Shared publicly  - 
 
 
TED Suffers from Streisand Effect

Under pressure from the Internets, TED has finally relented and released the video that has caused much controversy over its Censorship. TED has also released a blog post giving excuses for their action, stating;

✖ The Live audience gave it mediocre ratings.
✖ Explicitly partisan.
✖ Unconvincing argument.

Judging from the comments on TED's blog, most people still disagree with TED's action to Censor the video. Arguments include;

"The audience gave a standing ovation, this is not a valid excuse. Also why can't the public decide the ratings?"

"I fail to see how this is partisan, he called out both parties. In any case, isn't it immoral to give 50/50 arguments for topics relating to injustice?"

"I was very convinced by this argument, he also citied empirical evidence and worthy statistics. Please inform me what he did wrong?"

I tend to agree with TED on this one, this is clearly partisan - but only to the extent that it reflects the perversity of American culture. A totalitarian like culture of escalating authoritarianism and fascism, where the 'center of compromise' is set to the extreme right.

Like all totalitarian societies censorship does not need to be forced, it is part of the culture. Your not suppose to say when the Emperor has no clothes on. This should be considered taboo. So yes, in this environment, you can't politely imply that the system is wrong, even if supported with facts and empirical evidence.
2
1
Samantha Appleseed's profile photoWoozle Hypertwin's profile photoMorio Murase's profile photoLiza Persson's profile photo
7 comments
 
Didn't TED have another talk where a professor put up various studies he performed that all indicated that high income disparity is a hallmark of a society that isn't going well?

So if this guy's talk is "partisan", so is the professor's-- heck, so are Al Gore's talks on climate, and pretty much all the talks on science.

The bottom line is, TED got pissed that one of their speakers went to Moveon.org to promote his ideas, and they didn't want that association for some reason (probably because Moveon tends to scare/anger people who may wish to donate to TED).
 
They did +Morio Murase, but his advice to raise taxes was bundled in amongst seven other points, so non-controversial. This talk was more direct and confident in calling out the main problem, thus TED got scared about upsetting a small but radical and powerful fraction of society.
 
That "small radical fraction of society" also likely opposes strong EPA regulations, cap & trade, or many other ideas associated with climate science. If anything, TED should have been in the crosshairs of the 1% (i.e. Koch brothers and their buddies) from the very beginning.

Okay, here's another possibility: The super-wealthy does not want anyone in their income class to say that raising taxes on them is a good idea. They can't silence Buffett or Gates (and it seems these two tycoons really don't care either way, they just want good PR-- Buffett disowned his granddaughter for appearing in a video exposing the wealthy for who they are).

A university professor saying that income inequality is bad can be easily dismissed as "a liberal professor who doesn't know what he's talking about because he's never been in business". A wealthy, successful businessman/capitalist saying the same thing and believing it is quite a bit more inconvenient for those supporting the dogma that "the wealthy are the job creators".
 
(G+ tried to pull a fast one on me here -- I got the notification, but when I click on it I get a message saying "There was an error contacting the server. Please try again." I was only able to get here by clicking on "view post".)

"That "small radical fraction of society" also likely opposes strong EPA regulations, cap & trade..." -- those topics have been rendered "controversial" enough (i.e. sufficiently discredited or questionable in the minds of the mainstream) that one can speak about them without changing the balance of power.

This, however, goes straight to the heart of the problem, and comes from a source that's difficult to argue with. Maybe the pro-establishment think-tanks will eventually figure out a way to counter it -- but until then, the elite feel threatened by it, because the mainstream might actually take it seriously if they hear it.

...at least, that's my theory.
 
"I tend to agree with TED on this one, this is clearly partisan - but only to the extent that it reflects the perversity of American culture. A totalitarian like culture of escalating authoritarianism and fascism, where the 'center of compromise' is set to the extreme right."

It depends how you define "partisan". The Right has defined it as "any conclusion that favors one side's methods over the other [especially if it's not our side]", but I define it as "any argument that prioritizes one side's stated goals over those of the other side".

I don't see how this talk does the latter, unless the Right admits that they want increasing income inequality and a permanent underclass.
Add a comment...