Slashdot Mirror
TED Wants To Remind Us That Ideas -- Not Politicians -- Shape the Future (qz.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Quartz report: Amid global political upheavals, TED curator Chris Anderson argues that ideas have never mattered more. "Ideas changes how people act and [shape] their long term perspective," he said in during a April 17 press briefing. "Politicians come and go and ideas are forever." He said TED -- two segments of which will be broadcast live in movie theaters this year -- wants to re-introduce civility into political discourse. "We want to avoid the zero sum game we see on cable television every day," said Anderson, noting that TED is a non-partisan organization and has historically featured controversial and intriguing thinkers from both sides of the political divide. In place of the shrill, headline-bait tenor of political spectacles, TED wants to take viewers to a place of "reasoned discourse" where big ideas can act as a bridge between opposing views. By creating an eclectic program -- including an entire session delivered in Spanish and another on artificial intelligence -- Anderson said he wants to steer the conversation away from government and politics. "With so much focus in politics, the world is in danger of forgetting that so much of what really changes the future happens outside completely of politics. It happens inside the mind of dreamers, designers, inventors, technologists, entrepreneurs," he said.
"It happens inside the mind of dreamers, designers, inventors, technologists, entrepreneurs," and meee.
TED is fucking overrated. Pablum.
TED's been posting some hopelessly feminist content lately, and they know it, too, because they've disabled ratings and comments on those vids. They're also abusing the DMCA to shut down criticism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The DMCA-censored vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And an update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The staff at ted might like lofty ideals but they are to be consumed not discussed - Bearing an Australian youtuber and others have been dmca'ed and Ted lost the fair use test.
To call them communicators is a paradox when they censor too.
Freedom?
Individual and Inalienable rights?
Personal Responsibility?
Limited Government?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
"Do you mean that dialogue and not violence is a better way to solve problems? Most intelligent people know this."
Actually, dialogue is the ideal way to solve problems. However, you need to have two parties willing to talk and compromise. When one or both parties are unwilling to compromise violence is likely inevitable. Most intelligent people understand this.
There has been an ongoing debate in history comparing the macroscopic idea of history and the "Great Man" idea of history.
From a macroscopic level, things like the industrial revolution (or more specifically, things like the invention of the Spinning Jenny) made societal changes inevitable. It was only a matter of time before the Monarchies feel in Europe. It could have been earlier or later by a few decades or centuries, but it was inevidible.
From the "Great Man" level... it's hard to imagine if Nepolian didn't exist that "meh, somebody else would have conquered Europe."
It's hard to accept the assertion that politicians have no impact and it is only ideas. Can anybody honestly say, "If George Washington had decided to become King of the fledgling United States, to the applause and approbation of all his contemporaries, the United States would absolutely still have become a republic?"
You should try TEDx, it's a bold new direction for their brand.
The format is a bit different. Instead of curating the speakers, they just rent a room with a microphone and send a guy with a gopro there. Said guy then records every homeless person who thinks they have something intelligent to speak about getting up on stage for their 15 minutes of fame.
Gopro guy then emails the raw video to someone at TEDhq who edits "Why farts are oppressing my gender" into Youtube gold.
Lets get real. Any idea big enough to scare big business or possibly deter the globalist agenda is bought up to ensure it's used appropriately (i.e. the new mass censorship on Google's Youtube).
Over the past 10 to 20 years, most Western nations have been subjected to a potent form of political correctness that has stifled free thought and free expression, especially within academia.
We see this in how false accusations of "racism", "sexism", "bigotry", "intolerance", "homophobia", and "transphobia" are used to shut down free and open discussion.
We see this in how "safe spaces" are used to prevent free and open discussion from even happening in the first place.
We've mainly seen this driven by those on the left side of the political spectrum.
Anything that conforms to their own set of beliefs is fine to discuss, but anyone who holds differing opinions is violently attacked. Recently we've even seen these leftists start using physical violence, such as during the the Ferguson "protests" (riots), and during the recent Berkeley incidents.
I think that society at large is waking up, though. They're seeing how those on the political right protest responsibly and maturely, while it's those on the political left who start using violence and riots.
People watch videos on YouTube and they see how President Trump's rallies are peaceful, fun, and encouraging events. They feature lots of people coming together to work for real improvement. And these people also watch videos on YouTube showing leftist protesters intentionally resorting to violent, destructive behavior.
You say that "most people aren't intelligent", but I think you're wrong about that. Most people may not be rocket scientists, but they sure are smart enough to know that it's leftists resorting to censorship, violence and rioting, and not those on the political right.
That's why President Trump won the election in the USA. That's why we're seeing strong support for right wing parties in Europe and Australia. Society at large is really beginning to see that it's a violent and extremist fringe leftist element of society that's responsible for so many of the problems we have today.
I think that's the main point of the whole TED thing -- even if it is mostly a bunch of attention-seeking folks and academics desperately trying to promote themselves. The analysis is correct -- there isn't a lot of mainstream substantive discussion of things beyond politics and pop culture. You really have to go seek it out, and things like social media amplify the divide between intellectual and entertaining conversation.
One of the things I really don't like about social media is its tendency to separate the easily led among us into little camps. Because Facebook and other platforms know exactly what stimuli we will respond to, content they know we like is fed our way with little chance to break out of the echo chamber. Add to that the constant drumbeat of bad news, regardless of political side/opinion, and people can't be faulted for assuming the world is going to end tomorrow. It also doesn't help that there's a very strong current of anti-intellectualism among some sectors of the population. For some, universities are seen as bastions of evil, liberal progressive ideas -- not exactly the kind of opinion that fosters the sharing of ideas.
I have mentioned previously on here (and been blasted for it!) that social media is destroying the ability for the average person to relate to others. I've been told I'm too politically correct and everyone should be allowed to shout whatever they want at each other. If politically correct means "I don't want people's default posture to be acting like a bunch of hyenas to each other" then I guess I'm PC. I just want to see my technocratic government implemented at least once before I die -- instead of a bunch of lying politicians, hire the people with the best ideas and make rules based only on facts. Life would be much more peaceful with a bunch of engineers running things. People might actually study things like STEM without thinking about whether their careers will end when they turn 40, or whether all the work will be offshored by the time they graduate.
Well, that's true.
However, for the most part, the party/ideology from the left in the US that promotes itself as the party of diversity and tolerance, is ONLY tolerant of viewpoints they hold and not only will put you down for what you think (overusing terms like racist, etc) but will try to actively prevent you espousing your viewpoints at all in public (see recent colleges shutting down speakers coming to campus).
How can you have a dialog, when one side tries to actually prevent any opposing views from being presented at all?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yes, the people on the right protest responsibly. By taking over the Mlheur Wildlife Refuge. Or shooting Dee Gifford and a bunch of other people. Or bombing abortion clinics
But of course, you're going to play the no true Scotsman card on shit like that, I'm sure. Just like those on the left are going to do the same about the about the things you're pissed off about.
Face it. You're just as much of a problem as the "leftists" because you are busy pigeonholing everyone else to support whatever personal beliefs you have.
Do you mean that dialogue and not violence is a better way to solve problems?
It depends on the problem, right? Imagine you want to kill me, and I want to kill you. There's no way to solve that problem equitably. Now realize this is a problem that people in the real world face. Erdogan had a coup attempt against him, and Assad has half his country wanting to kill him. His solution is to kill them first, which thus far has been effective. Then of course ISIS just wants to kill nearly everyone. In fact, they believe it is the will of God, and he is on their side.
Dialogue is not always an option, and even when it is, sometimes lawsuits work better which carries the implied threat of violence (from the state).
Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
I would really like to see someone reply to this with a realistic solution. I don't have an answer to that problem and the only response I seem to be hearing is "Their (read: republicans) viewpoints aren't reasonable or worthy of consideration", which shuts down any kind of dialogue before it starts.
An idea which is reshaping the entire Muslim world for the worse and the Muslim communities in Europe with it. Of course not, he thinks social progressiveness is the only way forward as long as white politicians just get out of the way and open the borders.
TED, where PC morons spew pseudo-intellectual bullshit at other PC morons and where they present mundane, pie in the sky and just plain ridiculous technology as revolutionary.
However, for the most part, the party/ideology from the left in the US that promotes itself as the party of diversity and tolerance, is ONLY tolerant of viewpoints they hold and not only will put you down for what you think
Ah, the old intolerance of intolerance argument. The paradox of tolerance is that if society is tolerant of intolerance, you ultimately allow that intolerance to destroy tolerance in that society. Ultimately tolerance is useless without the right to not tolerate the intolerant. (you might need more than two hands to count the double negatives there)
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Those links expose TED as censor-happy authoritarians, who (despite their "Ideas Worth Spreading" slogan) abuse the DMCA to prevent fair use of their content for criticism. The claims in the summary of TED being a "non-partisan organization" and wanting to "steer the conversation away from government and politics" are laughable, given TED's repeated attempts to suppress dissent.
They do not want to start a "civil" conversation or "reasoned discourse" or a "bridge between opposing views" or any of the sounds-good buzzword BS rattled off in the summary; they want start a monologue of approved ideas while everyone else (especially wrongthinkers) has to shut up and unquestionably accept what they're hearing.
TEDxx
Hosted by The Most Interesting Man in the World? "I don't always give talks, but when I do, it's at TED Dos Equis."
We'll leave TEDxxx for the obvious porn parody that someone will eventually make of these shows.
I'd be surprised if Japan hasn't done this already. I'm just not sure whether it will be of the "unstoppable public speaker" or "crowd of couples" genre.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
...is that the first thing people want to do with them - especially in the TED crowd - is use politics to force them on everyone.
And some of the ideas actually are good - for certain people in certain situations. The problem with using politics is that you're applying these ideas to everyone, by force. This usually results in an overall net negative impact.
We live in a world of incredibly diverse values, beliefs, and practices. Much of the goodness or badness in these areas is fairly subjective. For example, some people prefer more leisurely lifestyles and others value high productivity. Some people want to work and function in highly communal environments, and others are more individualistic. None of these things are wrong, but when you start building strict sets of societal rules around them then you create strong and completely unnecessary conflict.
There are less subjective areas that involve hard science and scientific experimentation, but these are relatively rare and usually uncontroversial. There are also plenty of ideas labeled as "science" that do not involve the scientific method; these tend to be extremely controversial and because the "science" label is misapplied their proponents tend to be very quick to pull out the political guns.
In any case, we also live in a world where far too many people want to force their beliefs and lifestyles on everyone else. The political left and right are fairly equally guilty of this - the left from an economic standpoint, and the right from a religious standpoint, and both from an overall values standpoint. It's deeply sad that virtually none of these people are capable of saying "Hey, it's OK that you're different - go be your crazy-ass self over there and as long as you're not in my face about it then we'll ignore each other and everything is fine." But instead, they demand strict enforcement. These days the left demands that we memorize sixty new gender pronouns a week, and the right loses their shit if you don't say "Merry Christmas."
We don't need 50 new TEDxasfaz talks a week. We need a planet full of people to chill the fuck out.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Well, for the most part (of course there are always exceptions), I don't see those on the right, have protests that turn violent against the counter protesters, etc. Again..IN GENERAL.
I don't see the right trying to actually shutdown or prevent talks by left leaning speakers at town halls or colleges especially.
Yes, both are opposed to the other, however, I don't see the folks on the right trying to actively suppress the liberal views being presented in public. They may disagree with them, but they don't riot outside the hall where the speaker is supposed to talk and actively try to intimidate the leftist audience or prevent the speech even being given.
This is something that has been happening with greater frequency in the past few years.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Both Erdogan and Assad started out with the problem of most of their respective countries wanting them out of power, which they responded to with oppression and genocide, respectively. Of course after some time of this it's only natural that many would want them dead...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Politicians come and go and ideas are forever.
The problem is that while politicians may go, the bureaucracy they create does not. That essentially lasts forever, and has a great impact on what ideas are possible, if for no other reason than it drains funds form making some other idea possible.
Rather than term limits we need the concept of department limits, where each arm of a large bureaucracy must be voted to continue every ten years or so after justifying what it has done.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ideas are great, but in a representative system ("government") CHANGE only comes when people imbued with sufficient power make the effort to evolve an idea into policy. Even if today's politicians/leaders don't like an idea and get removed from office, someone is going to have to take a leadership position to make changes to the official way things are done.
"With so much focus in politics, the world is in danger of forgetting that so much of what really changes the future happens outside completely of politics. It happens inside the mind of dreamers, designers, inventors, technologists, entrepreneurs,"
No. Your personal interpretation and your world view change *internally* with ideas. How you and others are physically affected relies on what "ideas" politicians have and put forth as policy. Politics, however fatiguing, is not unimportant.
I don't see the folks on the right trying to actively suppress the liberal views being presented in public.
The only way you can't be seeing it is if your head is so far up your ass you'll never see daylight again.
Conservatives are VERY actively trying, in many ways, across many states, to MAKE PROTEST ILLEGAL.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/
So much for that pesky bit in the constitution about the right to protest.
Calling BS here. I've seen a few TED talks, and don't know WTF you're talking about. Please point to what makes them in any way elitist, or in an echo chamber.
Just another day in Paradise
Problem stems from word salad. Everyone spins their garbage. It doesn't matter which side is making the demand or law or restriction, it's a form of "protecting" something. Anything out of the mafiAAs is a good read.
Point is, if you keep shoehorning a word, it's gonna be all bent and weird and useless. If you keep flying a flag that says "Feminism" above your faction or your efforts, flying it over various groups and demands and splinters, everyone doing it to be safely nestled underneath a seemingly noble and virtuous word, the cacophony of associations is meaningless.
Everyone wants to be associated with X, X goes everydirection, X splats. If you're unaware of this pattern, you'll waste time having conversations about "No, X is about Y" like you're some culture authority. You can watch us do it right here, arguing about the meaning of the word "hacking/hackers", past contemporary and in between.
Justice, terrorism, rights, safety, protection.
Seriously, find any piece, opinion or official, press release or internet comments, Ctrl+F for the string have the right, those three terms next to each other, see how many of us are trying to make OUR agenda be the one associated with the higher road.
Sorry, but my parents do not like or support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They are not bigots. They are not homophobic. They have their religious beliefs. They treat lgbt just like every other person. They believe marriage is sacred; a belief informed by religion. They are not bad people for having that belief.
This is the point of States rights and the limits of the federal government. You will never get people to agree. Forcing people to accept things they do not want by the government is tyrannical. There are plenty of gays that think this. Dave Rubin who is gay and married understands that it shouldn't be forced on the nation by the courts.
It isn't just one issue. It's every issue that is pushed to the federal government because some other state does things differently or believes something differently. Eventually, one straw breaks the camels back.
Wow..really? 2 for 2 troll?
When did it become unpopular to be proud of the US being an English speaking country?
This just used to be common sense...or, have we been "invaded" successfully at this point?
It's sad to see what used to be unwritten truths, values and common sense overridden.
But seriously....it is well known, in the US, if you are an English speaking person, you will be more successful in the country, and what's wrong with that? Learning the most common language would seem to be in everyones' best interest, no?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Frankly, I find the quality and content of TED talks embarrassing. Hmm, why should I feel embarrassed about that? I don't know, but I do. So often verging on intellectual fraud. A venue for self-promotion and mutual intellectual masturbation. Well, I guess it keeps them off the street.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
On the other hand, when mainstream politicians publicly spew racism and xenophobia, and people openly cheer them on for it, that's public discourse - that's what I'm talking about.
The problem is you're only seeing the other tribe's racism, and ignoring your own, and have actually redefined racism so that you can't be guilty of it. But your side is still spewing "kill whitey" racial hatred, and whitey can hear it. Whitey don't like it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
So, "illegals have crime rates lower than the native population" might be technically true, but "illegals are less criminal than blacks" is hardly a selling point for mass immigration.
Holy hell, great job separating the image of the right from frothing racism. Yes the "native population" (as in legal citizens) includes the entire native population which means the criminals of any ethnicity are in there too. This is not lying with statistics. It's simply not being a white nationalist shitbag.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Top line of your posted article, "It's not the end of men, it's the evolution of men into better men".
I fail to see the outrage. Compare that to actual lynching, none of which have happened at BLM or anything similar.
Your also wrong about the Right disavowing it's far right.
Steve Bannon has been on Sean Hannity. Ann Coulter has been all over fox news and she's a polarizing far right figure if there ever was one.
In my book, the difference between right and left boils down to people who only worry about themselves and people who try to help the most people.
Unfortunately, the "only worry about themselves" doesn't extend to leaving other people alone, they view everything through the prism of their own life, with no ability or desire to understand other circumstances.
Cheap storage VM.
>my parents do not like or support gay marriage
>They treat lgbt just like every other person.
So they don't like straight marriage either?
horror vacui