Current Events > This TED talk caused a controversy such that TED almost didn't release it.

(+) Yeah! (+)

What do you think of it? Do you think the argument is good? Do you think it's flawed or problematic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxB3b7fxMEA

Haven't watched it yet but the comments are giving me "I'm a libertarian" vibes

Who tf is Ted

Chicken posted...

Who tf is Ted

The son of submariner guy

The description says he advocates for "replacing race-based policies with class-based ones". Don't have time to watch rn but that at least sounds like a feasible premise given the heavy correlation between the two in the United States on account of denying non-whites generational wealth opportunities. The question's just whether he has a lot of hard data and analysis to support his proposals

He basically advocates for colorblindness, which in our modern progressive times is a Trojan horse for white supremacy. The ideals that led the Civil rights movement are now tools of white supremacy in our modern progressive times.

This is the best TED Talk:

https://youtu.be/tom6_ceTu9s

I haven't watched the video yet. It's on the list.

In a response to the TED issues about it not being promoted properly, Hughes had this to say on his substack. Honestly, raises a couple red flags for me.

I believe that there should be all kinds of TED talks: woke ones, anti-woke ones, and apolitical ones. Free speech and viewpoint diversity should reign supreme! But TEDs staff appear to believe that there should be tons of woke talks and zero anti-woke talks. Thats a big difference. I want a bigger tent of allowable ideas, they want a smaller tent.

https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/my-last-word-on-ted

Thought this would be about actual color blindness, shame

Damn apparently you can only edit a post like three times. I just want to add:

I don't think this TED talk almost didn't get released because of the "controversial" message. I think it almost didn't get released because it is a bad TED talk. It is does not meet the standard of quality expected from a TED presentation. Not in terms of rigor of thought, originality, structure, or anything.

DnDer posted...

I haven't watched the video yet. It's on the list.

In a response to the TED issues about it not being promoted properly, Hughes had this to say on his substack. Honestly, raises a couple red flags for me.

https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/my-last-word-on-ted

@Doe's analysis had me curious to watch. That quote was enough. I'm good.

Chicken posted...

Who tf is Ted

That funny lil bear who hangs out with Mark Wahlberg.

Why is joenumbers back?

BurmesePenguin posted...

Why is joenumbers back?

This site's policy on repeat offenders circumventing bans is... lacking.

Ricemills posted...

The son of submariner guy

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/6/3/AAGF34AAE9TP.jpg

myztikrice posted...

Thought this would be about actual color blindness, shame

Same. Like guy invented a device or procedure to cure it.

myztikrice posted...

Thought this would be about actual color blindness, shame

Lol, thought the same.

I agree that policies should be "color-blind" in general, but if there are issues affecting a particular color more, it's understandable to have a policie aimed to help them.

"Help I'm suffering due to racism!"

"Sorry, bro, I don't see color, so I can't help. Those people are probably just classist towards you."

I agree with him in a way, but there's so many racist laws or codified that we'll need to untangle/get rid of all of those before we have any resemblance of colorblindness.

Factor in racist political representation and redlining, factors that can't easily be overturned, and you will still have that underclass.

In other words, this only works if we don't have racists and everyone acts in others' best interests.

This is Coleman's summarizing of events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKZlb-MdzKo

For those who had objections, does his response address any of your concerns? Even if you disagree with his talk do you disagree with TED's unique handling of his talk?

joe40001 posted...

This is Coleman's summarizing of events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKZlb-MdzKo

For those who had objections, does his response address any of your concerns? Even if you disagree with his talk do you disagree with TED's unique handling of his talk?

Classic joenumbers post.

Thank you for joining my JEB Talk

joe40001 posted...

This is Coleman's summarizing of events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKZlb-MdzKo

For those who had objections, does his response address any of your concerns? Even if you disagree with his talk do you disagree with TED's unique handling of his talk?

You have a single post in here willing to analyze this video and you just straight up ignore it. Close this fucking topic

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/0/3/AAfYNaAAEceT.jpg

Axiom posted...

You have a single post in here willing to analyze this video and you just straight up ignore it. Close this fucking topic

I'm sincerely very confused why you seem upset.

I really appreciate Doe's contributions. I've read every post in this topic and appreciate anybody who did share their perspective for sharing their perspective.

My purpose is to understand other people's perspectives on issues I find interesting. I have found that if I inject too much of my own perspective (particularly early on in a topic) often times the topic it can become personal or antagonistic and I haven't historically found that productive.

Perhaps I should have explicitly thanked Doe (and the others) who did share some of their thoughts. As I said, I am grateful for them. But I don't understand what I am being accused of doing wrong here. I wanted to facilitate discussion of what I see as a compelling perspective without the topic going into an antagonistic direction and I feel like I have been conducting myself appropriately towards that goal.

If I personally find Coleman's arguments compelling, and I wanted to hear other people's perspective on them without tainting or biasing the discussion in any way, what about my conduct would you say I should have done differently?

Axiom posted...

You have a single post in here willing to analyze this video and you just straight up ignore it. Close this fucking topic

He'll either abandon it or sealion, let's watch

EDIT: ha I guess I was looking at a cached view of this topic

Lizards posted...

He'll either abandon it or sealion, let's watch

EDIT: ha I guess I was looking at a cached view of this topic

Please tell me what you are implying I've done wrong here.

Maybe it's because I'm on the spectrum, but I truly am confused by people like you who treat me like I'm acting clearly negatively, when I am very matter of fact and direct.

I'm genuinely curious, so please answer this question: If I personally find Coleman's arguments compelling, and I wanted to hear other people's perspective on them without tainting or biasing the discussion in any way, what about my conduct in this topic would you say I should have done differently? Prior to my response to Axiom and your antagonism, what at all did I say or do in this topic that was objectionable? I am 100% seriously asking this question, because IRL I am never met with mocking hostility and so I am truly confused why it can sometimes happen here.

For those looking to see Coleman's idea's challenged, here is a debate sponsored by TED in which some of the criticisms of Coleman's stance are raised:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgfoV85KFJA

I think its funny that you ask why people dislike your posts in every topic despite at least one person going into detail about it in every other topic youve made and it always ends up being some variation of the same thing. And yet every new topic you feign ignorance and claim to be genuinely curious as to why.

I was hoping for some scientific/philosophical reasons colorblindness is good. Like sight, like cones and rods.

So he wants to have programs aimed to help poorer communities.instead of one aimed at helping minorities.

he does realize that in most cases thats the same group of people hes helping, right? I mean all hes doing is changing the name of a program. Hes not changing the actual target for it.

so basically, all hes saying is hey, dont forget poor white people. Which all these programs already help. Food stamps is a low income program. White people get on all the time. Same with disability. Same with Medicaid. Etc etc.

shnangyboos posted...

He basically advocates for colorblindness, which in our modern progressive times is a Trojan horse for white supremacy. The ideals that led the Civil rights movement are now tools of white supremacy in our modern progressive times.

I think by definition there is no way that color-blindness can support white supremacy. If every policy is about ensuring everybody is treated 100% fairly regardless of race then by definition there would be no way for the policy to favor white people.

Do you have any way to substantiate your claim that color-blindness "is a Trojan horse for white supremacy"? Can you give an example of a color blind policy (that is a policy in which people are treated 100% fairly regardless of race) in which white people are somehow favored? Because honestly I've heard this claim repeated before but I've never heard it defended, and it very much seems intellectually impossible just on a fundamental logical level.

Color blindness ignores the fact that society is not equal when it comes to race and until it does we literally cannot be color blind without other races falling short and being marginalized.

SayHeyyShohei posted...

Color blindness ignores the fact that society is not equal when it comes to race and until it does we literally cannot be color blind without other races falling short and being marginalized.

That's not really true though. If people are being treated unfairly due to their race, and you rollout policies that ensure people are treated fairly regardless of race, then if those policies are successful, people would be treated equally.

It's something like this: There's 8 very wealthy affluent white people, 2 struggling poor white people, there's 8 struggling poor black people, and 2 very wealthy affluent black people.

A color blind policy will help the 10 struggling poor people, and a race based one will help the 10 black people. Is the race based one really helping address inequality?

Furthermore if the policy was one that was only going to help 2 people, odds are it would help the 2 affluent black people and not any of the 8 ones actually struggling. Whereas a color-blind class based solution (like Coleman advocates for) would help 2 of the struggling people, likely both black.

Does it really make you feel good to think of Asian students having to hide their asianness on college application essays and being discriminated against based on their race? Or well off institutions claiming they are addressing racism when they just chase a quota rather than send resources to places where people are struggling? IMO these aren't solutions, it's virtue signaling that defines and divides people based on race. It ignores people's humanity and personal experience, and sees them first through the lens of race. And to me that seems like a really really dumb way to try to move past racism.

One thing I really dislike about non-colorblind solutions is that they are so shallow, and can often be this super reductive, and indeed a kinda racist "race-essentialism" view of people.

Who has more in common? 2 people of different races both living in the same neighborhood, going to the same school, in the same group of friends, both in deep poverty, both nearby crime, both without a father in their life? Or each one of those people with a rich wealthy privileged counterpart half way across the country of the same race?

I think anybody with any intellectual integrity knows the answer to that question. And I'm sorry, but it's just silly to act like the opposite is true. You simply don't address racism by enshrining racial discrimination as the solution.

A black person isn't at a disadvantage because they are black, blackness (or any skin color) is not a flaw or detriment. The problem is the legacy of unfair treatment of people based on their race, and any ongoing unfair treatment.

The unfair treatment of a person, not the race of the person, is the problem needing addressing. And so any policy in which addressing that unfair treatment is the core focus is going to be more effective.

Because seriously? What's the goal? Let's cut the bullshit. Is the goal a kinda schadenfreude antagonisms of people (rich and poor) around racial lines because we are angry about the legacy of racism? Or is the goal to effectively address and solve the existing unfairnesses for those struggling? Because like I said, the unfairness is the problem, and so it needs to be the focus of the solution of anybody who is looking to actually solve the problem.

If I'm honest, I feel like a lot of people who advocated for corrective racial discrimination to address the issues of unfair treatment do so not because they think it will be most effective, but because they know it's the solution most likely to piss off some people they want to piss off. They call it color-blind policies "gateways to white supremacy" not because it makes any intellectual sense, but because republicans are more open to color-blind solutions than race-based ones, and they liking calling everything republicans touch "gateways to white supremacy". They'd probably call pickup trucks "gateways to white supremacy" if a bunch of republicans talked about how much they liked them.

And for many of these people, they'd cut off their own nose to spite a republican. And yes, they'd sacrifice the well being of people of color they purport to be advocating for if it meant they got to upset their "enemies".

I think the truth is: anybody with common sense and the slightest bit of intellectual honesty can see that to address unfairness based on race, you need to address unfairness not race. They can see that if everybody is being treated fairly, regardless of race, racism is being solved, and thus they can see that solutions that do this (color-blind solutions) are the best solutions.

But when they see the 2 options put in front of them:

1. Help the disadvantaged people by focusing on unfairness.
2. Help a little bit of the disadvantaged people. Harm some of the disadvantaged people. But also piss off republicans.

They empathically choose option 2. I honestly think that's what's happening for a lot of people. I suspect some people in this topic, if they honestly asked themselves which one they would choose, they would realize it is option 2.

A color-blind policy working as intended ensures nobody is treated unfairly based on race, a race based attempts to treat people unfairly based on race but in a opposite corrective direction, and ultimately almost always neglects the actual struggling people of a race in favor of tokenizing the already privileged based on race. IMO if you truly care about the problem of racism, that is the problem of people being treated based on race, your goal obviously needs to be about addressing unfairness.

VRX3000 posted...

So he wants to have programs aimed to help poorer communities.instead of one aimed at helping minorities.

he does realize that in most cases thats the same group of people hes helping, right? I mean all hes doing is changing the name of a program. Hes not changing the actual target for it.

so basically, all hes saying is hey, dont forget poor white people. Which all these programs already help. Food stamps is a low income program. White people get on all the time. Same with disability. Same with Medicaid. Etc etc.

And he's ok with all of those. All of those effective programs are already color-blind programs. Most popular common sense programs are. But occasionally certain people will push solutions where race instead of class or disadvantage is the focus of the program, and his argument is that those things aren't helping.

Probably his big emblematic example of the kind of thing he's talking about is college admissions where an Asian kid (even one who came from disadvantage, poverty, a tough neighborhood, etc) has to hide their Asianness when applying to college and get much higher standardized scores (than even the white people sometimes) because the college is aiming for "racial equity", and thus race, not class, is used as the lens through which the college believes corrective discrimination must occur.

It's things like that he's against.

In short his argument is "help people based on class and you will still help everybody disadvantaged who needs helping, but you won't miss anybody disadvantaged, and you won't hurt anybody disadvantaged. Furthermore, these policies will meet less resistance, and by de-emphasizing race will help move us away from racism as a society."

BurmesePenguin posted...

I think its funny that you ask why people dislike your posts in every topic despite at least one person going into detail about it in every other topic youve made and it always ends up being some variation of the same thing. And yet every new topic you feign ignorance and claim to be genuinely curious as to why.

Ok, if it's so simple, answer the question: If I personally find Coleman's arguments compelling, and I wanted to hear other people's perspective on them without tainting or biasing the discussion in any way, what about my conduct would you say I should have done differently?

Ducks go... quack.
Chickens say... cluck.

"Quack quack," says the duck.
"Cluck cluck," says the chicken.

https://youtu.be/tom6_ceTu9s

joe40001 posted...

If I'm honest, I feel like a lot of people who advocated for corrective racial discrimination to address the issues of unfair treatment do so not because they think it will be most effective, but because they know it's the solution most likely to piss off some people they want to piss off. They call it color-blind policies "gateways to white supremacy" not because it makes any intellectual sense, but because republicans are more open to color-blind solutions than race-based ones, and they liking calling everything republicans touch "gateways to white supremacy". They'd probably call pickup trucks "gateways to white supremacy" if a bunch of republicans talked about how much they liked them.

That's a really fancy way of saying, "I think affirmative action is reverse-racism."

It makes perfect intellectual sense. Republicans (conservatives) are only open to "color-blind" solutions because they know they're not allowed to openly call it race-based. In the same way that what you said was, intentionally or not (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), an example of racist dog whistling. It's been their position since... at least Reconstruction.

Republicans (conservatives) have a long and storied and documented history of everything they touch being a gateway to white supremacy, if not just reinforcing the systemic white supremacy already in place.

joe40001 posted...

but you won't miss anybody disadvantaged, and you won't hurt anybody disadvantaged.

But you will. In both cases.

You can't have egalitarian practices in place until there's a basis of equity to begin with. That just doesn't exist at present and color-blind policies won't get you there.

They come after.

Promoting colorblindness is most often just an excuse to stop addressing current racial tensions and issues by denying that they even exist.

"No, I don't see any racial prejudice from the police force against non-white minorities, because I'm not racist and I don't see color"

Yes, these chucklefucks actually say shit like this.

The speaker seems to be promoting more of a classist than a racial mentality, which is at least better, however it still feels like a more benign attempt at disregarding issues centered around race by claiming it's really about class.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


There are people who are not Joe reading the topic. Perhaps this will be the first time they encounter this argument, and thus maybe the first time they encounter rebuttals to it.

Colorblindness be like
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/9/AARLwzAAE9u1.jpg

Tyranthraxus posted...

Colorblindness be like
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/9/AARLwzAAE9u1.jpg

That not accurate at all though. By the metaphor the lower spot is the disadvantaged group, and so colorblind programs are about helping the disadvantaged, and so the program would help the lower person.

Like that other person said, color-blind programs (food stamps, medicaid, etc) help those being treated unfairly, any representation of a colorblind program as not helping those being treated unfairly is by definition a strawman.

joe40001 posted...

That not accurate at all though. By the metaphor the lower spot is the disadvantaged group, and so colorblind programs are about helping the disadvantaged, and so the program would help the lower person.

Like that other person said, color-blind programs (food stamps, medicaid, etc) help those being treated unfairly, any representation of a colorblind program as not helping those being treated unfairly is by definition a strawman.

A colorblind program would indiscriminately help the higher and lower position. In order to achieve equity, the disadvantaged person should receive more help than the less disadvantaged person. When you apply help equally in a colorblind fashion, all you're doing is perpetuating racism. After all, providing no help whatsoever is still providing equal help.

DnDer posted...

But you will. In both cases.

You can't have egalitarian practices in place until there's a basis of equity to begin with. That just doesn't exist at present and color-blind policies won't get you there.

They come after.

I totally disagree.

If your program addresses unfairness regardless of race, and the program is completely successful in it's aims, then by definition there can be no racial inequality at the end of the program.

I think some of you are confused and think "oh it just means treat everybody the same as if we are all on equal footing right now". But that's not it at all, it's like food stamps, you give food stamps based on poverty not race. Food stamps is a color-blind program, are you against food stamps? Do you think food stamps would be a better program if it was race based and not income based?

If you don't think it would be better, you are basically already on Coleman's side.

Somebody being black (or any race) is not a disadvantage, it's racist unfair treatment they have experienced and the legacy of that racist unfair treatment that is the disadvantage, not their race. And so you center the programs around addressing unfairness and not race. And you actually address the problem head on.

Like I said, unless you think food stamps would be better if it was race based and not income based, you are already basically on Coleman's side.