Alright, I watched the video. I can see how TED doesn't want to become platform for brief political speeches like that. It runs the danger of becoming an endless back and forth that's better suited for a debate format. A presentation on "Thorium reactors are cool" is more tangible, finite, and ultimately spreadable.
Because I don't actually subscribe to the cite absolutely everything philosophy I'll take your word for it. I do not, however, think that TED is the height of argumentation. Hanauer's speech might be un-TEDlike, but that doesn't mean that it's poor quality.
Brian Krakow on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Because I don't actually subscribe to the cite absolutely everything philosophy I'll take your word for it. I do not, however, think that TED is the height of argumentation. Hanauer's speech might be un-TEDlike, but that doesn't mean that it's poor quality.
But, if it is un-TEDlike, then it is poor quality to be spread via the TED mechanism is it not?
Because I don't actually subscribe to the cite absolutely everything philosophy I'll take your word for it. I do not, however, think that TED is the height of argumentation. Hanauer's speech might be un-TEDlike, but that doesn't mean that it's poor quality.
But, if it is un-TEDlike, then it is poor quality to be spread via the TED mechanism is it not?
Poor quality implies that it is somehow objectively bad.
TED can set whatever parameters they want, but I find their priorities misplaced and Anderson's response disingenuous.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Because I don't actually subscribe to the cite absolutely everything philosophy I'll take your word for it. I do not, however, think that TED is the height of argumentation. Hanauer's speech might be un-TEDlike, but that doesn't mean that it's poor quality.
But, if it is un-TEDlike, then it is poor quality to be spread via the TED mechanism is it not?
Poor quality implies that it is somehow objectively bad.
TED can set whatever parameters they want, but I find their priorities misplaced and Anderson's response disingenuous.
That's your right and that's fine, but TED gets to have whatever priorities it wants since it is its own thing. I also don't see why this particular event should make talks about thorium reactors or what have you any less useful or reliable.
Because I don't actually subscribe to the cite absolutely everything philosophy I'll take your word for it. I do not, however, think that TED is the height of argumentation. Hanauer's speech might be un-TEDlike, but that doesn't mean that it's poor quality.
But, if it is un-TEDlike, then it is poor quality to be spread via the TED mechanism is it not?
Poor quality implies that it is somehow objectively bad.
TED can set whatever parameters they want, but I find their priorities misplaced and Anderson's response disingenuous.
Furthermore, the quality argument seems to be something that appeared late in the game, when it became clear that Hanauer was not going to just walk away from this.
Anderson isn't right. The wealthy don't drive demand at all, because there's not enough of them to do so.
Sometimes, once in a while, somebody comes up with an invention, markets that invention, and then only after the invention is released do people see it and go, "Hey, I really want that."
That's what Anderson's talking about. He's talking about iPhones, not yachts.
Hanauer: You can't grow seeds in dust, you need soil.
Anderson: But who plants those seeds?
They are both talking about iPhones. Anderson's reply is not a refutation of Hanauer's statement, it is a dodge. You are making the same mistake as him, or a very similar one.
No product, no matter how innovative or well marketed, can be sold to consumers who do not exist. This argument is neither wrong nor incomplete. You cannot sell a person something they did not know they needed if they cannot purchase it.
Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
Anderson isn't right. The wealthy don't drive demand at all, because there's not enough of them to do so.
Sometimes, once in a while, somebody comes up with an invention, markets that invention, and then only after the invention is released do people see it and go, "Hey, I really want that."
That's what Anderson's talking about. He's talking about iPhones, not yachts.
Hanauer: You can't grow seeds in dust, you need soil.
Anderson: But who plants those seeds?
They are both talking about iPhones. Anderson's reply is not a refutation of Hanauer's statement, it is a dodge. You are making the same mistake as him, or a very similar one.
No product, no matter how innovative or well marketed, can be sold to consumers who do not exist. This argument is neither wrong nor incomplete. You cannot sell a person something they did not know they needed if they cannot purchase it.
"hiring more people is a course of last resort, done if and only if rising consumer demand requires it".
You're talking about products being sold. Anderson is talking about jobs being created. Two separate issues.
I can hire 10 people to sell lemonade tomorrow. Even if no customers show up, those 10 people were still hired. They probably won't stay hired for very long, but they were hired all the same, despite being no customers.
Now, a more accurate phrasing might have been, "hiring more people can only be sustained if rising consumer demand can support it." No one here would be arguing with that sustained. But the specific way that the statement was phrased was stupid.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I'm sorry but the only issue here seems to be yet again young naive hipsters putting something on a pedestal and then being shocked when it wasn't what they thought. Like Obama.
So what? Has TED secretly turned people libertarian yet?
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
I don't really care about TED in particular (though the rank dishonesty of Anderson's response annoys the hell out of me), but it reflects a very disturbing trend in society where the quality of arguments are judged on their politeness.
Not their politeness, but rather their lack of stirring up the ire of Roger Ailes or Rush Limbaugh or the like. Start pointing too many fingers at causes of certain problems and suddenly the right-wing media (which unlike the "liberal media", does actually exist) descends on your ass. Or some other similar group for some other topic.
Alright, I watched the video. I can see how TED doesn't want to become platform for brief political speeches like that. It runs the danger of becoming an endless back and forth that's better suited for a debate format. A presentation on "Thorium reactors are cool" is more tangible, finite, and ultimately spreadable.
It more runs the danger of what I mention above.
TED has never been afraid of tackling political subjects. It just appears they are afraid of doing so in any way that actually points a direct finger at somebody. Vague solutions only please.
Anderson isn't right. The wealthy don't drive demand at all, because there's not enough of them to do so.
Sometimes, once in a while, somebody comes up with an invention, markets that invention, and then only after the invention is released do people see it and go, "Hey, I really want that."
That's what Anderson's talking about. He's talking about iPhones, not yachts.
Hanauer: You can't grow seeds in dust, you need soil.
Anderson: But who plants those seeds?
They are both talking about iPhones. Anderson's reply is not a refutation of Hanauer's statement, it is a dodge. You are making the same mistake as him, or a very similar one.
No product, no matter how innovative or well marketed, can be sold to consumers who do not exist. This argument is neither wrong nor incomplete. You cannot sell a person something they did not know they needed if they cannot purchase it.
"hiring more people is a course of last resort, done if and only if rising consumer demand requires it".
You're talking about products being sold. Anderson is talking about jobs being created. Two separate issues.
I can hire 10 people to sell lemonade tomorrow. Even if no customers show up, those 10 people were still hired. They probably won't stay hired for very long, but they were hired all the same, despite being no customers.
Now, a more accurate phrasing might have been, "hiring more people can only be sustained if rising consumer demand can support it." No one here would be arguing with that sustained. But the specific way that the statement was phrased was stupid.
Except no one in these discussions is ever using a short enough time frame for your point to be relevant.
TED has never been afraid of tackling political subjects. It just appears they are afraid of doing so in any way that actually points a direct finger at somebody. Vague solutions only please.
Mr (Edit: DOCTOR) Goldacre specifically calls out numerous people and products - many of which are extremely high profile - and, most importantly, backs up why they should be called out with examples of what they have done. He calls people "idiots" and "freaks", but then says WHY he's doing so.
My reading of the TED response was that while they agreed with Hanauer's point, they found his speech poorly articulated - something I agree with.
As a point by point breakdown:
- Sweeping generalizations: "This is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats". Cite evidence please.
Really? You want a citation for that, of all things? In an academic paper, let alone a five minute speech, that would fall under common knowledge.
Yes, if he wants to make sweeping assertions, he needs to cite. Drop a quote from a GOP conference or whatever, but the golden rule of ANY argument is IF YOU MAKE A POINT YOU BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
Edit: ESPECIALLY if you are calling it an "article of faith".
We have create rules of citations for a reason. That reason is to provide evidence for a claim when it is needed. In instances where the knowledge is common, or ought to be, citation is not needed.
Part of the reason is that citing common knowledge is very difficult. Often for two reasons, one is that common knowledge is rarely recorded with authority. Its like citing the fact "the sky is blue". He should not have to do that, he should just tell you to "look the fuck outside" and, if in doing a presentation he claims that the sky is blue he should not have to cite it.
This is one of those things. That you asked for a cite for this is also when i stopped reading your post.
I tend to avoid things that people tell me to watch because other people don't want me to watch them. Seems too much like reverse psychology.
Was the speech in question particularly brilliant in anyway, or are people just praising it because of the message?
The message. It's not particularly well organized, and like I said in an earlier post anyone who's gone through a decent macroeconomics course should know most of that already. But if you haven't I don't think you're really going to learn much .
Basically, while I agree with his conclusion based on my own research and education, I don't think he did that great a job laying out the evidence to support that conclusion in his speech, and some of his claims definitely go far beyond any evidence he presents.
He doesn't do the best job, but he also only had three minutes, and had to get over the cultural hurdle before he could start talking about a model and the evidence for it.
The question of how and when jobs are created is not simple. I am not sure it can be accurately described in a basic economics course.
TED has never been afraid of tackling political subjects. It just appears they are afraid of doing so in any way that actually points a direct finger at somebody. Vague solutions only please.
Mr (Edit: DOCTOR) Goldacre specifically calls out numerous people and products - many of which are extremely high profile - and, most importantly, backs up why they should be called out with examples of what they have done. He calls people "idiots" and "freaks", but then says WHY he's doing so.
Please. Watching that, he's not taking swipes at anyone with any clout or power.
TED has never been afraid of tackling political subjects. It just appears they are afraid of doing so in any way that actually points a direct finger at somebody. Vague solutions only please.
Mr (Edit: DOCTOR) Goldacre specifically calls out numerous people and products - many of which are extremely high profile - and, most importantly, backs up why they should be called out with examples of what they have done. He calls people "idiots" and "freaks", but then says WHY he's doing so.
Please. Watching that, he's not taking swipes at anyone with any clout or power.
Well, just two of the companies that he names each earn literally $TEXA$ every year (Pfizer and Roche), and just one of the products he names (Tamiflu) has been used by more people than there are registered Republicans (to tie it back to the "partisan" comment of Hanaeur).
But it's nice to know that you don't consider these organizations as having clout or power.
Edits: Added specifics.
Archangle on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
TED has never been afraid of tackling political subjects. It just appears they are afraid of doing so in any way that actually points a direct finger at somebody. Vague solutions only please.
Mr (Edit: DOCTOR) Goldacre specifically calls out numerous people and products - many of which are extremely high profile - and, most importantly, backs up why they should be called out with examples of what they have done. He calls people "idiots" and "freaks", but then says WHY he's doing so.
Please. Watching that, he's not taking swipes at anyone with any clout or power.
Well, just two of the companies that he names each earn literally $TEXA$ every year (Pfizer and Roche), and just one of the products he names (Tamiflu) has been used by more people than there are registered Republicans (to tie it back to the "partisan" comment of Hanaeur).
But it's nice to know that you don't consider these organizations as having clout or power.
Edits: Added specifics.
Seriously
Pfizer buys politicians with pocket change
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
It occurs to me that an organization ostensibly concerned with disseminating good ideas regardless of their popularity or source can hardly claim to be living up to their mission statement if potential negative press or attention from the right-wing hate machine deters them. Being deterred by potential controversy is a clear abdication of that mission. It's a direct mirror of the free speech principle - popular speech need not be protected, likewise it's not the politically convenient ideas which need dissemination.
Plus, under a certain reading this is the technocratic solution - this is the answer that falls out the bottom when the numbers are crunched, it's the result of the disinterested analyses of the economy while ignoring the sacred cows that USAsian and USAsian influenced cultures hold.
Still have yet to hear any reason why this speech is particularly insightful.
The best I seem to be hearing is "It could be worse."
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The speech is broadly correct in its central thesis, is directly opposed to one of the most pervasive economic myths which drives a lot of current policy and is in a forum which lends it respectability based on the reputation of that forum, and as @AngelHedgie rightly points out, it directly calls out one of the primary audiences of TED the silicon valley venture capitalists.
It is important for those reasons alone. It's a challenge with a simple message that makes use of the respectability and reputation that TED has built if not for this purpose expressly, then what?
We have create rules of citations for a reason. That reason is to provide evidence for a claim when it is needed. In instances where the knowledge is common, or ought to be, citation is not needed.
Part of the reason is that citing common knowledge is very difficult. Often for two reasons, one is that common knowledge is rarely recorded with authority. Its like citing the fact "the sky is blue". He should not have to do that, he should just tell you to "look the fuck outside" and, if in doing a presentation he claims that the sky is blue he should not have to cite it.
This is one of those things. That you asked for a cite for this is also when i stopped reading your post.
Two things:
(a) Common knowledge can be wrong. As an example, consider "In the middle ages, most people thought the world was flat". It's wrong on two levels, both in regards that the world is (or was) flat, and in regards to most people thinking it. As was shown on QI (which I cited in an earlier post), the "common knowledge" that the "world is flat was common knowledge" is itself false.
If you are using sweeping generalizations as a cornerstone of your argument and in a deliberately inflammatory manner, you need to state your justification - especially when you are making comments on peoples' character (which cannot be empirically tested by anything near "look(ing) the fuck outside").
Would you care for me to state that Goumindong does not bother to read posts that he argues against? Why, I have a whole one example right above me - you can see I must be correct just by looking.
(b) "This is taken as an article of faith by Republicans" ignores the fact that at least one of their own primary candidates (Jon Huntsman) rejected Norquist's pledge for no new taxes (I'm not sure about Pawlenty, but if he did sign he took his sweet time). It's not applicable to all Republicans, and he should have been more judicious with his choice of words if he wanted to follow it up by badly comparing that model with some of the most notorious examples in Science history. "..and barely challenged by Democrats" ignores all the times it HAS been challenged (which makes me wonder if he counts himself in that "barely challenging" pool, or if it's just "everyone else").
If he had said "This is one of the strongest foundations of the modern Republican party, typified by the 'no new taxes' pledge that the majority of members have signed", that would be fine. But, no, he opted for closer to "All Republicans believe this theory that is, like, totally stupid. Lol".
Archangle on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It occurs to me that an organization ostensibly concerned with disseminating good ideas regardless of their popularity or source can hardly claim to be living up to their mission statement if potential negative press or attention from the right-wing hate machine deters them. Being deterred by potential controversy is a clear abdication of that mission. It's a direct mirror of the free speech principle - popular speech need not be protected, likewise it's not the politically convenient ideas which need dissemination.
Plus, under a certain reading this is the technocratic solution - this is the answer that falls out the bottom when the numbers are crunched, it's the result of the disinterested analyses of the economy while ignoring the sacred cows that USAsian and USAsian influenced cultures hold.
(a) Common knowledge can be wrong. As an example, consider "In the middle ages, most people thought the world was flat". It's wrong on two levels, both in regards that the world is (or was) flat, and in regards to most people thinking it. As was shown on QI (which I cited in an earlier post), the "common knowledge" that the "world is flat was common knowledge" is itself false.
So, now you're not just calling for a cite, you're calling for a goddamn empirical confirmation of every statement a speaker makes.
Edit: Because I hate myself, I watched the first three minutes of this:
By my count the esteemed Mr. Brooks makes at least three generalizations without any evidence to back them up within the first three minutes:
1) Politicians are "all emotional freaks one way or the other."
2) Despite politicians having superior social skills, policy failures are caused by a lack of social awareness
3) The American educational system has had disappointing results year after year.
The speech is broadly correct in its central thesis, is directly opposed to one of the most pervasive economic myths which drives a lot of current policy and is in a forum which lends it respectability based on the reputation of that forum, and as @AngelHedgie rightly points out, it directly calls out one of the primary audiences of TED the silicon valley venture capitalists.
It is important for those reasons alone. It's a challenge with a simple message that makes use of the respectability and reputation that TED has built if not for this purpose expressly, then what?
Wait, you say that the respectability of the talk is based on the reputation of the forum, and then claim that the forum doesn't have the right to throw out the speech based on its lack of respectability? If the speech is getting its respectability from TED and not from the talker or the arguments it makes itself, then TED has very little incentive to post it. TED only has the whole respectability angle going for it specifically because of the talks that it selects to display.
If TED were to post the talk in order to lend respectability to the central thesis of the talk then they would be very explicitly pushing an agenda, which is the image that they're trying to prevent here.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
The sad fact that this nontroversy will push one or more people away from thousands of minutes of great material is a victory for the right and regressives
TED has never been afraid of tackling political subjects. It just appears they are afraid of doing so in any way that actually points a direct finger at somebody. Vague solutions only please.
Mr (Edit: DOCTOR) Goldacre specifically calls out numerous people and products - many of which are extremely high profile - and, most importantly, backs up why they should be called out with examples of what they have done. He calls people "idiots" and "freaks", but then says WHY he's doing so.
Please. Watching that, he's not taking swipes at anyone with any clout or power.
Well, just two of the companies that he names each earn literally $TEXA$ every year (Pfizer and Roche), and just one of the products he names (Tamiflu) has been used by more people than there are registered Republicans (to tie it back to the "partisan" comment of Hanaeur).
But it's nice to know that you don't consider these organizations as having clout or power.
Edits: Added specifics.
That's not even an attack. Pfizer ignores six slurs to it's name more grievous before it has breakfest in the morning. It doesn't care and neither does any that matters to Pfizer.
The speech is broadly correct in its central thesis, is directly opposed to one of the most pervasive economic myths which drives a lot of current policy and is in a forum which lends it respectability based on the reputation of that forum, and as @AngelHedgie rightly points out, it directly calls out one of the primary audiences of TED the silicon valley venture capitalists.
It is important for those reasons alone. It's a challenge with a simple message that makes use of the respectability and reputation that TED has built if not for this purpose expressly, then what?
Wait, you say that the respectability of the talk is based on the reputation of the forum, and then claim that the forum doesn't have the right to throw out the speech based on its lack of respectability? If the speech is getting its respectability from TED and not from the talker or the arguments it makes itself, then TED has very little incentive to post it. TED only has the whole respectability angle going for it specifically because of the talks that it selects to display.
If TED were to post the talk in order to lend respectability to the central thesis of the talk then they would be very explicitly pushing an agenda, which is the image that they're trying to prevent here.
No, he said the forum lends respectability to the speech (that being the whole point of TED), not that the speeches content and reputation are solely based on it being on TED.
The sad fact that this nontroversy will push one or more people away from thousands of minutes of great material is a victory for the right and regressives
The sad fact that this nontroversy will push one or more people away from thousands of minutes of great material is a victory for the right and regressives
We have create rules of citations for a reason. That reason is to provide evidence for a claim when it is needed. In instances where the knowledge is common, or ought to be, citation is not needed.
Part of the reason is that citing common knowledge is very difficult. Often for two reasons, one is that common knowledge is rarely recorded with authority. Its like citing the fact "the sky is blue". He should not have to do that, he should just tell you to "look the fuck outside" and, if in doing a presentation he claims that the sky is blue he should not have to cite it.
This is one of those things. That you asked for a cite for this is also when i stopped reading your post.
Two things:
(a) Common knowledge can be wrong. As an example, consider "In the middle ages, most people thought the world was flat". It's wrong on two levels, both in regards that the world is (or was) flat, and in regards to most people thinking it. As was shown on QI (which I cited in an earlier post), the "common knowledge" that the "world is flat was common knowledge" is itself false.
[...]
If he had said "This is one of the strongest foundations of the modern Republican party, typified by the 'no new taxes' pledge that the majority of members have signed", that would be fine. But, no, he opted for closer to "All Republicans believe this theory that is, like, totally stupid. Lol".
Then you cite the wrongness of the common knowledge, not the common knowledge.
Or would you like TED to allow some intelligent design bible-belt homophobe and an Iranian theocrat to give a tag-team speech on why Gay People Will Destroy Us All?
I should be more bluntly honest. The TED brand, in its most used practical application, is seen as a safe place for professionals to communicate ideas.
In circles where it ranges from impolite to outright forbidden to transmit political messages - no videos from the American Enterprise Institute, Democratic/Republican Party or Occupy Wall Street - it is safe to send a TED talk. In circles where even a link from NPR would raise an eyebrow, no one would think twice about linking to a TED talk.
And I freely admit that there are a ton of problematic assumptions in this, but that's the niche TED has carved out in the professional world. Even with just this whiff of scandal, I imagine that a lot of the people who forwarded TED talks will think twice in the future.
Notably, the same was true for Komen. Komen's biggest supporters were corporations looking for politically "safe" causes to promote in the workplace. Like the United Way, Red Cross and a ton of other favorites of the professional world, TED has built up a niche in the professional world dedicated to the impossible dream of "keeping politics out of the workplace."
You know, I was on Hanauer and @AngelHedgie 's side, but this post tipped me over to TED's side. It's a rare example of internet words changing someone's mind and, ironically, I think it's opposite of @Phillisphere 's opinion.
TED is a safe brand. TED is something you can link to at work, and know that you'll be fine. This talk isn't something you can do that with. From about 17 seconds in, when he says the words republicans, it becomes NSFW in America's political climate. He could have tipped his hat and said "some people who use the words job creators" or even said "on the political right side" and it would have been fine; we all would have known who he means. With that outright jab at republicans, I couldn't show that at work without getting written up. My mom and brother would have equal odds (depending on their bosses political affiliations) of getting fired if they tried to show it. That's why it's not appropriate for TED.
It doesn't matter if what Hanauer said was true (and for the record, I do agree with him). What matters is that republicans who view that video will get 17 seconds in and then call it biased, and it'll get TED banned from the workplace too. Does it suck that TED has to take into account other people's divorcement from reality? Yeah it does suck. But it isn't in TED's best interest to have talks that are this controversial.
Or would you like TED to allow some intelligent design bible-belt homophobe and an Iranian theocrat to give a tag-team speech on why Gay People Will Destroy Us All?
I should be more bluntly honest. The TED brand, in its most used practical application, is seen as a safe place for professionals to communicate ideas.
In circles where it ranges from impolite to outright forbidden to transmit political messages - no videos from the American Enterprise Institute, Democratic/Republican Party or Occupy Wall Street - it is safe to send a TED talk. In circles where even a link from NPR would raise an eyebrow, no one would think twice about linking to a TED talk.
And I freely admit that there are a ton of problematic assumptions in this, but that's the niche TED has carved out in the professional world. Even with just this whiff of scandal, I imagine that a lot of the people who forwarded TED talks will think twice in the future.
Notably, the same was true for Komen. Komen's biggest supporters were corporations looking for politically "safe" causes to promote in the workplace. Like the United Way, Red Cross and a ton of other favorites of the professional world, TED has built up a niche in the professional world dedicated to the impossible dream of "keeping politics out of the workplace."
You know, I was on Hanauer and @AngelHedgie 's side, but this post tipped me over to TED's side. It's a rare example of internet words changing someone's mind and, ironically, I think it's opposite of @Phillisphere 's opinion.
TED is a safe brand. TED is something you can link to at work, and know that you'll be fine. This talk isn't something you can do that with. From about 17 seconds in, when he says the words republicans, it becomes NSFW in America's political climate. He could have tipped his hat and said "some people who use the words job creators" or even said "on the political right side" and it would have been fine; we all would have known who he means. With that outright jab at republicans, I couldn't show that at work without getting written up. My mom and brother would have equal odds (depending on their bosses political affiliations) of getting fired if they tried to show it. That's why it's not appropriate for TED.
It doesn't matter if what Hanauer said was true (and for the record, I do agree with him). What matters is that republicans who view that video will get 17 seconds in and then call it biased, and it'll get TED banned from the workplace too. Does it suck that TED has to take into account other people's divorcement from reality? Yeah it does suck. But it isn't in TED's best interest to have talks that are this controversial.
I agree with this actually.
TED has a large chance of being fucked no matter how they proceed now, a no-win situation. The best choices are in the past (mainly, asking Hanauer to give the talk on TED's main stage like they planned but also asking him to remove the direct partisan shot). Now, we and others on the Internet and the media are having this discussion, which is the last thing TED wants.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
It occurs to me that an organization ostensibly concerned with disseminating good ideas regardless of their popularity or source can hardly claim to be living up to their mission statement if potential negative press or attention from the right-wing hate machine deters them. Being deterred by potential controversy is a clear abdication of that mission. It's a direct mirror of the free speech principle - popular speech need not be protected, likewise it's not the politically convenient ideas which need dissemination.
Plus, under a certain reading this is the technocratic solution - this is the answer that falls out the bottom when the numbers are crunched, it's the result of the disinterested analyses of the economy while ignoring the sacred cows that USAsian and USAsian influenced cultures hold.
USAsian?
The subset of Americans who live in the country between Mexico and Canada.
Or would you like TED to allow some intelligent design bible-belt homophobe and an Iranian theocrat to give a tag-team speech on why Gay People Will Destroy Us All?
I should be more bluntly honest. The TED brand, in its most used practical application, is seen as a safe place for professionals to communicate ideas.
In circles where it ranges from impolite to outright forbidden to transmit political messages - no videos from the American Enterprise Institute, Democratic/Republican Party or Occupy Wall Street - it is safe to send a TED talk. In circles where even a link from NPR would raise an eyebrow, no one would think twice about linking to a TED talk.
And I freely admit that there are a ton of problematic assumptions in this, but that's the niche TED has carved out in the professional world. Even with just this whiff of scandal, I imagine that a lot of the people who forwarded TED talks will think twice in the future.
Notably, the same was true for Komen. Komen's biggest supporters were corporations looking for politically "safe" causes to promote in the workplace. Like the United Way, Red Cross and a ton of other favorites of the professional world, TED has built up a niche in the professional world dedicated to the impossible dream of "keeping politics out of the workplace."
You know, I was on Hanauer and @AngelHedgie 's side, but this post tipped me over to TED's side. It's a rare example of internet words changing someone's mind and, ironically, I think it's opposite of @Phillisphere 's opinion.
TED is a safe brand. TED is something you can link to at work, and know that you'll be fine. This talk isn't something you can do that with. From about 17 seconds in, when he says the words republicans, it becomes NSFW in America's political climate. He could have tipped his hat and said "some people who use the words job creators" or even said "on the political right side" and it would have been fine; we all would have known who he means. With that outright jab at republicans, I couldn't show that at work without getting written up. My mom and brother would have equal odds (depending on their bosses political affiliations) of getting fired if they tried to show it. That's why it's not appropriate for TED.
It doesn't matter if what Hanauer said was true (and for the record, I do agree with him). What matters is that republicans who view that video will get 17 seconds in and then call it biased, and it'll get TED banned from the workplace too. Does it suck that TED has to take into account other people's divorcement from reality? Yeah it does suck. But it isn't in TED's best interest to have talks that are this controversial.
so all you have to do is develop code language and you can politically lambast people all you want? Isn't that just delving even more into politics?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
TED is a safe brand. TED is something you can link to at work, and know that you'll be fine. This talk isn't something you can do that with. From about 17 seconds in, when he says the words republicans, it becomes NSFW in America's political climate. He could have tipped his hat and said "some people who use the words job creators" or even said "on the political right side" and it would have been fine; we all would have known who he means. With that outright jab at republicans, I couldn't show that at work without getting written up. My mom and brother would have equal odds (depending on their bosses political affiliations) of getting fired if they tried to show it. That's why it's not appropriate for TED.
...Y'know, I recognize that this is the common outlook on TED, but it's not an accurate one. TED has always featured some pretty radical speakers, as well as some downright disgusting ones. I love Sam Harris, for example, but he is not a 'safe' speaker. Rick Warren is not a 'safe' speaker. Bill Clinton & Al Gore are not really 'safe' speakers.
There are also a number of hilarious pseudo-science peddlers that use TED as a vehicle, and while perhaps the public at large might consider them okay, the academic community that TED caters to certainly wouldn't consider them 'safe'.
Though, you could make the argument that, while not striving to be exactly "safe", TED does make a conscious effort to at the very least appear wholesomely American - with all of the individualistic undertones that comes with it.
Now, getting on stage with the message that "Successful people aren't necessarily all that smart anyway" certainly goes contrary to this kind of all-American philosophy. TED can influence more people in America by adopting the core principles of American political rhetoric, namely an individualistic and opportunistic outlook on life in general - because more Americans feel comfortable in that kind of philosophical framework.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
Though, you could make the argument that, while not striving to be exactly "safe", TED does make a conscious effort to at the very least appear wholesomely American - with all of the individualistic undertones that comes with it.
Now, getting on stage with the message that "Successful people aren't necessarily all that smart anyway" certainly goes contrary to this kind of all-American philosophy. TED can influence more people in America by adopting the core principles of American political rhetoric, namely an individualistic and opportunistic outlook on life in general - because more Americans feel comfortable in that kind of philosophical framework.
I'm very dubious that it was the thesis that resulted in the censorship. I think it was one word: Republicans.
He called-out a specific political party, and that's off-limits at TED.
but if you can substitute it with less politically offensive language while still meaning the same thing at the same people, then it's all semantics and the whole framework is dumb
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
but if you can substitute it with less politically offensive language while still meaning the same thing at the same people, then it's all semantics and the whole framework is dumb
I could have a talk about how ethnicity effects incarceration rates, but if I use the n***** word nobody will care about what I have to say. I don't think that's just semantics.
Calling out a specific political party is a faux pas. It's not as offensive, but it's still unacceptable in this context.
But keeping with the analogy, if you just replaced it with "our african american friends" it should be just as offensive if the content is offensive. Now that I think of it, having that word being a sacred cow of our society is also really dumb.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
but if you can substitute it with less politically offensive language while still meaning the same thing at the same people, then it's all semantics and the whole framework is dumb
I could have a talk about how ethnicity effects incarceration rates, but if I use the n***** word nobody will care about what I have to say. I don't think that's just semantics.
Calling out a specific political party is a faux pas. It's not as offensive, but it's still unacceptable in this context.
Since when did republican become a dirty word? Your logic does not follow. You may take issue with him calling out a specific political party - but when that party is the one extolling the virtues of the very thing the speaker is arguing against, well, it seems apt to bring them up.
Posts
But, if it is un-TEDlike, then it is poor quality to be spread via the TED mechanism is it not?
Poor quality implies that it is somehow objectively bad.
TED can set whatever parameters they want, but I find their priorities misplaced and Anderson's response disingenuous.
That's your right and that's fine, but TED gets to have whatever priorities it wants since it is its own thing. I also don't see why this particular event should make talks about thorium reactors or what have you any less useful or reliable.
Furthermore, the quality argument seems to be something that appeared late in the game, when it became clear that Hanauer was not going to just walk away from this.
Hanauer: You can't grow seeds in dust, you need soil.
Anderson: But who plants those seeds?
They are both talking about iPhones. Anderson's reply is not a refutation of Hanauer's statement, it is a dodge. You are making the same mistake as him, or a very similar one.
No product, no matter how innovative or well marketed, can be sold to consumers who do not exist. This argument is neither wrong nor incomplete. You cannot sell a person something they did not know they needed if they cannot purchase it.
"hiring more people is a course of last resort, done if and only if rising consumer demand requires it".
You're talking about products being sold. Anderson is talking about jobs being created. Two separate issues.
I can hire 10 people to sell lemonade tomorrow. Even if no customers show up, those 10 people were still hired. They probably won't stay hired for very long, but they were hired all the same, despite being no customers.
Now, a more accurate phrasing might have been, "hiring more people can only be sustained if rising consumer demand can support it." No one here would be arguing with that sustained. But the specific way that the statement was phrased was stupid.
So what? Has TED secretly turned people libertarian yet?
Not their politeness, but rather their lack of stirring up the ire of Roger Ailes or Rush Limbaugh or the like. Start pointing too many fingers at causes of certain problems and suddenly the right-wing media (which unlike the "liberal media", does actually exist) descends on your ass. Or some other similar group for some other topic.
Look what happened to ACORN and fear.
It more runs the danger of what I mention above.
TED has never been afraid of tackling political subjects. It just appears they are afraid of doing so in any way that actually points a direct finger at somebody. Vague solutions only please.
Except no one in these discussions is ever using a short enough time frame for your point to be relevant.
That's not true:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html
Mr (Edit: DOCTOR) Goldacre specifically calls out numerous people and products - many of which are extremely high profile - and, most importantly, backs up why they should be called out with examples of what they have done. He calls people "idiots" and "freaks", but then says WHY he's doing so.
We have create rules of citations for a reason. That reason is to provide evidence for a claim when it is needed. In instances where the knowledge is common, or ought to be, citation is not needed.
Part of the reason is that citing common knowledge is very difficult. Often for two reasons, one is that common knowledge is rarely recorded with authority. Its like citing the fact "the sky is blue". He should not have to do that, he should just tell you to "look the fuck outside" and, if in doing a presentation he claims that the sky is blue he should not have to cite it.
This is one of those things. That you asked for a cite for this is also when i stopped reading your post.
He doesn't do the best job, but he also only had three minutes, and had to get over the cultural hurdle before he could start talking about a model and the evidence for it.
The question of how and when jobs are created is not simple. I am not sure it can be accurately described in a basic economics course.
Please. Watching that, he's not taking swipes at anyone with any clout or power.
Well, just two of the companies that he names each earn literally $TEXA$ every year (Pfizer and Roche), and just one of the products he names (Tamiflu) has been used by more people than there are registered Republicans (to tie it back to the "partisan" comment of Hanaeur).
But it's nice to know that you don't consider these organizations as having clout or power.
Edits: Added specifics.
Seriously
Pfizer buys politicians with pocket change
Plus, under a certain reading this is the technocratic solution - this is the answer that falls out the bottom when the numbers are crunched, it's the result of the disinterested analyses of the economy while ignoring the sacred cows that USAsian and USAsian influenced cultures hold.
The best I seem to be hearing is "It could be worse."
It is important for those reasons alone. It's a challenge with a simple message that makes use of the respectability and reputation that TED has built if not for this purpose expressly, then what?
Two things:
(a) Common knowledge can be wrong. As an example, consider "In the middle ages, most people thought the world was flat". It's wrong on two levels, both in regards that the world is (or was) flat, and in regards to most people thinking it. As was shown on QI (which I cited in an earlier post), the "common knowledge" that the "world is flat was common knowledge" is itself false.
If you are using sweeping generalizations as a cornerstone of your argument and in a deliberately inflammatory manner, you need to state your justification - especially when you are making comments on peoples' character (which cannot be empirically tested by anything near "look(ing) the fuck outside").
Would you care for me to state that Goumindong does not bother to read posts that he argues against? Why, I have a whole one example right above me - you can see I must be correct just by looking.
(b) "This is taken as an article of faith by Republicans" ignores the fact that at least one of their own primary candidates (Jon Huntsman) rejected Norquist's pledge for no new taxes (I'm not sure about Pawlenty, but if he did sign he took his sweet time). It's not applicable to all Republicans, and he should have been more judicious with his choice of words if he wanted to follow it up by badly comparing that model with some of the most notorious examples in Science history. "..and barely challenged by Democrats" ignores all the times it HAS been challenged (which makes me wonder if he counts himself in that "barely challenging" pool, or if it's just "everyone else").
If he had said "This is one of the strongest foundations of the modern Republican party, typified by the 'no new taxes' pledge that the majority of members have signed", that would be fine. But, no, he opted for closer to "All Republicans believe this theory that is, like, totally stupid. Lol".
USAsian?
Edit: Because I hate myself, I watched the first three minutes of this:
ted.com/talks/david_brooks_the_social_animal.html
By my count the esteemed Mr. Brooks makes at least three generalizations without any evidence to back them up within the first three minutes:
1) Politicians are "all emotional freaks one way or the other."
2) Despite politicians having superior social skills, policy failures are caused by a lack of social awareness
3) The American educational system has had disappointing results year after year.
Wait, you say that the respectability of the talk is based on the reputation of the forum, and then claim that the forum doesn't have the right to throw out the speech based on its lack of respectability? If the speech is getting its respectability from TED and not from the talker or the arguments it makes itself, then TED has very little incentive to post it. TED only has the whole respectability angle going for it specifically because of the talks that it selects to display.
If TED were to post the talk in order to lend respectability to the central thesis of the talk then they would be very explicitly pushing an agenda, which is the image that they're trying to prevent here.
I host a podcast about movies.
No, he said the forum lends respectability to the speech (that being the whole point of TED), not that the speeches content and reputation are solely based on it being on TED.
No person or organization is above reproach.
Agreed.
Then you cite the wrongness of the common knowledge, not the common knowledge.
You know, I was on Hanauer and @AngelHedgie 's side, but this post tipped me over to TED's side. It's a rare example of internet words changing someone's mind and, ironically, I think it's opposite of @Phillisphere 's opinion.
TED is a safe brand. TED is something you can link to at work, and know that you'll be fine. This talk isn't something you can do that with. From about 17 seconds in, when he says the words republicans, it becomes NSFW in America's political climate. He could have tipped his hat and said "some people who use the words job creators" or even said "on the political right side" and it would have been fine; we all would have known who he means. With that outright jab at republicans, I couldn't show that at work without getting written up. My mom and brother would have equal odds (depending on their bosses political affiliations) of getting fired if they tried to show it. That's why it's not appropriate for TED.
It doesn't matter if what Hanauer said was true (and for the record, I do agree with him). What matters is that republicans who view that video will get 17 seconds in and then call it biased, and it'll get TED banned from the workplace too. Does it suck that TED has to take into account other people's divorcement from reality? Yeah it does suck. But it isn't in TED's best interest to have talks that are this controversial.
I agree with this actually.
TED has a large chance of being fucked no matter how they proceed now, a no-win situation. The best choices are in the past (mainly, asking Hanauer to give the talk on TED's main stage like they planned but also asking him to remove the direct partisan shot). Now, we and others on the Internet and the media are having this discussion, which is the last thing TED wants.
The subset of Americans who live in the country between Mexico and Canada.
so all you have to do is develop code language and you can politically lambast people all you want? Isn't that just delving even more into politics?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
...Y'know, I recognize that this is the common outlook on TED, but it's not an accurate one. TED has always featured some pretty radical speakers, as well as some downright disgusting ones. I love Sam Harris, for example, but he is not a 'safe' speaker. Rick Warren is not a 'safe' speaker. Bill Clinton & Al Gore are not really 'safe' speakers.
There are also a number of hilarious pseudo-science peddlers that use TED as a vehicle, and while perhaps the public at large might consider them okay, the academic community that TED caters to certainly wouldn't consider them 'safe'.
Now, getting on stage with the message that "Successful people aren't necessarily all that smart anyway" certainly goes contrary to this kind of all-American philosophy. TED can influence more people in America by adopting the core principles of American political rhetoric, namely an individualistic and opportunistic outlook on life in general - because more Americans feel comfortable in that kind of philosophical framework.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
I'm very dubious that it was the thesis that resulted in the censorship. I think it was one word: Republicans.
He called-out a specific political party, and that's off-limits at TED.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I could have a talk about how ethnicity effects incarceration rates, but if I use the n***** word nobody will care about what I have to say. I don't think that's just semantics.
Calling out a specific political party is a faux pas. It's not as offensive, but it's still unacceptable in this context.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Since when did republican become a dirty word? Your logic does not follow. You may take issue with him calling out a specific political party - but when that party is the one extolling the virtues of the very thing the speaker is arguing against, well, it seems apt to bring them up.