If somebody isn’t “hurt and offended” by a controversial topic, then it’s not controversial. The solution is to evaluate and correct, or perhaps change your mind. To try to shut down the “offensive” idea is a totalitarian impulse.
If somebody isn’t “hurt and offended” by a controversial topic, then it’s not controversial. The solution is to evaluate and correct, or perhaps change your mind. To try to shut down the “offensive” idea is a totalitarian impulse.
Absolutely my thoughts too, you beat me to the post. And even more to that point, if "Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say", then I say they're simply part of the problem, when they should seek to be part of the solution. We can all work together to end racism by listening to everyone's ideas, or we can pick sides and take a corner and continue to stoke the flames of hatred.
‘Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say. This is not what we dream of when we post our talks. I believe real progress can be made on this issue by each side getting greater clarity and insight from the other. We share more in common than we know. We all ultimately want a just world in which all can thrive.’
If Chris Anderson is afraid of controversy and hurting people’s feelings he’s in the wrong business. Someone is insulted? So what. Anderson may think he’s in the right business, indulging intelligent people’s closed minds, but he advances nothing when the TED audience isn’t challenged but is merely intrigued and excited by views of someone which mirror their own. All that does is keep everyone in the same lane, where it’s safe.
But being safe only perpetuates and widens the divide - preventing any intellectual crossover to take place.
And if there is a time for cross pollination, it is now. TED has failed in that regard, as have most of our academic institutions.
Perhaps TED should re-evaluate who they are employing? It seems like many are overly sensitive, racist snowflakes. This is what should make Chris uncomfortable not Coleman’s talk.
I agree. In this day and age, especially, there are so many things a person might say that will offend or hurt another. However, to stop speech so as to make everyone feel nice and happy is not free speech.
Hurt and offended is easy and indulgent which is why it is so popular. What happened to refuting a statement? Pick your lip off the floor and work to present facts in a logical manner that support your beliefs.
The critics talk reverently about multiculturism as if it the solution to everything. It isn't. It is a failure. It has never worked but the snowflake fanatics love it and will try to force it on us and if you don't agree you are of course a racist!
The Krauts dumped multiculturism 13 years ago. But you didn't hear the multiculturism "expert" bring that up, did you?
Some of us have very damn good reasons for disliking Germans. Six million reasons if you count only Jews, one hundred million if you count all deaths they caused between 1914 and 1945.
My father's youngest brother, shot down in a B 17 and killed. I feel badly using that awful term, Kraut. I sure wouldn't want to offend a NAZI soldier.
I must have "hurt, offended or made you feel not safe". I'll be more delicate next time. I wouldn't want you to feel that this isn't a "safe" environment.
Yeah. I actually thought that the two responses were fairly levelheaded (and hopefully backed by data). But this:
"Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say."
Tough shit! That's their problem, not his, and not ours. It's absurd and embarrassing that anything he said would "genuinely hurt" allegedly relevant numbers of people. Who cares? What happened to sticks and stones? Pathetic.
It is incredibly hard for me to assess a person that says "Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say" and believe they are any sort of intellectual or have any desire to promote intellectual thought is just impossible. To believe people are "genuinely hurt"..."genuinely"...the man is either an idiot or a sucker.
I generally tend to agree that just because something hurts someone else's feelings, that's no reason to ban that speech. In the real world though, humans are complicated beasts, with history and emotions and we do indeed have plenty of situations where certain speech does indeed cause offense. For instance, if TED had hosted a talk by someone outlining why they thought that Jews should be systematically rounded up and exterminated, I'd bet that a lot of people would (rightly) find offense, feel extreme hurt, and call for the talk to be removed.
There's also the practical side of this: TED, as with any platform, is a finite resource. It's not possible for TED to host talks about every single possible topic. There are some topics that I think most people would agree should not be hosted as a TED talk. e.g. if I gave a talk about that dream I had last night, where I thought it was really cool at the time, but I can't really remember all the details, but I'm going to spend 20 minutes trying to tell you about it anyway, I'd argue that most people, except me, would not want to watch that. Should TED still agree to host that talk? If they decided not to host it, would that be censorship? Or just good practical judgement?
I'm glad that Coleman's talk wasn't removed, and I'm also glad that TED seems to have taken the complexities of the responses to this talk seriously. There is no censorship here (despite what lots of commenters here seem to be implying), and the very fact that TFP not only published the original piece by Coleman, but also published this follow up to give more context and response, is laudable. TFP doesn't always approach subjects from a fair standpoint, which I've found maddening, but I'm glad they did it here.
No... I leaned strongly into a slippery slope to counter the claims on here that offense at any speech is unwarranted. Lots of commenters are making the claim that people who are offended at speech are unjustified at being offended. They pull out terms like "woke" to smear on anyone who raises objections about things like this TED talk. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that there are types of speech for which general offense is clearly warranted (though no universal... we have pockets of people in this country who would gladly discuss ethnic / LGBTQ cleansing). Therefore, making a blanket statement that being offended by speech is only something that people who have caught the "woke mind virus" do is demonstrably false. And, indeed I wish to show that this is a continuum, rather than a black and white issue (pardon the pun). One can express nuanced feelings about speech, and it's totally appropriate for an organization like TED to take serious consideration about how to manage criticisms.
You are correct. As an Autist (and retired philosopher), I contemplate the offense “continuum” ad nauseum. I am forced to consider whether someone’s hurt feelings are reasonable almost daily. Mostly I think people are just pussies. LOL.
Seriously though, if you’re a publication with a mission statement like TED’s, I do not think emotional responses should be a consideration. There are plenty of other criteria that exclude certain subjects. In fact, Adam cited the most important one: Does the piece address and account for the most recent research on the topic?
Agree, but TED curates the talks, as Hughes described in the article. He did not just show up and surprise everyone. And in terms of content - I am a relativist too, but it is not all up for grabs. A talk defending the extermination of the Jews would violate basic human values widely shared, and cornerstones of liberal societies. There is no way that Hughes’ talk could be compared to that.
That struck me, too. "Genuinely hurt" by his TED Talk? How so, exactly? It's banal to the point of unbelievable to claim "genuine hurt" without providing clear information about the damage done.
Going to college where speech you don't agree with is "violence" will have lasting impact on being able to engage in constructive dialogue. So much easier to be "hurt", or believe that my "lived experience" of being hurt matters more than engaging in a rational way. This is postmodern madness running amok. I thought we had tired of Marcuse et al in my college days in the 1960's. But like roaches, these bad ideas just keep returning.
What they are talking about are "micro-aggressions" which has no scientific validity. It's a muddled term first used in 1970s by psychologist that has never been put into a scientifically verifiable form. There have been several attempts to eliminate it as a part of DEI training. Here is what current sociologist think: Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning have written in the academic journal Comparative Sociology that the microaggression concept "fits into a larger class of conflict tactics in which the aggrieved seek to attract and mobilize the support of third parties" that sometimes involves "building a case for action by documenting, exaggerating, or even falsifying offenses"
Just a slight correction, Marcuse didn't talk about "getting feelings hurt by words." Summation of Marcuse "One Dimensional Man"; "Marcuse argued that the modern “affluent” society represses even those who are successful within it, while maintaining their complacency through the ersatz satisfactions of consumer culture."
My youngest step-daughter graduated with a degree in Korean studies and language. She now works for an entertainment company, shuttling wannabe actors around to various sangencies where they hope to become actors in TV commercials. What a waste of time and money her education was.
Big topic here. As we transition from a unipolar world in which the hegemony of the US$ gave us the ultimate privilege such that our 4% of the world's population consumed 40% of the world's goods (more or less) mostly due to the price of oil (it is energy that is the basis of all production) being denominated in US$ (and we can and did print the $$ that paid for that overconsumption) to a multipolar world where the Chinese now buy oil in yuan and owning US$ is becoming less important than owning real assets (Russian energy, Chilean copper, essential commodities, etc.) . . . sorry for the run-on sentence, but I hope you see where I am going with this . . . the luxury of 4 years of college where you can fuck off and come out with a useless degree and a shit load of debt and be OK has gone. Many of those folks are screwed, and pols can't bail everyone out. You foresaw that and did something about it, started a business, and you are willing to grind instead of whine and good for you. You earned your "privilege".
The characterization of people ‘being hurt’ by ideas they disagree with is so disturbing it blows my mind that any adult, never mind scientists and/or supposed academics/intellectuals, takes it seriously for one second. Where does this balderdash end??
Xi Jinping passes a law that it is a crime to hurt Chinese feelings. Anyone criticizing the Party can be caught in it. This is where this balderdash ends.
Don't you know that speech is now violence? And that there's dangerous misinformation everywhere that causes people "harm"? This is the rhetorical frame that social justice activism has been dumping on the country, in academia, the arts, everywhere...for years now.
"Sticks and stones" and words are now the same thing.
Agreed. Millennials and Gen Zers are truly fucked. Zero resiliency and completely unable to problem-solve because they’re too hurt or offended by the actual causes of those problems. How can you possibly begin to address Black crime, for example, when you refuse to entertain or acknowledge that single-parent households are a huge contributor?
"hurt, offended, and safe" are PC/Woke buzz words. IOW bullshit. No matter how you phrase something there will be a group, mainly left wing snowflakes, that will be "hurt, offended or not safe" and that is a fact.
You could be on a street corner giving out $100 bills and somebody would be "hurt, offended or not safe".
My father was a progressive in the 1960s. He went down to the worst areas of NYC and helped the poor. He got into a bar fight when the bartender wouldn't serve his friend, a black woman. And much more. Now--- progressives typically are those who go-- or went to-- elite colleges (probably on their parents' dime) and write books like "White Fragility" and lecture to those of us on which words should be omitted from conversation or publication because they could be perceived as "hurtful and offensive." By the way in the new 2023 AP style book, now the word "female" should not be used because it "can also sometimes carry misogynistic tones that may vary in severity by race, class and other factors."
“How to Be an Anti-Racist” was written by Ibram X. Kendi, a Black man from a lower middle class family who started out at an HBCU in Florida that no one has ever heard of. Doesn’t fit your profile.
Oops -- was thinking of the white woman: Robin DiAngelo, an academic and anti-racism consultant, published the surprise best-seller “White Fragility.” The book, which argues that white people tend to undermine or dismiss conversations about race with histrionic reactions.
ALSO-- the mandatory meetings on "How to be a Non-racist Teacher" given by white 25 year olds.
Thank you. My best friend from college is my lawyer and at the annual chamber of commerce dinner he gives a$50 prize for whomever can tell the best lawyer joke.
Did you hear the post office is recalling all stamps that have lawyers on them?
Yeah people don't know which side to spit on.
Only people over 40 years old when you had to lick a stamp catch that joke.
That was one of the dumbest points Chris made. To be frank, who cares if people’s feeling are hurt. If you’re not intentionally being an a** who cares. You can’t control peoples feeling. People’s feelings should not be your guiding light to what you publish.
But, but, but the Left is all about ‘feelings’ - why do you think so many otherwise intelligent women vote ‘left; the Left abandoned thinking, reasoning and intellectualism awhile back.
Hurt and offense! Hurt and offense?!!? If a group of TED employees is so psychologically fragile that THAT particular talk causes ‘hurt and offense’ at a major scale, the TED solution should be to provide them with counseling and support to increase their resilience and ability to cope with - with - with their jobs!! NOT to reengineer the standard TED publication process as some sort of reparation for their emotional upset. The best analogy is to incredibly weak parents given the toddlers a bunch of candy instead of their vegetables because the toddlers swore to hold their breath otherwise.
I don't think the goal is to hurt and offend people; it's to say what you want regardless of whether it's likely to have that effect. But he's right: the definition of controversial is, well, causing controversy. The least that does is makes people uncomfortable. As that concept is now used among the snowflakes, it's "harmful."
We just disagree. You take him at his word and I just see the same canned response from a leader of an organization that has a very left leaning perspective. You see an “objective” response with all the catch phrases that claim moral superiority of wanting a just world, magic wand, etc. I see a PR BS response where he’s just trying to get out unscathed from the side who demands moral perfection.
“Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say. This is not what we dream of when we post our talks. “ That is statement is saying he does not intend or “dream” of when they post talks.
Ah, I see the problem. Your original reply was to a Chris Paramore, this being the Chris I assumed you were referring to. Which was surprising as his post was relatively innocuous.
It appears your specific beef is with Chris Anderson. That chap admittedly I don't have much time for.
I really appreciate how both of you ended your conversation (it was a simple miscommunication). It seems like all too often things like this devolve into screaming contests benefitting nobody, and I appreciate the maturity level both of you have shown.
It’s easy to be an ass online (so hard to judge intent of words). While I try to be respectful sometimes I fall short. Appreciate Uber for being respectful and you for the compliment.
I don’t believe I did. He states they didn’t attend to hurt or offend people. I’m sorry that’s a ridiculous statement. One, the assumption is you didn’t “intend” to do that because I’m taking at face value the fact youre a good person and don’t intend to hurt people. Two, it’s just word salad to show he’s morally inline with the “good side”. Again, who cares if feelings are hurt by someone’s talk. Maybe if TED truly cared about diversity they’d hire more people who have different perspectives as opposed to a bunch of young people who get their feels hurt by words
I'm not sure what you're seeing in Chris's post, he doesn't address intent.
On an objective basis his comment is perfectly reasonable- controversy only exists when opinions differ and open conversation is a better route to consensus.
If somebody isn’t “hurt and offended” by a controversial topic, then it’s not controversial. The solution is to evaluate and correct, or perhaps change your mind. To try to shut down the “offensive” idea is a totalitarian impulse.
"To try to shut down the 'offensive idea is a totalitarian impulse."
You must really say WHY that's a problem, Mr. Paramore. For this people? Not a negative.
Absolutely my thoughts too, you beat me to the post. And even more to that point, if "Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say", then I say they're simply part of the problem, when they should seek to be part of the solution. We can all work together to end racism by listening to everyone's ideas, or we can pick sides and take a corner and continue to stoke the flames of hatred.
Bravo Chris, great post.
‘Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say. This is not what we dream of when we post our talks. I believe real progress can be made on this issue by each side getting greater clarity and insight from the other. We share more in common than we know. We all ultimately want a just world in which all can thrive.’
If Chris Anderson is afraid of controversy and hurting people’s feelings he’s in the wrong business. Someone is insulted? So what. Anderson may think he’s in the right business, indulging intelligent people’s closed minds, but he advances nothing when the TED audience isn’t challenged but is merely intrigued and excited by views of someone which mirror their own. All that does is keep everyone in the same lane, where it’s safe.
But being safe only perpetuates and widens the divide - preventing any intellectual crossover to take place.
And if there is a time for cross pollination, it is now. TED has failed in that regard, as have most of our academic institutions.
Lotta that lately.
Perhaps TED should re-evaluate who they are employing? It seems like many are overly sensitive, racist snowflakes. This is what should make Chris uncomfortable not Coleman’s talk.
It's too late, they're already in charge. And they'll be more demanding next time.
I'm offended and hurt by these comments.
Take a deep breath and go to a "safe" place with a touchy/feely counselor. I'm sure after a box of Kleenex and a few hugs, you will feel better.
I think Carl was being facetious!
After rereading it I think you are correct.
I agree. In this day and age, especially, there are so many things a person might say that will offend or hurt another. However, to stop speech so as to make everyone feel nice and happy is not free speech.
Nor will it work. The goal post will just be moved to the next grievance.
Hurt and offended is easy and indulgent which is why it is so popular. What happened to refuting a statement? Pick your lip off the floor and work to present facts in a logical manner that support your beliefs.
You nailed it.
The critics talk reverently about multiculturism as if it the solution to everything. It isn't. It is a failure. It has never worked but the snowflake fanatics love it and will try to force it on us and if you don't agree you are of course a racist!
The Krauts dumped multiculturism 13 years ago. But you didn't hear the multiculturism "expert" bring that up, did you?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451
The greatest irony of “diversity” is how “offended” people get, so easily upset that we must walk on eggshells! If that doesn’t sell it, what does?
The “Krauts”? This wartime derogatory term is up there with Kook, Kike, Jap and N****r.
Some of us have very damn good reasons for disliking Germans. Six million reasons if you count only Jews, one hundred million if you count all deaths they caused between 1914 and 1945.
My father's youngest brother, shot down in a B 17 and killed. I feel badly using that awful term, Kraut. I sure wouldn't want to offend a NAZI soldier.
I’m offended - my great uncle twice removed died in a concentration camp
Got drunk and fell out of the guard tower
Too soon?
I find it rich that you use other words to critique the use of one. Pretty telling that you cannot even write out one though.
Brown shirts?
I must have "hurt, offended or made you feel not safe". I'll be more delicate next time. I wouldn't want you to feel that this isn't a "safe" environment.
Yeah. I actually thought that the two responses were fairly levelheaded (and hopefully backed by data). But this:
"Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say."
Tough shit! That's their problem, not his, and not ours. It's absurd and embarrassing that anything he said would "genuinely hurt" allegedly relevant numbers of people. Who cares? What happened to sticks and stones? Pathetic.
It is incredibly hard for me to assess a person that says "Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say" and believe they are any sort of intellectual or have any desire to promote intellectual thought is just impossible. To believe people are "genuinely hurt"..."genuinely"...the man is either an idiot or a sucker.
TEDx is a daycare, more than a science as entertainment company.
Say it with me folx:
“Facts don’t care about your feelings.”
I generally tend to agree that just because something hurts someone else's feelings, that's no reason to ban that speech. In the real world though, humans are complicated beasts, with history and emotions and we do indeed have plenty of situations where certain speech does indeed cause offense. For instance, if TED had hosted a talk by someone outlining why they thought that Jews should be systematically rounded up and exterminated, I'd bet that a lot of people would (rightly) find offense, feel extreme hurt, and call for the talk to be removed.
There's also the practical side of this: TED, as with any platform, is a finite resource. It's not possible for TED to host talks about every single possible topic. There are some topics that I think most people would agree should not be hosted as a TED talk. e.g. if I gave a talk about that dream I had last night, where I thought it was really cool at the time, but I can't really remember all the details, but I'm going to spend 20 minutes trying to tell you about it anyway, I'd argue that most people, except me, would not want to watch that. Should TED still agree to host that talk? If they decided not to host it, would that be censorship? Or just good practical judgement?
I'm glad that Coleman's talk wasn't removed, and I'm also glad that TED seems to have taken the complexities of the responses to this talk seriously. There is no censorship here (despite what lots of commenters here seem to be implying), and the very fact that TFP not only published the original piece by Coleman, but also published this follow up to give more context and response, is laudable. TFP doesn't always approach subjects from a fair standpoint, which I've found maddening, but I'm glad they did it here.
Did you actually try to create an analogy between color-blindness and ethnic cleansing?
No... I leaned strongly into a slippery slope to counter the claims on here that offense at any speech is unwarranted. Lots of commenters are making the claim that people who are offended at speech are unjustified at being offended. They pull out terms like "woke" to smear on anyone who raises objections about things like this TED talk. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that there are types of speech for which general offense is clearly warranted (though no universal... we have pockets of people in this country who would gladly discuss ethnic / LGBTQ cleansing). Therefore, making a blanket statement that being offended by speech is only something that people who have caught the "woke mind virus" do is demonstrably false. And, indeed I wish to show that this is a continuum, rather than a black and white issue (pardon the pun). One can express nuanced feelings about speech, and it's totally appropriate for an organization like TED to take serious consideration about how to manage criticisms.
You are correct. As an Autist (and retired philosopher), I contemplate the offense “continuum” ad nauseum. I am forced to consider whether someone’s hurt feelings are reasonable almost daily. Mostly I think people are just pussies. LOL.
Seriously though, if you’re a publication with a mission statement like TED’s, I do not think emotional responses should be a consideration. There are plenty of other criteria that exclude certain subjects. In fact, Adam cited the most important one: Does the piece address and account for the most recent research on the topic?
Agree, but TED curates the talks, as Hughes described in the article. He did not just show up and surprise everyone. And in terms of content - I am a relativist too, but it is not all up for grabs. A talk defending the extermination of the Jews would violate basic human values widely shared, and cornerstones of liberal societies. There is no way that Hughes’ talk could be compared to that.
I am more interested in how they were hurt by what he said. I can see not agreeing with Coleman, but being hurt by it?
That struck me, too. "Genuinely hurt" by his TED Talk? How so, exactly? It's banal to the point of unbelievable to claim "genuine hurt" without providing clear information about the damage done.
It means that they weren't able to eat their lunch.
Going to college where speech you don't agree with is "violence" will have lasting impact on being able to engage in constructive dialogue. So much easier to be "hurt", or believe that my "lived experience" of being hurt matters more than engaging in a rational way. This is postmodern madness running amok. I thought we had tired of Marcuse et al in my college days in the 1960's. But like roaches, these bad ideas just keep returning.
What they are talking about are "micro-aggressions" which has no scientific validity. It's a muddled term first used in 1970s by psychologist that has never been put into a scientifically verifiable form. There have been several attempts to eliminate it as a part of DEI training. Here is what current sociologist think: Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning have written in the academic journal Comparative Sociology that the microaggression concept "fits into a larger class of conflict tactics in which the aggrieved seek to attract and mobilize the support of third parties" that sometimes involves "building a case for action by documenting, exaggerating, or even falsifying offenses"
Just a slight correction, Marcuse didn't talk about "getting feelings hurt by words." Summation of Marcuse "One Dimensional Man"; "Marcuse argued that the modern “affluent” society represses even those who are successful within it, while maintaining their complacency through the ersatz satisfactions of consumer culture."
That was my conclusion when I started to read a bit of his writing in the late 60s.
Right on Max S., continue to tell your story, the young'ins need to hear it. As do the rest of us.
My youngest step-daughter graduated with a degree in Korean studies and language. She now works for an entertainment company, shuttling wannabe actors around to various sangencies where they hope to become actors in TV commercials. What a waste of time and money her education was.
Big topic here. As we transition from a unipolar world in which the hegemony of the US$ gave us the ultimate privilege such that our 4% of the world's population consumed 40% of the world's goods (more or less) mostly due to the price of oil (it is energy that is the basis of all production) being denominated in US$ (and we can and did print the $$ that paid for that overconsumption) to a multipolar world where the Chinese now buy oil in yuan and owning US$ is becoming less important than owning real assets (Russian energy, Chilean copper, essential commodities, etc.) . . . sorry for the run-on sentence, but I hope you see where I am going with this . . . the luxury of 4 years of college where you can fuck off and come out with a useless degree and a shit load of debt and be OK has gone. Many of those folks are screwed, and pols can't bail everyone out. You foresaw that and did something about it, started a business, and you are willing to grind instead of whine and good for you. You earned your "privilege".
The characterization of people ‘being hurt’ by ideas they disagree with is so disturbing it blows my mind that any adult, never mind scientists and/or supposed academics/intellectuals, takes it seriously for one second. Where does this balderdash end??
Xi Jinping passes a law that it is a crime to hurt Chinese feelings. Anyone criticizing the Party can be caught in it. This is where this balderdash ends.
Yorg, this "balderdash" only ends when we defund, dismantle, and re-invent higher education. The current system is beyond redemption.
Don't you know that speech is now violence? And that there's dangerous misinformation everywhere that causes people "harm"? This is the rhetorical frame that social justice activism has been dumping on the country, in academia, the arts, everywhere...for years now.
"Sticks and stones" and words are now the same thing.
wait a minute, I thought "Silence was Violence"? Now speech is violence?
Hard to keep up with the rules.
Yes, "speech is violence," and "silence is violence," but (depending on the situation) actual violence is not violence (i.e., George Floyd riots).
Yep, it is a nutty world the Left has created, But I think it is beginning to crumble. Witness the pathetic attempts on this thread to defend it.
My instinct is that is the goal.
Yes, of course. It's both. I don't know how you missed that.
wait until folks (folx?) find out about sign language, be a whole bunch of gnashing of teeth going on.
you mean gnashing of fingers
makes it harder for them to type on the interwebs...
maybe not a bad idea
Problem is that we don't cultivate or value adults or adulthood anymore. We value and cultivate perpetual adolescence.
Agreed. Millennials and Gen Zers are truly fucked. Zero resiliency and completely unable to problem-solve because they’re too hurt or offended by the actual causes of those problems. How can you possibly begin to address Black crime, for example, when you refuse to entertain or acknowledge that single-parent households are a huge contributor?
I think you are right about that.
"hurt, offended, and safe" are PC/Woke buzz words. IOW bullshit. No matter how you phrase something there will be a group, mainly left wing snowflakes, that will be "hurt, offended or not safe" and that is a fact.
You could be on a street corner giving out $100 bills and somebody would be "hurt, offended or not safe".
I won’t
My father was a progressive in the 1960s. He went down to the worst areas of NYC and helped the poor. He got into a bar fight when the bartender wouldn't serve his friend, a black woman. And much more. Now--- progressives typically are those who go-- or went to-- elite colleges (probably on their parents' dime) and write books like "White Fragility" and lecture to those of us on which words should be omitted from conversation or publication because they could be perceived as "hurtful and offensive." By the way in the new 2023 AP style book, now the word "female" should not be used because it "can also sometimes carry misogynistic tones that may vary in severity by race, class and other factors."
“How to Be an Anti-Racist” was written by Ibram X. Kendi, a Black man from a lower middle class family who started out at an HBCU in Florida that no one has ever heard of. Doesn’t fit your profile.
Oops -- was thinking of the white woman: Robin DiAngelo, an academic and anti-racism consultant, published the surprise best-seller “White Fragility.” The book, which argues that white people tend to undermine or dismiss conversations about race with histrionic reactions.
ALSO-- the mandatory meetings on "How to be a Non-racist Teacher" given by white 25 year olds.
Gotcha. That makes sense. Yeah, DiAngelo is a piece of work. As are they all.
I am hurt and my identity attacked every time I hear the words "white privilege".
Go to your safe space and have a large shot of Wild Turkey. That will calm you down.
Grey Goose. Brown liquor makes me mean. ;)
Is this mean like a "Hell hath no fury." mean?
No. Like I do not even need to be scorned to be mean mean.
Not lawyers
99 % of all lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.
I am a lawyer, and I approve ^this^ message!
Thank you. My best friend from college is my lawyer and at the annual chamber of commerce dinner he gives a$50 prize for whomever can tell the best lawyer joke.
Did you hear the post office is recalling all stamps that have lawyers on them?
Yeah people don't know which side to spit on.
Only people over 40 years old when you had to lick a stamp catch that joke.
#MeToo
We've been reading one another's posts too long, LP....
What can I say? You are my inspiration, my guiding light.
Keep up the good work.
And the very same to you.
That was one of the dumbest points Chris made. To be frank, who cares if people’s feeling are hurt. If you’re not intentionally being an a** who cares. You can’t control peoples feeling. People’s feelings should not be your guiding light to what you publish.
But, but, but the Left is all about ‘feelings’ - why do you think so many otherwise intelligent women vote ‘left; the Left abandoned thinking, reasoning and intellectualism awhile back.
Hurt and offense! Hurt and offense?!!? If a group of TED employees is so psychologically fragile that THAT particular talk causes ‘hurt and offense’ at a major scale, the TED solution should be to provide them with counseling and support to increase their resilience and ability to cope with - with - with their jobs!! NOT to reengineer the standard TED publication process as some sort of reparation for their emotional upset. The best analogy is to incredibly weak parents given the toddlers a bunch of candy instead of their vegetables because the toddlers swore to hold their breath otherwise.
Zach, You misread what Chris said.
He is talking about Chris Anderson, not Chris Paramore. He just expounded on Chris Paramore's comment.
I don't think the goal is to hurt and offend people; it's to say what you want regardless of whether it's likely to have that effect. But he's right: the definition of controversial is, well, causing controversy. The least that does is makes people uncomfortable. As that concept is now used among the snowflakes, it's "harmful."
Tough.
I believe you may have misunderstood Chris’s post
I think Zach is talking about Chris Anderson, not Chris Paramore (the commenter).
We just disagree. You take him at his word and I just see the same canned response from a leader of an organization that has a very left leaning perspective. You see an “objective” response with all the catch phrases that claim moral superiority of wanting a just world, magic wand, etc. I see a PR BS response where he’s just trying to get out unscathed from the side who demands moral perfection.
“Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say. This is not what we dream of when we post our talks. “ That is statement is saying he does not intend or “dream” of when they post talks.
Ah, I see the problem. Your original reply was to a Chris Paramore, this being the Chris I assumed you were referring to. Which was surprising as his post was relatively innocuous.
It appears your specific beef is with Chris Anderson. That chap admittedly I don't have much time for.
That makes sense. Sorry for not being more clear!
I really appreciate how both of you ended your conversation (it was a simple miscommunication). It seems like all too often things like this devolve into screaming contests benefitting nobody, and I appreciate the maturity level both of you have shown.
It’s easy to be an ass online (so hard to judge intent of words). While I try to be respectful sometimes I fall short. Appreciate Uber for being respectful and you for the compliment.
I don’t believe I did. He states they didn’t attend to hurt or offend people. I’m sorry that’s a ridiculous statement. One, the assumption is you didn’t “intend” to do that because I’m taking at face value the fact youre a good person and don’t intend to hurt people. Two, it’s just word salad to show he’s morally inline with the “good side”. Again, who cares if feelings are hurt by someone’s talk. Maybe if TED truly cared about diversity they’d hire more people who have different perspectives as opposed to a bunch of young people who get their feels hurt by words
I'm not sure what you're seeing in Chris's post, he doesn't address intent.
On an objective basis his comment is perfectly reasonable- controversy only exists when opinions differ and open conversation is a better route to consensus.