4 ms·

It strikes me that a TED talk about TED talks being 'all talk' isn't incredibly substantive either. It's like the random comment or tweet referencing something

It strikes me that a TED talk about TED talks being 'all talk' isn't incredibly substantive either. It's like the random comment or tweet referencing something only because the author says it isn't worth your time. I do think his assessment of "placebo technoradicalism, toying with risk so as to re-affirm the comfortable" was accurate and insightful, but only at TED's worst. To talk about how all this is so "harmful," etc., seems like an insight into the speaker's own self importance and 'thought leadership.' That being said, it comes with the territory for any TED talk. Really, what's the harm, is kind of my thinking.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Really, what's the harm, is kind of my thinking. Yeah, the word that comes to mind is masturbation. >It strikes me that a TED talk about TED talks being 'all talk' isn't incredibly substantive either. The very fact that it's called TED talks and not TED action or TED works is testament to its nature. What else would we get but people pontificating about the world, future, etc.? The audience is essentially encouraged to be sort of passively "talked to" and await the heralding of the new world, to be ushered in by the big thinkers who are, of course, busy talking.