5 ms·

Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to anyone other than the party being supported.

debacle 14y ago
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."
- sp332 14y ago
  The same guy who said "I dream of a world where reality and truthiness can be one."- Stephen Colbert
  - emehrkay 14y ago
    Jon Stewart said the other 'liberal/reality' quote
    - sp332 14y ago
      Did he say it first? The first page of Google hits is covered with Colbert saying it at the Correspondents' Dinner in 2006. Edit: here it is, "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
      - gee_totes 14y ago
        'Reality has a well known Google bias'
        emehrkay 14y ago
        This is what I get for trying to be smart on the internet
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- jerf 14y ago
  Are actually making that claim, or is that an attempt to archly demonstrate the point being made? Because if you're seriously making that claim as others had, I can barely count the number of fallacies and debate style errors it contains with both hands. If you weren't trying to provide an example of how explicitly partisan debates can just shut down all conversation, you still did a good job.
  - debacle 14y ago
    I actually posted it initially without the double quotes, but then realized I would see a lot of posts like yours so edited it very quickly to add the double quotes in.
pohl 14y ago
The talk actually presents an idea that is, to some extent, a testable scientific economic claim: that the wealth of middle-class plays an important role in a feedback loop that creates jobs. The Republican party should find this insight to be valuable, since their stated goal is job creation, right? Why might they not want to learn something about the process they are working so hard to enable?
tokenizer 14y ago
Agreed. He made no effort to deny he or others who operate with TED have liberal minded ideas. He also gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation to the situation and in my opinion does nothing to deter my view of TED in any shape or form. And to people who make this out to be a US political issue, income equality is a global issue, and always have been. It's not the issue being brushed off but the quality of the argument judged by TED. But that said it's a really good talk.
lukifer 14y ago
How many TED talks revolve around global warming, despite the fact that the right treats it not just as alarmism, but a liberal hoax? TED doesn't seem to be rushing to pull those down. I can understand their reluctance to give Fox News ammunition to smear the TED brand. But it was the parties who chose to politicize ideas and issues which should belong to all humanity. Whatever happened to respectfully listening to people you disagree with? Getting locked up for speaking your mind is only one way for free speech to be stifled; another is to convince people to self-censor for the sake of their reputation, and whether he admits it to himself or not, this is exactly what Chris Anderson is doing. And alas, in today's media-political landscape, one is hard-pressed to find organizations and individuals for whom this is not the norm.
- scott_s 14y ago
  Based on what Chris Anderson said, if a talk about global warming made direct statements about political parties, they would reject it. That's the difference between controversial and partisan.
- praptak 14y ago
  I believe this particular decision was not about the message but about the way it was delivered. My hypothesis is that the same topic presented in a wikipediish NPOV style would fare much better. And symmetrically if you spiced a talk about climate change with jabs at replublicans it would share the fate of the talk in question.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    Admittedly, the one reference he made to parties at the beginning was unnecessary (somehow, I hadn't even heard it). But he isn't calling out any party; he is calling out a particular policy, and the way of thinking that pre-dates it, that he feels is counter-productive. There is no way to criticize the ideas he does without being "political". To put the shoe on the other foot: let's say someone had data which demonstrated that welfare and affirmative action are bad for the people they purport to help (just an example, I'm not making a case for or against either). How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way, when those issues have been politicized to death for decades? You couldn't. You'd have to either state your case bluntly and take the heat, or shut up and go away. Though the talk could definitely have been better (more data, please), I'm glad the speaker chose the former, and I think he made the best attempt possible at being neutral.

debacle 14y ago

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

sp332 14y ago
The same guy who said "I dream of a world where reality and truthiness can be one."- Stephen Colbert
- emehrkay 14y ago
  Jon Stewart said the other 'liberal/reality' quote
  - sp332 14y ago
    Did he say it first? The first page of Google hits is covered with Colbert saying it at the Correspondents' Dinner in 2006. Edit: here it is, "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
    - gee_totes 14y ago
      'Reality has a well known Google bias'
      - emehrkay 14y ago
        This is what I get for trying to be smart on the internet
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
jerf 14y ago
Are actually making that claim, or is that an attempt to archly demonstrate the point being made? Because if you're seriously making that claim as others had, I can barely count the number of fallacies and debate style errors it contains with both hands. If you weren't trying to provide an example of how explicitly partisan debates can just shut down all conversation, you still did a good job.
- debacle 14y ago
  I actually posted it initially without the double quotes, but then realized I would see a lot of posts like yours so edited it very quickly to add the double quotes in.

pohl 14y ago

The talk actually presents an idea that is, to some extent, a testable scientific economic claim: that the wealth of middle-class plays an important role in a feedback loop that creates jobs. The Republican party should find this insight to be valuable, since their stated goal is job creation, right? Why might they not want to learn something about the process they are working so hard to enable?

tokenizer 14y ago

Agreed. He made no effort to deny he or others who operate with TED have liberal minded ideas. He also gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation to the situation and in my opinion does nothing to deter my view of TED in any shape or form. And to people who make this out to be a US political issue, income equality is a global issue, and always have been. It's not the issue being brushed off but the quality of the argument judged by TED. But that said it's a really good talk.

lukifer 14y ago

How many TED talks revolve around global warming, despite the fact that the right treats it not just as alarmism, but a liberal hoax? TED doesn't seem to be rushing to pull those down. I can understand their reluctance to give Fox News ammunition to smear the TED brand. But it was the parties who chose to politicize ideas and issues which should belong to all humanity. Whatever happened to respectfully listening to people you disagree with? Getting locked up for speaking your mind is only one way for free speech to be stifled; another is to convince people to self-censor for the sake of their reputation, and whether he admits it to himself or not, this is exactly what Chris Anderson is doing. And alas, in today's media-political landscape, one is hard-pressed to find organizations and individuals for whom this is not the norm.

scott_s 14y ago
Based on what Chris Anderson said, if a talk about global warming made direct statements about political parties, they would reject it. That's the difference between controversial and partisan.
praptak 14y ago
I believe this particular decision was not about the message but about the way it was delivered. My hypothesis is that the same topic presented in a wikipediish NPOV style would fare much better. And symmetrically if you spiced a talk about climate change with jabs at replublicans it would share the fate of the talk in question.
- lukifer 14y ago
  Admittedly, the one reference he made to parties at the beginning was unnecessary (somehow, I hadn't even heard it). But he isn't calling out any party; he is calling out a particular policy, and the way of thinking that pre-dates it, that he feels is counter-productive. There is no way to criticize the ideas he does without being "political". To put the shoe on the other foot: let's say someone had data which demonstrated that welfare and affirmative action are bad for the people they purport to help (just an example, I'm not making a case for or against either). How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way, when those issues have been politicized to death for decades? You couldn't. You'd have to either state your case bluntly and take the heat, or shut up and go away. Though the talk could definitely have been better (more data, please), I'm glad the speaker chose the former, and I think he made the best attempt possible at being neutral.