There are a few lessons we can learn from TED Talks that have been pulled, including: 1. Avoid promoting illegal activity: For a legitimate, credible talk, it is not wise to promote the use of illegal activities (like drug use) to the general public, even if you disagree with it being illegal.
The curation team agreed that the criticisms had merit and were serious enough to warrant removal of the talk from the TEDx official YouTube channel. While it doesn’t need to be a mainstream idea, your data do have to convince other reputable scientists that they are factual and correct.
Occasionally, a suspect talk will be left online with a warning about the credibility of the content. Sometimes, TED uses controversial content to ignite a public debate so that the ideas can be clearly reviewed and both sides of the story can be heard.
Founded in 1984, TED has hosted an annual conference for the past 30 years, and the vibrant video platform has an expansive reach, emphasized by its mission: “ Ideas worth spreading. ” TED has become a powerhouse of intense, mind-blowing, and paradigm-shifting talks, all under 20 minutes in length.
Answer (1 of 21): There is no way to politely tell other people what they can say, any more than politey tell them the they are fat. If you do not want to discuss politics just change the subject by diverting to a connected topic. For example if they say “ Trump just said he was going to put a ta...
How To Talk Politics Without Letting Things Turn Ugly Whether it's shouting matches in Congress, feuds on social media, a testy exchange between co-workers or a heated argument among family ...
Robb Willer studies the forces that unite and divide us. As a social psychologist, he researches how moral values -- typically a source of division -- can also be used to bring people together. Willer shares compelling insights on how we might bridge the ideological divide and offers some intuitive advice on ways to be more persuasive when talking politics.
You really hit the nail on the head. That's exactly my thinking right now. Obviously I think there's a chance for political discourse, and that politics is indeed an important thing, but in this era I'd await things to settle down and normalize a little bit so I can feel I'm able to talk about it without stressing myself or people wanting to end friendships because of elections - happened to ...
Of course, one way to make sure you never sound like an idiot when discussing politics (or have to suffer someone else who does) is to just avoid discussing politics in polite company.
Most people warn against talking politics in polite company. But let’s face it—this campaign is unusually emotionally provocative.
We live in an age in which it’s very difficult to avoid conversations about politics, because nearly everything has become political. A difference in politics can cause arguments that end friendships, marriages, even business relationships.
Don’t start a conversation intending to prove someone is wrong or to change their mind. Neurological research shows that it’s really hard to change our own minds, let alone someone else’s. If that’s your goal, you will be disappointed and you’ll also annoy the person you’re speaking to.
You will probably not reach agreement in a discussion about politics. You will most likely not convince them to change their opinions or worldview. But you might get them to think more carefully — and that’s valuable.
The default politics of TED, then, are an amalgam of Clintonian neoliberalism and techno-utopianism (the likes of which Evgeny Morozov has ably critiqued), with a philanthro-capitalist approach to social issues (an approach brilliantly taken apart in Alix Rule’s “ Good As Money ,” which ran in Dissent a few years back). The New Inquiry recently published a longer critique of TED, which featured a fine tweet by Mike Bulajewski: “TED’s ‘revolutionary ideas’ mask capitalism as usual, giving it a narrative of progress and change.”
TED’s dominant political idea is the denial of politics—a refusal to acknowledge any real power struggle in public life.
Anderson claims that the main reason he pulled the video was that its arguments “were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance.” He further said, “The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.”
The guiding principle of TED is that you can present a vision of ever-marching technological progress, that you can be a purveyor of the “big ideas” that will shape our society, that you can show the future, all without descending into the unpleasant muck of political debate. In other words, TED’s dominant political idea is the denial of politics–a refusal to acknowledge any real power struggle in public life.
In the ensuing hoopla, TED did release the video (although it did not feature the talk on its homepage). You can check out Hanauer’s speech here:
I’m not a total hater of TED. Yes, not all the talks are great, and the format can become a parody of itself after you watch a few of them. Then again, there are plenty of academic lectures whose insights are mediocre and whose presenters are less than captivating.
That’s not really true. If you watch the video, you’ll see that Hanauer is not particularly partisan. He merely explains that the idea of the wealthy as “job creators” is a sacred article of faith among Republicans, and that Democrats rarely challenge them. I’d say that’s a pretty accurate assessment of the situation.
And if it ever happens that, after you've spoken with a liberal, the liberal actually agrees with you, just be sure to avoid one of the most poisonous phrases in the English language: "I told you so." Instead, quietly agree with your friend's wonderful insights, and have another conversation on another day.
To have a successful conversation with a liberal, you need to find an opening that triggers a thought cascade in that particular liberal. Even though liberals are beginning to have buyer's remorse, human nature means they're just as likely to be in denial and defensive as they are to be regretful and receptive. Still there are conversational opportunities, and you must seize them.
If you open a conversation by saying, "Pelosi is an idiot," or "Obama is the Manchurian candidate," you can expect tears, yelling or a punch in the nose. Any persuasive conversation will be over before it's begun.
1. Understand what a liberal perceives as insulting -- and then avoid it.
Mostly, though, liberals know conclusions, which they erroneously identify as facts. For example, they know that huge numbers of Americans have no medical care; they know that Obama was a top student at every school he attended; and despite their support for the military, they know that most American troops are ill-educated, violent hicks. As it happens, each of these statements is factually wrong (see here, here and here) and, instead, reflects only an emotional conclusion.
Be aware, though, that, with liberals, personal insults don't stop with the actual person (or his mother). For liberals, the political is personal. This means that liberals will take it as a personal insult, not only if you call them morons, but also if you call their leaders morons.
In many conversations over the years, I've discovered that my liberal friends don't have many politically relevant facts at their finger tips. Liberals know, for example, that "prisoners were waterboarded at Gitmo." The details behind this ultimate fact tend to elude them. Most don't realize that only three high level Al Qaeda operatives were ever waterboarded. Nor do they know that the waterboarding took place in the immediate wake of 9/11, when we had almost no information about Al Qaeda's networks and feared an imminent, and even greater, second attack.
Johnathan Haidt’s Ted Talk, “The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives”, tackles the problem of polarization in the world in a very interesting way. Haidt looks at the ideology of liberals and conservatives through the lens of morality. In doing so he is able to define it by five factors care/harm, fairness/reciprocity, group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. He finds they are about equal in care and fairness with liberals valuing it a bit more. Conservatives are way higher then liberals on the other three factors. Haidt concludes in his Ted talk that all of these morals were necessary, and rather than treating them like two teams who should step outside the side your side dynamic to accomplish more together. The quiz …show more content…
The article discusses when there are like-minded groups, people are more likely to form split attitudes because of the member’s influence and pressure to conform to the group values. The study then looks at interpersonal discussion and how in politics can compensate for the damages done by social media. Interpersonal communication can help individuals acquire additional information, understand diverse viewpoints and provoke individuals to scrutinize any incomplete or slanted information that they receive from the likeminded media. The study examines the association between selective exposure and polarization.…
It is Krugman’s belief that these programs, in partnership with varying tax rates for individuals and corporations within different ranges of income, promote an equal society. These programs additionally provide a better standard of living for a nation’s citizens. The New Deal pioneered the concept of government intervention in economics. Its public benefits positively transformed American society in its reduction of economic inequality, and resulted in bipartisan cooperation during the decades following its implementation. However, the positive effects of the New Deal are made even more apparent as its policies are being reversed by modern day movement conservatives.…
Democrats believe that only middle and low income families should receive tax cuts, while higher corporations and the wealthy should have to pay higher tax rates. They defend their case with the reasonable fact that “a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people” is more beneficial than “a tax code that hoards wealth for those who already have it.” (Republicanviews, “Democratic”) Democrats also back up this argument with the fact that in the 1990’s, which was a very prosperous time for both the wealthy and poor, higher taxes were demanded from the rich. (Republicanviews, “Democratic”) Differently, Republicans think citizens of disparate incomes as well as corporations should receive tax cuts. This party always leans on taxes to fix problems. (Atkins) For example, when in economic downturn, they raise taxes to get a financial boost in the right direction, whereas when the economy is booming they implement tax cuts to give the people more money.…
TED: The banned talks and what we can learn from them. TED is the abbreviated form of T echnology, E ntertainment, D esign. Founded in 1984, TED has hosted an annual conference for the past 30 years, and the vibrant video platform has an expansive reach, emphasized by its mission: “ Ideas worth spreading. ”.
The talk can also be pulled by the TED curators if they feel the content is questionable or inflammatory. The speaker can ask for their talk to be pulled, which was the case when a very controversial talk was posted, and the speaker requested it to be removed because she had concerns about her own safety.
There have been 4K videos posted to the official TED Talk channel, and nearly 140K videos posted under the TEDx umbrella (the “x” stands for independently organized.) The videos have had collectively 3.5 billion views (as of July 2019).
TED chose to censor Hancock's speech, apparently because of his endorsement of an illegal drug, removing the video from their channels.
There are a few lessons we can learn from TED Talks that have been pulled, including: 1. Avoid promoting illegal activity: For a legitimate, credible talk, it is not wise to promote the use of illegal activities (like drug use) to the general public, even if you disagree with it being illegal. 2.
TED has become a powerhouse of intense, mind-blowing, and paradigm-shifting talks, all under 20 minutes in length. While once confined to technology, education, and design, over the years the topics have expanded to include politics, entrepreneurship, cosmology, economics, neuroscience, human rights, art, space travel, physics, anthropology, ...
The world’s most popular TED Talk, Sir Ken Robinson’s “Do schools kill creativity?”, has had 58 million views on the TED site, and 17 million views on YouTube. Getting on the main stage has become an aspiration for tens of thousands of speakers — and with reason.
REP. NANCY PELOSI , D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I myself have always been for lowering the voting age to 16. I think it's really important to capture kids when they're in high school, when they're interested in all of this, when they're learning about government to be able to vote.
Here is Elizabeth Warren explaining that changing the court is a form of revenge for the crime of having a Republican President.
The Electoral College also discourages the rise of factional parties that dominate only a small portion of the country. We could go on.
CARLSON: Every President gets three justices. Keep in mind that for a century and a half, the court has been limited to nine justices and by the way, it has worked just fine. Some of the court's decisions have been wise, others have been misguided, some have been appalling, but Americans still generally trust that the court is a real institution. It's on the level.
Much of Europe scoffed at the idea not just because they were monarchists, though many of them were, even free thinking people of the time . Contemporary liberals were worried it wouldn't work. They didn't think it would. They thought that democracy was an inherently weak system.
HAHN: Well, both New York and California have recently had Republican governors. So to suggest that a Republican couldn't win those states is not really looking at the facts as they stand. And the third largest state or the second largest state in our union is Texas, which always elects Republican governors lately.
CARLSON: That's hard to pull off and we've done it.
We live in an age in which it’s very difficult to avoid conversations about politics, because nearly everything has become political. A difference in politics can cause arguments that end friendships, marriages, even business relationships.
Don’t start a conversation intending to prove someone is wrong or to change their mind. Neurological research shows that it’s really hard to change our own minds, let alone someone else’s. If that’s your goal, you will be disappointed and you’ll also annoy the person you’re speaking to.
You will probably not reach agreement in a discussion about politics. You will most likely not convince them to change their opinions or worldview. But you might get them to think more carefully — and that’s valuable.