Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TED and inequality: The real story

tedchris.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 202 posts

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#31

Post by rexreed »

scott_s wrote: post #25
alecco wrote: post #17

Released video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI "This idea is an oracle of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats." Clearly against bi-partisan and not pro-democrat. Very bad move by TED. Also, the quality of many TED presentations is a joke so they can't pull that card.

The implication is that the Republicans are wrong and the Democrats should challenge it. In other words, "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use." That's partisan.

I think that's the only sentence / segment in the whole talk that refers to one party or the other. Indeed, this talk is relevant even in countries where neither party exists. It seems a heck of a lot less partisan than what passes for news on a daily basis around these parts -- pick your cable news network of choice.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#32

Post by gee_totes »

sp332 wrote: post #16
emehrkay wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jon Stewart said the other 'liberal/reality' quote

Did he say it first? The first page of Google hits is covered with Colbert saying it at the Correspondents' Dinner in 2006. Edit: here it is, "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liber…

'Reality has a well known Google bias'

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#33

Post by jerf »

debacle wrote: post #5
waterlesscloud wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to anyone other than the party being supported.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

Are actually making that claim, or is that an attempt to archly demonstrate the point being made? Because if you're seriously making that claim as others had, I can barely count the number of fallacies and debate style errors it contains with both hands.

If you weren't trying to provide an example of how explicitly partisan debates can just shut down all conversation, you still did a good job.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#34

Post by roguecoder »

dkhenry wrote: post #11

Its amazing what a little truth sheds on an otherwise perfect angry mob. After hearing from both sides I hope those who accused TED of censorship will be kind enough to apologise.

"Censorship" is the wrong word, but I'll stand by my accusations of cowardliness. If what he said was an irrelevant ad hominem attack (like "Republicans smell and are ugly") I'd understand their reluctance, but it was an accurate description of the actions of a political party. By ruling such topics off limits, they are intellectually hobbling the discussions that can be had. We can not address the problems they are so enamored of without addressing the forces that have a vested interest in maintaining them.

Their current position is like an agnostic who says, "well, we can never know..." when what they mean is "of course the idea of a divine being is a human invention, but if I say that some people might not like me as much." They are cowards, and I have little respect for cowards.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#35

Post by pauljonas »

scott_s wrote: post #19
nkurz wrote: post #2

The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…

There is a difference between being controversial and being partisan. The talk directly calls out Republicans. Based on what Chris Anderson said, they would welcome a talk on that controversial subject, but it couldn't call out political parties.

But that is the problem, in a nutshell.

We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit.

But let us not speak of it.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#36

Post by borism »

scott_s wrote: post #19
nkurz wrote: post #2

The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…

There is a difference between being controversial and being partisan. The talk directly calls out Republicans. Based on what Chris Anderson said, they would welcome a talk on that controversial subject, but it couldn't call out political parties.

except it calls out both Republicans AND Democrats.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#37

Post by daniel_solano »

klochner wrote: post #10

If true, the aggressively planned PR campaign indicates that this was more than just a politically-sensitive topic, but rather a politically-motivated talk: He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us . . . TED should allow sensitive topics, but to allow others to use TED manipulatively as a pawn in the larger political debate subverts their mission and damages their cre…

Whether or not the talk was politically motivated, if this article is correct about what the speaker did as a result of rejection, the speaker is an attention-seeking demagogue that uses threats and deception for self-promotion.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#38

Post by scott_s »

pauljonas wrote: post #35
scott_s wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between being controversial and being partisan. The talk directly calls out Republicans. Based on what Chris Anderson said, they would welcome a talk on that controversial subject, but it couldn't call out political parties.

But that is the problem, in a nutshell. We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit. But let us not speak of it.

Attacking a political party invites various cognitive biases related to tribalism - both for the people who like and dislike that party. It makes it more difficult for an audience to evaluate your arguments on their own merit.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#39

Post by batista »

nkurz wrote: post #2

The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…

>Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is?

When money and power is involved, you don't get to be independent in the US (or a lot of other places for that matter).

You have the right to free speech as long as you talk for inconsequential issues, if you talk for anything else you are labeled a "partisan" (that goes for both republicans and democrats, and even every other stance).

You are of course free to raise very important issues for society as a whole, but not in a way that implies that the way the power/financial system works is bad in toto -- the best you can get away with is "inefficient".

That is, you have free speech as long as you don't use it for real political causes. Any other partial view is allowed (gay or anti-gay, abortion or pro-life, etc...).

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#40

Post by chc »

pauljonas wrote: post #35
scott_s wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between being controversial and being partisan. The talk directly calls out Republicans. Based on what Chris Anderson said, they would welcome a talk on that controversial subject, but it couldn't call out political parties.

But that is the problem, in a nutshell. We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit. But let us not speak of it.

Go ahead and speak of it. Nobody's stopping you. It just won't get you on TED's website.
Post reply on HN