the absolute appropriate solution for that. Safety should always be the priority. Unfortunately, labeling someone as needing therapy or mental health treatment is really an Ad Hominem attack. As an example and present company excluded, People on the Right, who I would argue are sociopathic, like doing this, because it gets a rise out of people. Since they have no feelings themselves, it stimulants their otherwise dulled neurological systems. Unfortunately, at this point, there is no productive debate anymore. It reminds me of the stories of War of Old, where they couldn’t just obliterate someone from afar. Most often, nobody was really eager to fight, so they would ride up to one another and attack each other verbally before becoming physical. Though the Chaos of today is scary, it is good. Trump and his cronies rode into office on a Populist Agenda. Wait until the Unruly Masses realize they have no intention of delivering on said promises. If anyone is truly observing all of this, Trump and his Cronies have been using the Reality Television lessons learned that saved his butt back in the day by joining “The Apprentice.” He’s not seriously planning on replacing the government nor are his lunatic loyalists capable of such. Trump and Company are looking for algorithm moving click bait, because whether they hate you or love you, they are still talking about you. Lasting change will only come from detailed research and tireless planning combined with good old fashioned problem solving, which requires doing something differently until you find something that works. This constant Cycle of Drama for Entertainment Purposes will get old quickly, especially when life becomes harder for enough people.
I really didn’t mean to suggest Ana had any psychosocial problems and I sincerely do not want to attack her ad hominem or otherwise. I just want her to find someone else to yell at other than me and I thought a therapist might take it all in and add some perspective.
I probably should not quote my daughter without her permission but I am going to do it anyway. My wife and I adopted her from China in about 2002. She has returned to China teach English as a second language.
"There is a big difference between how Mainland Chinse people and Chinese American’s/Chinese immigrants living in America view people like me.
I get the feeling of “you are not truly Chinese/ you can’t be Chinese like we are” (Like being Chinese it is something you need to earn) from the Chinese Americans. But from Chinese Mainlanders I get “you look Chinese, your ancestors are Chinese, you are Chinese”. Very interesting. Of course they still point out and mention differences but it is not the same feeling as in the US. "
Our mainstream media and even the Young Turks spend all their time pointing out all of our differences instead of our commonalities.