3 ms·

Reading this awful, pompous, self congratulating prose and imagining a thousand people like her gathered at the same place exchanging ideas gives me the willies

by hristov 16y ago

Reading this awful, pompous, self congratulating prose and imagining a thousand people like her gathered at the same place exchanging ideas gives me the willies. I was not one of the lucky ones allowed the privilege to pay 10 k to attend, but I will have to drive by long beach today, so I must be careful to fill up my tank so as to avoid any possibility of accidentally getting stuck in Long Beach and having one of those geniuses curate at me. But we have not thought of the real victims of TED. What of actual curators. You know the people in museums. They get a quiet harmless job, and then that blabbering pack of idiots pick up the word that describes their profession, and soon anybody that has anything to do with "curating" will be universally hated and ridiculed.

rudiger 16y ago
Sour grapes? In reality, I suspect that the truth about TED lies somewhere between "pretentious circle-jerk" and "conference of the world's most inspired thinkers".
- edderly 16y ago
  I know what you mean, but doesn't there seem to be something vulgar and the amount of money ($6000) to attend? You can read plenty of things in the press about the extremes of celebrity, and no doubt if someone opened a Nightclub which cost $6000 to enter many 'normal' people would be offended. Just because someone might try to justify the TED fee in terms of 'for a good cause' doesn't help - it still gives me a feeling these people are living in a slightly different world.
  - damoncali 16y ago
    That's because poor people have nothing to contribute (in the eyes of TED). At least that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. If they didn't think that, and are not in it for the money, then why else would they exclude them? Someone tell me where I've gone wrong here, because the underlying attitude is sickening.
    - khafra 16y ago
      The audience isn't the contributors; they're the audience. The speakers don't pay; if some homeless guy had the credibility and charisma to speak at TED, there'd be nothing stopping him. Let's be very clear, here: TED does not exclude poor people, they exclude non-extraordinarily-rich people. If Bill Gates had released mosquitos all over a crowd of poor, or middle-class people, he'd have been an asshole. Because he did it over a crowd of the uber-rich, he was awesome and promoting awareness of important problems to people who can do something about them. The fact that TED charges so much for a seat makes them elitist and generates buzz and social proof; the fact that they share the content for free makes them egalitarian. But they focus on getting the eyeballs that are equipped to actually do something about the cool new ideas presented there.
      - damoncali 16y ago
        Interesting take. Makes sense. Still rubs me the wrong way, but I can at least see a method to the madness with your reasoning.

by hristov 16y ago

rudiger 16y ago

Sour grapes? In reality, I suspect that the truth about TED lies somewhere between "pretentious circle-jerk" and "conference of the world's most inspired thinkers".

edderly 16y ago
I know what you mean, but doesn't there seem to be something vulgar and the amount of money ($6000) to attend? You can read plenty of things in the press about the extremes of celebrity, and no doubt if someone opened a Nightclub which cost $6000 to enter many 'normal' people would be offended. Just because someone might try to justify the TED fee in terms of 'for a good cause' doesn't help - it still gives me a feeling these people are living in a slightly different world.
- damoncali 16y ago
  That's because poor people have nothing to contribute (in the eyes of TED). At least that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. If they didn't think that, and are not in it for the money, then why else would they exclude them? Someone tell me where I've gone wrong here, because the underlying attitude is sickening.
  - khafra 16y ago
    The audience isn't the contributors; they're the audience. The speakers don't pay; if some homeless guy had the credibility and charisma to speak at TED, there'd be nothing stopping him. Let's be very clear, here: TED does not exclude poor people, they exclude non-extraordinarily-rich people. If Bill Gates had released mosquitos all over a crowd of poor, or middle-class people, he'd have been an asshole. Because he did it over a crowd of the uber-rich, he was awesome and promoting awareness of important problems to people who can do something about them. The fact that TED charges so much for a seat makes them elitist and generates buzz and social proof; the fact that they share the content for free makes them egalitarian. But they focus on getting the eyeballs that are equipped to actually do something about the cool new ideas presented there.
    - damoncali 16y ago
      Interesting take. Makes sense. Still rubs me the wrong way, but I can at least see a method to the madness with your reasoning.