5 ms·

What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. Without such honesty, any

What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. Without such honesty, any apologia is hollow. In response to the hollowness, I did some googling on racial color blindness and I now am very convinced of its connection to white supremacy. This author had my attention for 10 minutes and was too abstract for me to really learn anything at all. In fairness: purposeful vagueness isn't going to get me engage with your monetized content, so I didn't click on any of their videos.

CharlesW 3y ago
Even the author doesn't believe in racial color blindness¹. This TED Talk is content marketing for his personal brand, his business doing speaking engagements² ($10-20K each), and his forthcoming book, and he's just upset that his YouTube view count shows that few people care what he thinks about the topic. ¹ "Taking that viewpoint seriously — while ultimately refuting it — was the express purpose of my talk." ² https://www.aaespeakers.com/keynote-speakers/coleman-hughes https://www.aaespeakers.com/keynote-speakers/coleman-hughes
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  Coleman Hughes does indeed believe in racial color blindness. The viewpoint he's taking seriously while ultimately refuting is that "color blindness is, in fact, a Trojan horse for white supremacy."
- toyg 3y ago
  I don't know why he'd say that, when he ended the talk literally saying it's the best way to govern a multi-racial society and that we should use it right now as much as possible.
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  On his twitter Coleman says that his youtube views were what he was expecting, it's the view directly from the TED Talk website that seemed surprisingly low.
timmg 3y ago
> What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. I imagine for any talk (or any theory) about just about anything (worth giving a talk about) will have critics (and reasonable critical arguments.) But, generally, I wouldn't think that that in itself is a good reason to (to some extent) censor his talk. > In response to the hollowness, I did some googling on racial color blindness and I now am very convinced of its connection to white supremacy. As someone who is maybe older than the typical HNer (maybe) this is cognitively dissonant to me. When I was younger, Progressives were striving for color-blindness (and MLK famously called for such a thing in his most famous speech.)
- SenAnder 3y ago
  > When I was younger, Progressives were striving for color-blindness Now that that ground is conquered and secured, it is time for new conquests.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Unlimited thirst for conquest was the undoing of many - Napoleon, for example. Just saying.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > Now that that ground is conquered and secured You feel that we have achieved a color blind society?
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      No, but color blindness is broadly accepted as the ideal, in the same way that violence is shunned, but still exists in society. Now it's time to push the ideal further.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Hate groups are fantastic at co-opting previously reasonable ideas. Some examples: - Woke - The OK hand symbol - Gay - turning a word that literally means "Happy" into a slur - The Punisher symbol - He is not a police-adjacent vigilante. - The US Flag (stars and bars, to be specific) So, yeah, as a fellow older HNer, it's hard to see these kinds of re-defining ideals we once ascribed to. But it's happening, and that reality is the one we have to live in.
toyg 3y ago
In other words you'd want him to repent and accept the orthodoxy, before you'll consider listening to his possibly-heretic theories. Whether he is right or wrong is fundamentally irrelevant. TED accepted his talk, reviewed it, fact-checked it, like all other talks; and then bowed to political pressure and quietly moved away from it. That's not a good look, regardless of what the speech might be about. To be fair, it could be worse - they could have kept it completely hidden - but it's still not great.
- flarg 3y ago
  For a complex and sensitive topic it makes sense to listen to others and potentially change tack.
  - jononomo 3y ago
    He literally debated someone for an hour, during which time he listened a lot and conducted himself with complete professionalism
- Spivak 3y ago
  Yes, it's like you've never had a serious discussion on any issue before. If you can't in good faith defend the opposing position in the manner in which your opponents themselves view the issue then you'll never be convincing. It is the only way you won't be arguing against a straw man. You'll notice that my point is symmetric and makes reference to which side might be an orthodoxy. This doesn't mean you have to both-sides yourself; you don't have to take the "what if some races are just superior" position unless you're arguing with someone who believes that. When you explain why you think color blindness isn't the right approach you start by saying why it is good, the benefits, why it's reasonable for someone to believe it to be the right way forward and then talk about its flaws.
  - jononomo 3y ago
    He literally submitted to a debate with someone from the opposing viewpoint. So the “manner in which your opponents themselves view the issue” is literally highlighted as a condition of his talk being released. He ended up winning that debate decisively, which is what got TED’s undies in a twist.
anonymousiam 3y ago
So was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a white supremacist when he advocated for a color blind society?
- falcolas 3y ago
  The phrase has been co-opted; its meaning has changed. As happens with all languages, a phrase is not defined once and never changes, much to my chagrin.
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    Citations please? I was not aware of this. Who or which group has co-opted it, and for what purpose?
    - krapp 3y ago
      Here are several articles explaining[0,2] how that one phrase has been co-opted and misinterpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what MLK intended. If you're curious, Google can reveal many other discussions on this topic. [0]https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2018/martin-luther-king-jr-didnt-push-colour-blind-politics/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2018/martin-l... [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20230410193113/https://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/justice06.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20230410193113/https://academic.... [2]https://theconversation.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-and-the-color-blind-society-of-martin-luther-king-jr-180490 https://theconversation.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-and-the-co...
      - anonymousiam 3y ago
        Okay, first citation [0] Joanne St. Lewis is a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Her teaching, research and legal work focus on social justice issues. She cites no references to support her opinions. Second citation [1] Assistant Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law. B.A. 1980, Wilberforce University; J.D. 1984, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Again, it's all his opinion with some supporting examples, but no citations. Third citation [2] Bev-Freda Jackson Adjunct Professorial Lecturer, American University School of Public Affairs Jackson's article is better, but still includes logical fallacies. "By recasting anti-racism as the new racism, conservative GOP leaders such as Grassley and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, use King’s words that advocated for a colorblind society as a critical part of their national messaging to advance legislation that bans the teachings of so-called divisive concepts." She doesn't explain what the problem is here, why what they're doing is wrong, or how and why anti-racism is not actually racism. Citing Dr. King's children opens the door to analysis of their character, and their politics. Thank you though, I now understand that recent academic activists have attempted to diminish Dr. King's message using double-speak to push their racist agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves. None of the above applies in any way to the TED video (which I watched and enjoyed). Coleman Hughes does not disparage Dr. King or his message, and probably doesn't care much for anti-racist rhetoric.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
He doesn't have to address his debate opponent's points in their favor for them. He filmed an actual debate allowing them to do so themselves. He espoused in this article a willingness to discuss with his critics at any time in case they make a point that changes his mind. How that can be viewed as anything other than good faith is beyond me.

CharlesW 3y ago

Even the author doesn't believe in racial color blindness¹. This TED Talk is content marketing for his personal brand, his business doing speaking engagements² ($10-20K each), and his forthcoming book, and he's just upset that his YouTube view count shows that few people care what he thinks about the topic. ¹ "Taking that viewpoint seriously — while ultimately refuting it — was the express purpose of my talk." ² https://www.aaespeakers.com/keynote-speakers/coleman-hughes https://www.aaespeakers.com/keynote-speakers/coleman-hughes

i_am_jl 3y ago
Coleman Hughes does indeed believe in racial color blindness. The viewpoint he's taking seriously while ultimately refuting is that "color blindness is, in fact, a Trojan horse for white supremacy."
toyg 3y ago
I don't know why he'd say that, when he ended the talk literally saying it's the best way to govern a multi-racial society and that we should use it right now as much as possible.
JamesBarney 3y ago
On his twitter Coleman says that his youtube views were what he was expecting, it's the view directly from the TED Talk website that seemed surprisingly low.

timmg 3y ago

> What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. I imagine for any talk (or any theory) about just about anything (worth giving a talk about) will have critics (and reasonable critical arguments.) But, generally, I wouldn't think that that in itself is a good reason to (to some extent) censor his talk. > In response to the hollowness, I did some googling on racial color blindness and I now am very convinced of its connection to white supremacy. As someone who is maybe older than the typical HNer (maybe) this is cognitively dissonant to me. When I was younger, Progressives were striving for color-blindness (and MLK famously called for such a thing in his most famous speech.)

SenAnder 3y ago
> When I was younger, Progressives were striving for color-blindness Now that that ground is conquered and secured, it is time for new conquests.
- toyg 3y ago
  Unlimited thirst for conquest was the undoing of many - Napoleon, for example. Just saying.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > Now that that ground is conquered and secured You feel that we have achieved a color blind society?
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    No, but color blindness is broadly accepted as the ideal, in the same way that violence is shunned, but still exists in society. Now it's time to push the ideal further.
falcolas 3y ago
Hate groups are fantastic at co-opting previously reasonable ideas. Some examples: - Woke - The OK hand symbol - Gay - turning a word that literally means "Happy" into a slur - The Punisher symbol - He is not a police-adjacent vigilante. - The US Flag (stars and bars, to be specific) So, yeah, as a fellow older HNer, it's hard to see these kinds of re-defining ideals we once ascribed to. But it's happening, and that reality is the one we have to live in.

toyg 3y ago

In other words you'd want him to repent and accept the orthodoxy, before you'll consider listening to his possibly-heretic theories. Whether he is right or wrong is fundamentally irrelevant. TED accepted his talk, reviewed it, fact-checked it, like all other talks; and then bowed to political pressure and quietly moved away from it. That's not a good look, regardless of what the speech might be about. To be fair, it could be worse - they could have kept it completely hidden - but it's still not great.

flarg 3y ago
For a complex and sensitive topic it makes sense to listen to others and potentially change tack.
- jononomo 3y ago
  He literally debated someone for an hour, during which time he listened a lot and conducted himself with complete professionalism
Spivak 3y ago
Yes, it's like you've never had a serious discussion on any issue before. If you can't in good faith defend the opposing position in the manner in which your opponents themselves view the issue then you'll never be convincing. It is the only way you won't be arguing against a straw man. You'll notice that my point is symmetric and makes reference to which side might be an orthodoxy. This doesn't mean you have to both-sides yourself; you don't have to take the "what if some races are just superior" position unless you're arguing with someone who believes that. When you explain why you think color blindness isn't the right approach you start by saying why it is good, the benefits, why it's reasonable for someone to believe it to be the right way forward and then talk about its flaws.
- jononomo 3y ago
  He literally submitted to a debate with someone from the opposing viewpoint. So the “manner in which your opponents themselves view the issue” is literally highlighted as a condition of his talk being released. He ended up winning that debate decisively, which is what got TED’s undies in a twist.

anonymousiam 3y ago

So was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a white supremacist when he advocated for a color blind society?

falcolas 3y ago
The phrase has been co-opted; its meaning has changed. As happens with all languages, a phrase is not defined once and never changes, much to my chagrin.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  Citations please? I was not aware of this. Who or which group has co-opted it, and for what purpose?
  - krapp 3y ago
    Here are several articles explaining[0,2] how that one phrase has been co-opted and misinterpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what MLK intended. If you're curious, Google can reveal many other discussions on this topic. [0]https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2018/martin-luther-king-jr-didnt-push-colour-blind-politics/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2018/martin-l... [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20230410193113/https://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/justice06.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20230410193113/https://academic.... [2]https://theconversation.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-and-the-color-blind-society-of-martin-luther-king-jr-180490 https://theconversation.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-and-the-co...
    - anonymousiam 3y ago
      Okay, first citation [0] Joanne St. Lewis is a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Her teaching, research and legal work focus on social justice issues. She cites no references to support her opinions. Second citation [1] Assistant Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law. B.A. 1980, Wilberforce University; J.D. 1984, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Again, it's all his opinion with some supporting examples, but no citations. Third citation [2] Bev-Freda Jackson Adjunct Professorial Lecturer, American University School of Public Affairs Jackson's article is better, but still includes logical fallacies. "By recasting anti-racism as the new racism, conservative GOP leaders such as Grassley and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, use King’s words that advocated for a colorblind society as a critical part of their national messaging to advance legislation that bans the teachings of so-called divisive concepts." She doesn't explain what the problem is here, why what they're doing is wrong, or how and why anti-racism is not actually racism. Citing Dr. King's children opens the door to analysis of their character, and their politics. Thank you though, I now understand that recent academic activists have attempted to diminish Dr. King's message using double-speak to push their racist agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves. None of the above applies in any way to the TED video (which I watched and enjoyed). Coleman Hughes does not disparage Dr. King or his message, and probably doesn't care much for anti-racist rhetoric.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

He doesn't have to address his debate opponent's points in their favor for them. He filmed an actual debate allowing them to do so themselves. He espoused in this article a willingness to discuss with his critics at any time in case they make a point that changes his mind. How that can be viewed as anything other than good faith is beyond me.