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

61–70 of 202 posts

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#61

Post by daniel_solano »

daenz wrote: post #52
daniel_solano wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, and I accept that it is possible that the facts as stated in the article are wrong. However, if we accept them as true, the speaker: 1. Hired a PR firm in an attempt to threaten TED into publishing his talk. 2. When that failed, he misrepresented TED (by selectively quoting private correspondence) to the media in order to create the subsequent firestorm. I will accept that the speaker may be passionate about…

> However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open. How do you conclude that? The only possible dishonesty I've seen is about how the talk was handled, not the content of the talk. He seems all for open discussion of the content of the talk.

Well, it's not something that I have definitely concluded, but in my opinion, the speaker has lost significant credibility. If someone is willing to lie and bully in order to voice a particular opinion, why should I not expect them to lie or bully in trying persuade me to that opinion? No, it isn't a given, but that's the way I see it.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#62

Post by tripzilch »

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.

What? No. As an outsider, it is yet another example that both your parties are perfectly worthless. "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use" is only partisan if there was a snowflake's chance in hell that they'd actually do something. But the Big People with their arms in the puppet on the right don't want that just as little as the ones fisting the puppet on the left.

Four years after replacing the Beast with the Smiler, and what have you learned?

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#63

Post by daenz »

perspectiveless wrote: post #48

Ted is a circle jerk for rich people of course they don't want to hear about inequality.

This was an issue on Reddit and elsewhere. Ticket prices to a TED talk are at least $6k apparently http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_l...

One ticket went for $33k http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a...

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#64

Post by saraid216 »

rexreed wrote: post #31
scott_s wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Less bad" != "Good"

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#65

Post by waterlesscloud »

daenz wrote: post #63
perspectiveless wrote: post #48

Ted is a circle jerk for rich people of course they don't want to hear about inequality.

This was an issue on Reddit and elsewhere. Ticket prices to a TED talk are at least $6k apparently http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_l... One ticket went for $33k http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a...

How much is a ticket to their youtube channel?

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#66

Post by CamperBob2 »

perspectiveless wrote: post #48

Ted is a circle jerk for rich people of course they don't want to hear about inequality.

Especially when the person lecturing them about inequality uses blatant, easily-debunked lies to do it. ("When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest...")

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#67

Post by pauljonas »

scott_s wrote: post #38
pauljonas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an affliction by which people muddle objectivity with neutrality. One can adopt a neutral (NPOV as they say in Wikipedia land) vantage point, yet be terribly biased, even if it is simply confined to what is filtered out. One can be biased to an intellectual (or political) plank, yet be objective in evaluating arguments and evidence.

Yes, tribalism can induce such ills as well as invoke cognitive dissonance, but it is not a default setting.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#68

Post by twelvechairs »

> The audience at TED who heard it live... gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.

Without disputing the 'ratings' (whatever these may be), its pretty obvious from the youtube video that the actual audience response is very positive rather than mediocre (the majority of the audience seem to give a standing ovation and there is pretty emphatic applause all around).

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#69

Post by _3u10 »

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…

I think it's sort of like the hacker news policy, don't post stuff that people can read about elsewhere.

If you talk to most people involved in a particular issue (eg. not politicians) they tend to have views that diverge from the party line, when a talk lines up perfectly with a particular party it comes off more like talking points than an engaging topic.

Imagine a talk on states rights that comes out against abortion and for the war on drugs. Sounds to me like Republican crap rather than an intelligent debate on the separation of powers in government. I think this is what TED is trying to avoid, they're all for an intelligent debate on separation of powers, but against spewing republican or democratic talking points.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#70

Post by lotharbot »

lukifer wrote: post #53
praptak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this particular decision was not about the message but about the way it was delivered. My hypothesis is that the same topic presented in a wikipediish NPOV style would fare much better. And symmetrically if you spiced a talk about climate change with jabs at replublicans it would share the fate of the talk in question.

Admittedly, the one reference he made to parties at the beginning was unnecessary (somehow, I hadn't even heard it). But he isn't calling out any party; he is calling out a particular policy , and the way of thinking that pre-dates it, that he feels is counter-productive. There is no way to criticize the ideas he does without being "political". To put the shoe on the other foot: let's say someone had data which demon…

> "let's say someone had data which demonstrated that [partisan policy X is] bad.... How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way"

"It is important to help [group] overcome [disadvantage]. We have new data showing that [policy], while stemming from admirable goals, is ultimately counterproductive, leading to worse outcomes than would be expected without such a policy in place." Then discuss the data, without specifically naming any politician or political party or questioning anyone's motives. Make recommendations based on the idea of doing right by those you're trying to help, rather than making accusations based on the idea of the other side being evil or stupid.

It's certainly true that some people would interpret your statement in a partisan way. Some people would assume you were secretly funded by the Association of Partisan Conspirators. But by focusing on data rather than partisan cheap shots, you would give them little to go on, and you would be more engaging to those who are honestly interested in doing the right thing.

Post reply on HN