3 ms·

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 wro

by 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.

by toyg 3y ago

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.