Oh, lord. This for two paragraphs was an interesting article --- is there something political or controversial about deuteranopia? But, no: it's just a culture war appeal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
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.
> 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.
I'm trying (honestly) to understand your position here. Are you saying you used to think "color blindness" (in the MLK sense) was a good idea -- but you no longer do?
I think that colorblindness, as espoused by MLK, is a fantastic concept; I love to see it in reality.
However, when someone today claims they're colorblind, I accept that they most likely don't mean it in the same way that MLK did. And too often, I'm proven right.
> However, when someone today claims they're colorblind, I accept that they most likely don't mean it in the same way that MLK did. And too often, I'm proven right.
I guess, two questions:
1) What is different between what MLK wanted and what "those other people" want today?
2) If two people advocate for the same policy but each has different motivations for it, how does that affect the policy (implementation?) itself?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
The phrase as used then, and still used now, very much means "not giving a shit one way or another what race someone is". It has not been co-opted or changed.
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.
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.
I don't find the talk novel, interesting or insightful, as it's a boring claim about an obviously ideal situation would be good in an ideal world, but that doesn't make it below TED's normal standards.
The mentioned debate on the topic could be good, but I didn't see a link to it.
I watched this debate a couple of weeks ago and Coleman won every round.
I was surprised that Jamelle Bouie agreed to debate him, since anyone who has paid any attention to Coleman Hughes knows that he is a world-class thinker and debater. Coleman is one of the sharpest public intellectuals alive.
Jamelle must have known he was going up as a sacrificial lamb, especially since Jamelle had to argue in favor of racial discrimination. I mean, sheesh.
in my opinion the only thing a debate proves is who is a better debater. Debates can turn on bon mot that sounds true but doesn't stand up to careful, measured thought.
I think of debates as more like a verbal pugilism or jousting, verbal violence for the amusement of the spectators.
I think in the end, if a debate changes your mind, you hadn't thought deeply about the issue discussed.
Yes — the point of a debate is to enable people to think more deeply.
Do you think there is any point to reading or writing?
By your reasoning, reading and writing are just verbal jousting and if reading or writing make any difference in your life then that is an indication that you really should have just thought more deeply to begin with.
You are right that reading and writing can be verbal jousting but that is not the sole purpose of reading and writing. When dealing with the written word you have a record front of you that you can analyze and look for confirming information to see if the words are manipulation, truthful or outright lies. having words in front of you that you can go back and verify that your memory is correct gives you an opportunity to think more clearly and gather information so your better informed.
In a debate, the words fly by, they are half remembered and you come to conclusions that are not based on what was said but instead based on what you heard and half remembered.
there are two groups of people affected by the ephemeral nature of a debate. First is the group that listen but don't necessarily seek out a transcript. The second is the other person in the debate. They have to hear and respond in a matter of seconds. interaction is why I say say debates only prove who is the better debater.
I haven't followed all the details yet but I thought the reply by
Chris Anderson @TEDchris was very thoughtful and I now find myself in an indeterminate state for what the controversy was exactly https://twitter.com/TEDchris/status/1706792437098676224
TED talks have platformed literal fraudsters many times. It's just rich, well connected people roleplaying some idea of a "thought leader" organization.
TED is a well-oiled feel good scam that pretends that you can learn something that will change your life/your mind by watching a 15 minutes video.
It has managed to instill in the popular culture that those videos are educational. No, they are not. It’s simply a brand earning a lot of money on the free speakers hoping to get some Karma and organizers paying lot of money to just have the brand.
(I gave two TEDx talk myself. Not TED, of course but still)
So TED only platforms people whose ideas they explicitly agree with 100%. It’s sad and disheartening to see institutions that are supposed to promote different ideas become another casualty in the culture war.
I thought the video he posted showed two extremely intelligent men that had a huge depth of the topic. It was one of the very best things I have seen in HN in years- besides LLMs of course.
Sorry I'm not arguing the content is bad, there are lots of very intellectually satisfying and societally important topics that need to be debated and settled that are all culture war related.
But hacker news has just decided that it's going to try stay away from most of the culture war topics because a lot of the debate (on the site) starts to devolve into flame wars and unproductive conversations.
It sounds like this is arguing against reparations without actually coming out and saying it.
I think the prospect of colour blindness allowing us to ‘wipe the slate clean’ and basically put the past behind us and just be non-racist starting now is what’s alluring.
It sounds great to just say “we should help people based on class, rather than race,” but I think that’s because it sidesteps the issue of reparation. People have been wronged in more ways than just economic status. We do absolutely need to make aggressive progress toward reducing the class divide and wealth disparity, of course we do. But does that actually heal the harm that’s been done in the past? Does it prevent the harm that will be done in the future?
Reparations for racism and reducing poverty are both noble goals, but they’re not interchangeable, you can’t fix one by fixing the other. They both need to be worked on.
>As soon as he heard the world “Black@TED”— the “Employee Resource Group that exists to provide a safe space for TED staff who identify as Black” Colman recognized that he was f*cked.
