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.
What he means is that TED's tried its hardest to be "non-partisan" so businesses will link to it and it'll get support. If they have a speech that rails against a specific party (not just a platform) and mentions the party by name, all the Republican businesses will go "hey, TED's just a liberal mouthpiece!" and quit using/buying tickets for TED. TED wants to sell tickets, so they want as many people to like them as possible. Hence their banning of anything that seems like a hitpiece.
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 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.
No, it really wouldn't be just as offensive. That's what I've been saying. He could have used something other than a direct callout to republicans, and he didn't. As people have noted, there are other talks about income inequality on TED, but this particular one was banned. Maybe it's because it's so much more anti-libertarian than all the other ones, or maybe it's because the speaker insults half the united states in his opening statement. I'm going with the latter.
There's a huge difference between saying "<x> economic policy does not work" and "the REPUBLICAN economic policy <x> does not work". Even if they're the exact same economic policy.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
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.
Pretty much. Republicans are doing a thing he's speaking out against. It would be disingenuous of him not o mention them by name. Referring to them as "they who shall not be named" is just ridiculous. This isn't Harry Potter.
Pretty much. Republicans are doing a thing he's speaking out against. It would be disingenuous of him not o mention them by name. Referring to them as "they who shall not be named" is just ridiculous. This isn't Harry Potter.
I'd just note, again, that I agree with the statement itself & with calling-out Republicans - but TED clearly does not, and I'm pretty sure this specific thing is spelled-out in TED's 'golden tenets' or whatever they're called (along with 'do not plug your business on TED').
My bet is that if the word 'Republicans' hadn't been used, there would've been no issue and this talk would've been featured much like any other.
Pretty much. Republicans are doing a thing he's speaking out against. It would be disingenuous of him not o mention them by name. Referring to them as "they who shall not be named" is just ridiculous. This isn't Harry Potter.
I'd just note, again, that I agree with the statement itself & with calling-out Republicans - but TED clearly does not, and I'm pretty sure this specific thing is spelled-out in TED's 'golden tenets' or whatever they're called (along with 'do not plug your business on TED').
My bet is that if the word 'Republicans' hadn't been used, there would've been no issue and this talk would've been featured much like any other.
Yeah, the talk didn't press any magic buttons. It just wasn't 1 out of 1,000 great, and it was unnecessarily partisan-political. Dude lawyered up the second he heard he wouldn't be posted. Crybaby.
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.
Pretty much. Republicans are doing a thing he's speaking out against. It would be disingenuous of him not o mention them by name. Referring to them as "they who shall not be named" is just ridiculous. This isn't Harry Potter.
I'd just note, again, that I agree with the statement itself & with calling-out Republicans - but TED clearly does not, and I'm pretty sure this specific thing is spelled-out in TED's 'golden tenets' or whatever they're called (along with 'do not plug your business on TED').
My bet is that if the word 'Republicans' hadn't been used, there would've been no issue and this talk would've been featured much like any other.
And the talk would have been about 1000 times less informative and accurate for it.
It's an interesting, if unsurprising, showcase of the limits of TED.
"You can talk about the big problems of this world. Unless they are caused by the GOP. Then we're gonna have to ask you to be really vague about the whole thing, please and thank you."
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Dude lawyered up the second he heard he wouldn't be posted. Crybaby.
No, he didn't. Read the OP. He'd already hired a PR firm to promote the book he co-authored on this very subject. Anderson used a lie of omission to say they were hired in response to this incident.
Let's talk about a subject but avoid addressing the issue directly.
Sounds pretty juvenile to me. I graduated from high school so that I could leave it behind - not so that I had to deal with the same crap as an adult - and I'll drag anyone up to my level before stooping to theirs. I'm pretty happy that the speaker was direct about this.
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.
That's because n****r is a slur.
Republican is not.
I don't think he meant specifically Republicans, it applies to all political parties. The "controversial" speech only mentioned Republicans so they're the obvious example.
Let's talk about a subject but avoid addressing the issue directly.
Sounds pretty juvenile to me. I graduated from high school so that I could leave it behind - not so that I had to deal with the same crap as an adult - and I'll drag anyone up to my level before stooping to theirs. I'm pretty happy that the speaker was direct about this.
I think that Morozov best sums up the issue in the lede to the second part of the piece:
I can surmise why the Khannas would have wanted to write this book, but it is not immediately obvious why TED Books would have wanted to publish it. I must disclose that I spoke at a TED Global Conference in Oxford in 2009, and I admit that my appearance there certainly helped to expose my argument to a much wider audience, for which I remain grateful. So I take no pleasure in declaring what has been obvious for some time: that TED is no longer a responsible curator of ideas “worth spreading.” Instead it has become something ludicrous, and a little sinister.
Today TED is an insatiable kingpin of international meme laundering—a place where ideas, regardless of their quality, go to seek celebrity, to live in the form of videos, tweets, and now e-books. In the world of TED—or, to use their argot, in the TED “ecosystem”—books become talks, talks become memes, memes become projects, projects become talks, talks become books—and so it goes ad infinitum in the sizzling Stakhanovite cycle of memetics, until any shade of depth or nuance disappears into the virtual void. Richard Dawkins, the father of memetics, should be very proud. Perhaps he can explain how “ideas worth spreading” become “ideas no footnotes can support.”
Posts
What he means is that TED's tried its hardest to be "non-partisan" so businesses will link to it and it'll get support. If they have a speech that rails against a specific party (not just a platform) and mentions the party by name, all the Republican businesses will go "hey, TED's just a liberal mouthpiece!" and quit using/buying tickets for TED. TED wants to sell tickets, so they want as many people to like them as possible. Hence their banning of anything that seems like a hitpiece.
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.
No, it really wouldn't be just as offensive. That's what I've been saying. He could have used something other than a direct callout to republicans, and he didn't. As people have noted, there are other talks about income inequality on TED, but this particular one was banned. Maybe it's because it's so much more anti-libertarian than all the other ones, or maybe it's because the speaker insults half the united states in his opening statement. I'm going with the latter.
There's a huge difference between saying "<x> economic policy does not work" and "the REPUBLICAN economic policy <x> does not work". Even if they're the exact same economic policy.
Pretty much. Republicans are doing a thing he's speaking out against. It would be disingenuous of him not o mention them by name. Referring to them as "they who shall not be named" is just ridiculous. This isn't Harry Potter.
I'd just note, again, that I agree with the statement itself & with calling-out Republicans - but TED clearly does not, and I'm pretty sure this specific thing is spelled-out in TED's 'golden tenets' or whatever they're called (along with 'do not plug your business on TED').
My bet is that if the word 'Republicans' hadn't been used, there would've been no issue and this talk would've been featured much like any other.
My sentiments exactly.
That's because n****r is a slur.
Republican is not.
And the talk would have been about 1000 times less informative and accurate for it.
It's an interesting, if unsurprising, showcase of the limits of TED.
"You can talk about the big problems of this world. Unless they are caused by the GOP. Then we're gonna have to ask you to be really vague about the whole thing, please and thank you."
No, he didn't. Read the OP. He'd already hired a PR firm to promote the book he co-authored on this very subject. Anderson used a lie of omission to say they were hired in response to this incident.
Sounds pretty juvenile to me. I graduated from high school so that I could leave it behind - not so that I had to deal with the same crap as an adult - and I'll drag anyone up to my level before stooping to theirs. I'm pretty happy that the speaker was direct about this.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/
I don't think he meant specifically Republicans, it applies to all political parties. The "controversial" speech only mentioned Republicans so they're the obvious example.
Yeah. It is pretty silly for framing arguments.
I think that Morozov best sums up the issue in the lede to the second part of the piece: