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.
Regardless of his political leanings, anyone with any semblance of honesty would have to admit that Coleman Hughes is one of the best intellectual orators of our time.
I'll summarize this TED story for folx. "Progressives Ruin Everything". The End.
“Black@TED”—which TED’s website describes as an “Employee Resource Group that exists to provide a safe space for TED staff who identify as Black”..... Safe space???? Are these fools five years old???? One does not give in to misbehaving brats. They are punished and sent to bed bereft of supper.
I see it is time to repost my liberals aren't liberal post:
I subscribe to an opinion newsletter called Common Sense. It mainly defends the First Amendment and it defends it from the nut cases on the left and the right. Common Sense does a pretty good job of being politically neutral. However, because the mainstream press and many universities have to the gone far left, most of the articles are how the left through political correctness, the woke and the me too movements are attempting to destroy the First Amendment. The left does not debate you on the merit of what is said or what you have written, they attack you and most times viciously.
Below is a response I wrote to an article in Common Sense:
You call the left, liberals. I can't bring myself to do that. A true liberal embraces free speech. John Stuart Mill one of the founders of liberalism was a staunch defender of free speech. He said in his essay on liberalism, I'm paraphrasing here, "You should listen to your adversaries because they might be right."
The left today are not liberals. If you don't agree with the left, you are pilloried by the left. I read the definition of a racist, "Is anyone who wins an argument with a liberal."
Whatever happened to, "I may not agree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? In July of 1977 the American NAZI Party was going to march through Skokie, Illinois. Seven Thousand Holocaust survivors lived in Skokie. Words cannot describe how disgusted and appalled I was by this proposed vile act. Of all people who defended this atrocity was the ACLU. I was shocked until I heard why they were defending the NAZIs right to march.
They weren't defending the NAZIs. They were defending the First Amendment, freedom of expression. I am a gentile and much as I despised the NAZIs I love the First Amendment more. I only wish the left loved the First Amendment as much as I do but they don't.
So please stop calling them liberals because they aren't. They are tyrants.
I will be traveling to the Hudson River Valley soon. It has me re-reading “Rip Van Winkle” by Washington Irving published 1819.
I have indeed slept and woken a stranger in a strange land now. Liberals were always my heroes, now they are anti free speech, pro war, Orwellian newspeak all the way down. Unrecognizable
I was going to call them “Neo-Libs” but that is not true (nothing liberal about them) and would be a misnomer. They are the Democrat party and will go down wearing that name.
I sometimes call them "neoprogressives", which does not falsely imply that they are liberals. Indeed today's "Critical Social Justice ideology" - a more neutrally descriptive but bulky name for what I sometimes call neo-progressivism - is a clearly recognizable mutation of political progressivism, mixed with post-modernism, critical theory, Black militant perspectives, and fourth wave feminism.
It has also been called politicial correctness, the successor ideology, and other things. A critical thing to understand is that it openly desires to replace liberalism as the dominant political philosophy in the West (liberalism in the broader sense, as in "liberal Western democracies", not the narrower American sense). This is advocated by some of the founders, justified by liberalisms failure to overcome all oppressions; they feel a stronger and more robust ideology is needed, discarding concepts like free speech as tools of the privileged used against the oppressed.
I called myself a progressive liberal for decades and was active on many issues, but that movement has largely been hijacked by this new ideology which I find toxic, even if the nominal intention is often something I have long supported. I cannot in good conscience call it "progressivism" of the sort I spent my life promoting.
My values have changed very little over this period, but the concepts that "progressives" are pushing, and the means through which they are pushing them, has changed considerably.
I came of age reading Nat Hentoff. These fools would not even recognize his name. Am I a right winger because I share Hentoff's vision of the importance of free speech?
"The left today are not liberals. If you don't agree with the left, you are pilloried by the left. I read the definition of a racist, 'Is anyone who wins an argument with a liberal.' "
This produced a loud guffaw! It is so absolutely perfect.
Correct, LP. Tyrants, progressives, fools, whatever label one applies, these people are lumped, in principal, to ideals left of center, once singularly labeled liberal.
Unfortunately it is built into the genome that liberals will seek utopia and the "perfection" of Man. I don't think you can be a liberal without at the same time being a starry-eyed fool.
I would respectfully disagree. I spent many years in the liberal sphere and most of my friends are of that persuasion. There used to be room for pragmatic liberalism, thoughtful discussion, and integration of reality feedback when a policy didn't work in the real world. Being liberal was more about shared values, rather than mandatory dogmatic buy-in to a specific strategy for getting there, so one could debate strategy without being ejected.
That was then, this is now. I think the utopian vision is more deeply embedded in today's Critical Social Justice ideology than in conventional liberalism.
I am appalled that TED censored the talk! I have prided myself in being “Colorblind” since childhood, despite being raised in a household that had my grandfather as a Grand Dragon of the KKK!
TED’s treatment of this talk, along with other behavior of this ilk, are forcing me to reconsider my egalitarian thinking.
Consider this: forcing societal proportionality based on race/religion/sexual preference would have some very different results... in American football, try recruiting black, gay, Jewish, trans defensive linesmen for Norte Dame (or Florida State College for Women - now renamed FSU).
I will not delve into college admissions, especially medical school, engineering, law etc. where merit is fundamental to performance.
Medicine overtly departed merit when it took up Faucism. Critical Theory began amongst lawyers and law schools. Stupid? ALL these folks are deranged intellectuals. You need a level of intelligence above stupid, and to be more than a little loony, to fall for this crap. Then there is cowardice and moral turpitude with their inevitable hypocrisy. Over all that are your blatent subversives and/or grifters. Stupidity hardly enters in to it.
One thing we as a society must realize is the diversity, inclusion, these buzzwords are nothing more than Trojan Horses to push ideas and change society:
Five year olds are smarter. At least they're curious about the world and don't make assumptions or draw conclusions without interrogating the evidence. True, sometimes an adult has to grab their hand before they stick it in something that will remove their fingers. But other than that, give me a five year old over that single-neuron organism called a "progressive."
" single-neuron organism" You are giving them too much credit. You have insulted "single-neuron organisms" the world over. You need to apologize otherwise you will be canceled.
Golly! If it registered at all when I saw this on the telly maybe forty-fifty the memory didn't survive. I read a lot of Mischener back in the day too; but never the stories that prompted 'South Pacific'. Daftism seems to have memory-holed and retconned a lot of the US' recent past. Tah for this; you've jogged my memory and supplied a lot of re-reading and re-watching to off-set the crap that passes itself off as a good read or good telly/film atm.
The peak time for kids to believe in Father Christmas is five years old, according to research into 'magical thinking' from The University of Texas. So you are totally out of luck there. ;-)
Jonathan Haidt has been studying and writing about this for years, not the corporate/billionaire narrative but digging into the cultural and psychological roots of the attachment to safety and moral absolutism that drives this fear of debate, free speech, and respectful engagement with those who think differently. He identifies it as a Gen Z phenom, and now us liberal older folks are shaking our heads and wondering where open dialogue and curiosity went: Here's a 9 min video where he explains much of his thinking: https://youtu.be/QvrMNDv6iYU?si=kma_BnTtby34M4mT.
Franklin, thank you for your columns. I read all three and although I have become more aware of just how destructive three huge investment companies are, your points still had my jaw dropping.
There is some good news, however. A woman I know has been a freelance DEI trainer for corporations; this weekend she shared that her DEI business is dying. The Supreme Court rulings are instilling the fear of lawsuits and frightening the corporations away from such "trainings". (I did not share my happiness about this with her.)
Allow me to Translate Safe Space. A Safe Space is a Place where you will never hear any ideas that you disagree with, and everyone will always tell you how wonderful you are. This is opposed to The Real World where you will always be hearing Ideas you disagree with, and people will tell you you are wrong and stupid.
Does it make sense to evaluate the personal morality of politicians while judging their suitability for high office? Should a candidate's pattern of ethical—or unethical—behavior, influence our choices in a fiercely contested election?
These questions have become painfully relevant given the likelihood that both major-party presidential nominees in 2024 will display an abundance of character flaws that attract attention and inspire fierce debate in the months ahead. History shows that virtue and integrity can be essential for the office-holders we select—even more so than for those who occupy other positions of conspicuous responsibility.
Consider a brief but telling 1901 encounter between the vacationing President William McKinley and a photographer who had scheduled a session with the chief executive at his home in Canton, Ohio. As the journalist approached, the president hurried to hide his half-finished cigar and made a memorable declaration. "We must not let the young men of this country see their president smoking," he emphatically proclaimed, displaying conscious concern for his position as a public role model.
Three generations after that, another, very different William—Bill Clinton—took possession of the White House. He also enjoyed his cigars but used the stogies in a far less respectable context during his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. One of the most glaring defects of the Clinton administration involved the utter lack of McKinleyesque concern about the way his personal conduct might influence those tens of millions who felt deep admiration for both the president and the institution of the presidency.
Spanish-American War. Sorry, mate; McKinley was just another hypocritical US presidential fucktard indulging in morally indefensible wars murdering folk for "democracy" and a fast buck.
There is no safe space. Safe spaces are for two year-olds. Safe spaces are boring and intellectually mind-numbing. You could just stay in bed, but an airplane might fall on your house. Life is like that -- dangerous and exciting and challenging. And it's not all about you.
"Safe spaces" are intended to be safe for the minions of the elite, and no one else. And as safe spaces take over, so does the totalitarian mindset, which makes society more and more dangerous.
Another well thought out, articulate response from a person (I use person because I don't want to offend, hurt or make this BBS an unsafe place for you if you are a LBGTQ nut case. OPPS!). You are a person who has a hard time stringing words together to form a sentence that people can understand. So, LOL is about all you can offer. Well done!
As a Penn graduate, the “well-known” social scientist at Penn Wharton, Adam Grant, I have to laugh because nothing positive or for social good comes from Wharton - their core focus is purely monetary (and clearly sloppy referencing of research).
You are correct. Adam Grant is a wannabe and intellectual lightweight. He knows how to ride the skirts of those like Sheryl Sandberg for cash. I have no problem with people making money but this guy reads the room and exploits the fruits of his "Basking in Reflected Glory" abilities.
Professor Roland Fryer, the youngest tenured black professor in Harvard’s history, faced a backlash similar to what you’re describing when his color-blind research on police statistics challenged the narrative of police bias against blacks. There’s a documentary detailing how other black professors, outraged by his work, orchestrated his suspension from Harvard.
As soon as I saw this passage, I was like , "bro, you should know by now that DEI + Federal Reserve" equals elite trying to control things:
----
"The first woman called my talk “racist” as well as “dangerous and irresponsible”—comments that were met with cheers from the crowd. The second commentator, Otho Kerr, a program director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, claimed that I was “willing to have us slide back into the days of separate but equal.”
----
The Federal Reserve and the "Race" card go all the way back to the days of the Civil War. Bankers who funded the South have been using it as long as they can to destroy America:
I saw Ted Talk going downhill some time ago when they were cancelling and suppressing talks that questioned the climate change narrative and Michaela Peterson's talk on the carnivore diet.
"My experience suggests otherwise, with TED falling far short of those ambitions and instead displaying all the hallmarks of an institution captured by the new progressive orthodoxy." I just DO NOT understand how institutions let the tail wag the dog. The "new progressive orthodoxy" doesn't even make SENSE! How can it have so much power? Are people (those that run these institutions, be they Universities, Ted Talk, or a corporate shoe company, etc) really that afraid to stand up for what they KNOW is true? Thank you Coleman Hughes for bringing this to light!
I have never heard of Coleman Hughes, not that I remember at least. So thank you for posting the link to his podcasts. I'll have to check them out. Imagine surprise when I check out the link and saw he was black. But then I really shouldn't be surprised. African-Americans are only allowed to have one political viewpoint after all.
He's great. You may want to go back to his podcast in the 2020 times during the riots. He also testified before congress about reparations, and then had a convo with Sam Harris on the topic - I believe it was his very first podcast. He's an unusually thoughtful, honest young man.
Shelby Steele is incredible, too. He is an amazing man and has written many books. Research him. He and his son, Eli, have a Substack called Man of Steele. Check it out.
It appears that TED has indeed succumbed to the prevailing winds of the day. How sad to see how far we have fallen as a society when one compares this debacle (and the many others we talk about here) involving the present day debasement of free speech - to the epochal debate held at the University of Cambridge in 1965 between William F. Buckley and James Baldwin. Both men with towering intellects and opposing views, heads held high, debating on a stage that honored them both regardless of opinions.
Could you imagine Buckley even finding a platform to speak from today?
As an American, I can only shake my head in shame.
What a deeply creepy story. From an insencere invitation to converse with the people who disagreed, to publicly denounced, publicly "corrected", and then finally just supressed.
Always and forever, those most assured that they are right and have the right to censor/suppress others are terrified of open debate and free speech.
I wonder if they comprehend that their first mistake, as an organization founded to share ideas worth spreading and which is devoted to curiosity, reason, wonder, and the pursuit of knowledge—without an agenda, was hiring people who need a "safe space" at work. I mean...2+2 does equal 4.
Exactly. The "leadership" at TED was doing everything they could to disguise their blatant censorship. "Ideas worth spreading" is now right up there with "all the news that's fit to print" in the ignominy of journalism.
Nothing new under the sun. It has been painfully obvious that ANY organization not solidly anchored (and some, no doubt, that were) moves left. No exceptions. Who thinks that, ie, Messrs Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller would approve of that which is being done in their names?
Thank you for your TED talk and for this essay. Stay strong. Color blindness is the only approach to human race. The fact that this is even a subject for debate is a distressing and shameful sign of our time.
If 93% of Americans believe that race should not be a major factor in decisions involving our civic and academic lives, why should we permit our country to be captured by a small majority of destructive and cretinous saboteurs?
Hotel Rwanda? Yugoslavia? N. Ireland? Hey dingbat. Have you noticed that people the world over don't get along? So as the world's biggest experiment in multiculturalism, I think we're doing pretty damned well. Perfect? No country is. But light years better than anyone else.
I mostly agree Zhenya; however, I think “viewing things through a lens of color” is an attempt to recognize that the playing field for African Americans and other persecuted minorities is not level after 400+ years of discrimination. If we ignore that fact and are completely “colorblind,” we shirk responsibility for years of systemic oppression and miss opportunities to enact policy or programs that might help level the playing field. This is possible only if you have some degree of “seeing things with color.”
I'm a Jew. Holocaust happened much closer to out time than slavery. And I know some Jews who still see everything through the prism of anti-semitism. That's the victim's complex which I resent. I have many black friends - they resent the same victimhood crown. Even more they resent when white people assume that 'never forgetting' slavery and racism helps.
I live in a black neighborhood where I’m oppressed by the three figure vehicles these poor victims drive, blasting thousand decibel “music” with lyrics like “pussy sweat” into my home. They are not poor. Someone needs to do the math on income earned under the table. That’ll end the “systemic racism” narrative.
Thank you; I regularly see black people driving vehicles that I never could and probably never will be able to afford. While I drive a 2012 Nissan. And you know what? Good on them for being successful and having nice things. And I believe most of it is earned legitimately. I respect their success and do not resent them for it. But just don't tell me that I'm more "privileged" than them or that they're "oppressed" by people who look like me when I'm sitting there in a car worth a fraction of theirs.
I disagree, but respect your opinion. If we choose not to see the how race has affected the current structure of society and the unequal standing of certain groups, that doesn’t mean that those disparities don’t exist. The question is always what to do about it, and in my opinion, that is the hard question. How to weigh the inequities of 400+ years while not giving in to policies that actually promote “reverse racism.”
Keith, I appreciate the response. Although I agree that is an extremely challenging question to answer, I feel like you stepped right over the initial question: how should we as a society/country decide who is warranted or deserving (for lack of a better word) of assistance/help/a push (whether that is through educational opportunities/acceptance rates, scholarships, job opportunities/advancement, etc.). And more to your point, should an individuals race or “group” (please feel free to define because I have a lot of questions) play a part in whether that individual should be granted those opportunities/benefits. And if so, how much of a factor should that be (in other words how are you weighing an individual’s race or “group” in that decision process). I feel that is the aspect that a lot people disagree with, and doesn’t mean they don’t believe that past/current disparities didn’t exist.
Six million Jews were murdered within our living memory for the "crime" of being Jewish. But Jews should quit pointing out antisemitism because it's a "victim's complex?"
As for "Never Again," it remains a useful warning to those who would murder Jews or Blacks for the "crime" of being either. Not that anyone targets Jews or Blacks any more because of their race . . . . oh, wait.
"it remains a useful warning to those who would murder Jews or Blacks for the "crime" of being either."
Where are blacks being killed simply for being black? I mean besides inner city Democrat cities when they are being killed by other blacks? Also, I know you have Hutu militias killing mostly Tutsi in Rwanda.
But where is this mass killing of blacks comparable to the 6 million Jews, 700 thousand gypsies, 2 million soviet Russians and 10's of thousands of gays, millions of Polish catholics done by Germany in WWII?
Nothing is comparable to the industrialized slaughter of the Holocaust.
But murders don't have to be Nazi-sized to warrant "Never Again." Early American history's slave horror. Modern American history's lynched, shot, strangled, and beaten black people. Newest American history's mass shootings: Dylan Roof killed nine in a church in South Carolina, their "crime" being Breathing While Black.
Jews? Robert Bowers, shouting anti-Semitic slurs, opened fire inside the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing at least 11 congregants and wounding four police officers and two others. There are others: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/shootings-targeting-american-jews
"Never Again" means just that, whether the victims are in the millions or dozens.
Your "inner-city Democrat city" is a cute attempt at politics, but doesn't fly. Blacks aren't killing blacks because they're black. Black gangsters are killing other black gangsters to protect turf and profits in a lethal industry. If white gangsters were trying to take their drug markets, they'd happily shoot white gangsters.
How would rate the 100,000,000 to 170,000,000 killed in the name of equity in the past century? For what it's worth, I put the guiding ideals behind DEI as being more pernicious than the ideals of Nazi Germany. NOTE: Both share many of the same idealogical roots.
How do you rate Darrell Brooks who reveled in mowing over 8 people (all of which were white) at a Christmas Parade? You could argue it was an "accident" but you can see him intentionally targeting people and he had social media posts detailing the exact situation on how to get rid of whites.
There are people of all races which have irrational hatred of other people based on some immutable characteristic. It is an abomination to hold ONLY one group guilty of that hate.
Yes. There are examples of whites killing whites, blacks killing whites, blacks killing blacks and Yes: some of them (but a very tiny minority of them are racially motivated.
And no, "inner-city Democrat city" is NOT a cute attempt at politics. These issues exist primarily BECAUSE of Democrat policies started in the late 1960's as part of the "great society" designed to destroy the family unit specifically of inner city black families.
I doubt you really want to compare white/black murders. That reveals one of the biggest lies being pushed in the last few years. After looking at the data, you will wonder why whites aren't rioting in the streets.
It wasn't a lecture. And I got your point, I simply do not agree with it.
When people quit attacking Jews for being Jews, perhaps Jews will be able to back off judging the world through the lens of antisemitism. Until then, it's intelligent self-protection.
With all due respect to your experience, I’m not talking about seeing everything through the prism of race, just acknowledging that race is a relevant factor in the disparate outcomes we have in society today. Thanks for your comment, Zhenya!
It's as relevant as we choose it to be. I've seen how uncomfortable my black friends get when someone starts emphasizing its relevance. And there are other blacks (and many whites!) who build their entire identities and careers on its relevance.
But there are many POC that don’t feel this way and they deserve to be considered in the movement forward. Weave together the absolutist goal of color blindness and the practical needs of those that do need a hand up out of a poverty that absolutely is the result of generational suppression.
I’m right with you! I think this is the hard problem. The absolute goal is color blindness as described by Dr. MLK Jr. That being said, I fear that a declaration of complete color blindness now is a pass to not consider the glaring negative outcomes we see today that are the result of generational discrimination and to not work on righting those wrongs in a meaningful way. Now, what is righting these wrongs in a meaningful way? That I’m not sure. Maybe there is now way lest you “discriminate” against other groups. I’m always filled with a lot of cognitive dissonance on this problem.
AsAJew. Thanks for making it clear that because you are Jewish everyone’s experience must match yours and see it through your lens which probably stuffs down antisemitism as your entrance to more progressive spaces. Calling out antisemitism is actually the opposite of playing a victim card, it is holding people responsible for their unacceptable words and actions and refusing to be anyone’s dhimmi.
Calling out antisemitism is important and has to be done. Seeing all interactions with non-Jews through the lens of antisemitism is entirely different thing. As a Jew who served in the Soviet Army in Russia, it's possible that I know about antisemitism more than you.
“Viewing things through a lens of color” is vile, repugnant and (above all) mind-numbingly racist.
The idea that every situation should be looked at to see not IF racism happened but WHERE it happened will result in a society torn apart with death and destruction.
Have bad things happened to different groups within America's history (hell, the Planets history), yes. You move forward by fixing the systemic injustices and removing the barriers (this was mostly done half a century ago). Do you go back and try to fix 250 years of "injustices" done by myriad people. Only if you want to destroy a functioning society.
The idea that the solution to past discrimination is current discrimination and the solution to current discrimination is future discrimination is evil at its foundation.
Cheers Steven, thanks for your comment! I think it all depends on how you define “viewing things through a lens of color.” If, to your point, a policy is enacted that actually results in reverse discrimination then that is not progress. If, however, you try to understand some of the disparities we see in society “through the lens of color” then we might come together to enact policy that can help lift people from destitution by accounting for historical injustices. If you take a purely “colorblind” approach, broad swathes of history wouldn’t factor into current decision making.
It doesn't mater. Viewing things threw a racial lens is straight out of CRT. The entire point of viewing interactions through a racial lens is to create policies that are racists (Note: anti-racists are simply racists. Reverse racism is simply racism. Reverse discrimination is simply discrimination). It has no other point.
You then had your revisionist history attempt of reframing the start of the United States with: "How to weigh the inequities of 400+ years [...]." This is, again, straight out of Nicole Hannah Jones 1619 travesty in her attempt to reframe the history and founding dates of the United States to 1619.
Your post was an example of a Motte and Bailey where you mix in reasonable views (Motte: bad things have happened to various groups of people in the past due to their group) with highly unreasonable views (Bailey: "we need to view things through a racial lens when dealing with 400+ years of inequity). There have been 10,000+ years of unequal treatment and inequities around and thinking this is a uniquely American thing dating back a mere 400+ years is simplistic.
Using this logical fallacy is highly disingenuous.
You can’t artificially “level” the playing field, that’s an exercise In futility. All you can do is try to ensure the playing field offers opportunities to everyone and then hope they take those opportunities.
Schools would be number one for me. We have many drastically under performing schools in black neighborhoods that graduate a very low percentage of students at a level of proficiency. These schools need a complete overhaul. They are failing the students who then go out into the world without the skills to succeed. The failure of our education system which ranks on a low level internationally is in my opinion a more important factor than racism. Interesting that politicians always seem to find a private school for their own kids.
Those students do poorly because their parents by and large don’t/won’t/can’t care about their kids’ education. Every city in America is testimony that more money doesn’t improve outcomes.
I am not talking necessarily about money although that may be a factor. There is obviously something wrong with the teaching methods and organization of schools producing such poor outcomes. This recent obsession with gender discussions is telling. Here are schools that are failing to give kids the necessary skills but apparently find time to discuss these topics in early grades. Another telling issue is bullying and major disruption. In a functional school system, these students would be removed or dealt with immediately. But I have repeatedly seen a lack of authority. Bullies can persist, and the schools actually suggest to kids they bully go to another school. Crazy. My father’s family was very poor and did not even speak English. Yet he had access to a functional school system and thrived.
You need to see some of the horrifically underfunded schools children of impoverished districts attend. To "thrive" in such an environment is near impossible.
That such facilities can pass-muster in this country as a "Public School" is shameful.
The key in my thought is weaving together the practical here-and-now need for infrastructure that reverses the tragedy of redlining for example, yet our common goal is to naturally become colorblind and unified in our effort to encompass the golden rule because we want to, not because we’re forced.
Leftists will try to financially ruin you if you don't comply. Dave Portnoy - a guy I'm not a big fan of - raised millions for small businesses during Covid and held a pizza festival last week. He also has said nice things about Trump in the past. The Washington Post contacted the pizza festival sponsors to say “We are planning to write about the festival and how some of the sponsors and participants have drawn criticism by seeming to associate themselves with Dave Portnoy, who has a history of misogynistic comments and other problematic behavior.” The Washington Post tried to shame sponsors from supporting a pizza festival for local vendors because they don't like the organizer's politics. These people are zealots.
Sadly, zealots with power. I love how Portnoy went after the journalist afterward. In this article, Coleman Hughes is not taking it lying down, either. Portnoy's strategy is a good one: go after them. Make them uncomfortable as their arguments don't hold water, and they need to get defeated soundly at some point. How that happens is going to make the next few years very interesting.
Hopefully they defeat themselves as Antifa thugs beating up feminists (several times in San Francisco), and Muslim teens (September 20th in Canada) is a really bad look. Also, applauding Nazis (Prime Minister Trudeau) looks bad too.
The hard part will be getting the leftist authoritarians out of all the institutions.
So glad you have brought this travesty to light. We have a tyranny of the minority, made possible by the cowardice of decision makers. Those people need to be shamed into standing up for free speech.
Then the "journalist" lied about doing it. Once caught she justified her conduct by saying that it was a common journalistic tactic. No wonder journalism is dead.
I read about the Post's decision. If the details are true, Portnoy should ask the state to file criminal extortion charges against the Post, and file a civil lawsuit himself. What the Post did was no different than a mob boss saying, "Nice business ya got here. Shame to see anything happen to it."
With all due respect to Coleman, his views and his TED talk, I quit tuning into TED years ago, finding that often the talks were just too slick and formulaic, less about the subject matter and more about the presenter's ego, and curated and directed to an self-selected smug elite, much like NPR. There's probably interesting and important information on the site, but the I just can't get over the production values and the editorial bias, as the Black@TED illustrates. But thanks for fighting the good fight Coleman, and hope science and evidence and reason triumph over ideology.
I have to admit that I didn't know what TED Talks was so I googled their web site. Their descriptor reads - influential videos from expert speakers... When you have throw in "expert" to sell your product, you've lost me
I also quit tuning in a while ago also, for a similar reason. It just another box to tick on one’s professional resume and something to add to one’s LinkedIn profile and garnish more accolades.
I have read/listened to and supported Coleman for years. He is one of the most honest, self-reflective, and serious heterodox intellectuals discussing sensitive and controversial issues. This incident puts a final nail in the coffin of TED. They have 100% caved to extremist progressives/Marxists in and outside their company. Any company that bows even an inch to the pressure of these Marxist aggravators (see related words: community organizer, social justice activist, DEI anything, terrorist), is cowardly and complicit. All you have to do is say no, and continue to say no. Don’t give them a damn inch. Genuinely and honestly engage with ideas that are contrary to yours like Coleman does, but do not cave to terroristic tactics from these people.
And finally, start supporting and subscribing to platforms that do not cave, and stop supporting platforms like TED that do. Subscribe to Coleman and other heterodox honest good people and platforms.
For context and to justify the severity of my remarks... usage of the word terrorists is based on two defitions linked below. Many (obviously not all) of these leftist activist groups use coordinated pressure campaigns that threaten individuals and companies into compliance. The pressure and threats are backed up by the legitimate threat of violence that is well documented, as well as nonviolent tactics, such as endless public smear campaigns, identify based lawsuits, and employee subversion of companies. I don’t think that my terminology is overblown here.
The Coleman Hughes 'Colorblindness' talk is great! Incredibly depressing how cowed and dishonest the response of the TED leadership was. Looking forward to the book!
"The second commentator, Otho Kerr, a program director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, claimed that I was “willing to have us slide back into the days of separate but equal.”"
I find this argument to be beyond ironic now that we're in the days of designated "safe spaces" on college campuses that are only for students who are POC (unless that C is Asian, of course), and when you have schools and companies developing programs specifically excluding whites.
Marcus, We ARE sliding into "separate but equal", SORT OF! The "separate" part is, indeed, becoming reality, as we see more and more race/gender/woke groups demanding, and RECIEVING, exclusive benefits for themselves to balance the, so-called, white oligarchy/privilege issue. Detractors not allowed! And the "equal" part? Not even close! it is more like a new "privilege" group is ascending to power and influence, and THAT is NOT "equal"!
I mean the equal part likely equal back in the days of segregated schools, trains, water fountains, etc. Segregation and apatheid are always like this -- one group ruling over the other.
I dislike them because the floor is not simply "wet"; it frequently features a puddle of someone else's urine. As a woman, I have to lower my pants to pee in a way that makes it all too likely part of my pants will end up touching and soaking up some of that urine. And I have to clean someone else's urine off the toilet seat before I can even sit down (also a problem in women's bathrooms, but not nearly to the extent as in unisex toilets). It's gross and humiliating and it makes me feel as if the man who left the mess for me to deal with is probably getting off on the thought of some female stranger being forced to mop up his carelessly sprayed-around bodily fluids like a servant.
Yep. 99% of American history made explicity clear that things were "white only" Now, when people chose to socialize/live with those of similar background
Now, you've got a problem with it?
See, I was given explicit and implicit daily messages growing up and throughout my life by America that I was not white. Now, you want people to pretend that didn't happen?
That's not an example. That is people chosing freedom of association. Sorry.
Yep for 99% of America's existence it supported a racial caste system, regional apartheid and only granted full citizenship to African-Americans in 1965.
The Democrats of old would be delighted to see that the modern incarnation of their party has succeeded at something they could never manage: making black people WANT segregation.
I became a Coleman Hughes fan right after the George Floyd murder, even before I found Joe Rogan, Bari’s common sense and Bret and Heather’s Dark Horse. They all saved my sanity through the riots, woke progressive movement Presidential Gong show and MSM’s relentless pretzel logic talking heads. I can’t wait see is book on Amazon and scoop it. He’s amazing
I think from a psychological perspective, much of this purported "anti-racist" BS is formally hysterical. It is dissociative. It is deeply rooted in psychological maladies which have only latched on race as an issue, and which could as easily--and of course often do--latched on gender, Trans issues, purported American Imperialism (in the economic realm it is quite real, but not very representative of America, but rather the banks the Fed represents), and the like.
Here is the thing; you cannot think clearly if you are emotionally confused. You cannot think clearly if you NEED a reason to exist that is outside something you control.
When I look at the issue of race in this country as it exists TODAY, what I see is a whole lot of white people who desperately need racism to be real and relevant, because that is all they have. Their lives are devoid of meaning without racism, the various phobias and Global Warming.
But when you cling like that, you commit violence to facts almost as a matter of course. You bend everything into interpretations that suit your emotional needs; and of course, if people do this in groups, the process is largely invisible and seems legitimate, even though it isn't.
It's been a source of anxiety and to some extent puzzlement for some time for me observing how thoroughly our best schools have been captured by epically stupid and counter-productive ideas. Really, really stupid shit, peddled by high IQ people, who really should know better.
It's a day ending in Y, so I will note again that our root problem is poor individuation. It is people simply not growing up and maturing and learning to see the pain and promise of the world as it is, and not how they would like it to be.
It is no secret that modern Western societies have replaced the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin and fallen man with new secular variants of human guilt. Acknowleding our capacity to sin is an essential part of Christianity, but an over-obsession on original sin has led the religion down some of its darker paths in the past (including the very ugly "blood libel" against the Jews, which has been more recently transformed into the secular "white oppression").
Given the left's fascination with critical theory and post-modern deconstruction, one might think they would have some self-awareness that these millenia-old ideas are simply being recycled into another narrative about our capacity to do evil to one another . . . . But critical theory is only for critiquing other people's ideas, apparently.
Thinking follows feeling. If your emotions are disordered, if decontextualized shame is a part of your sense of self, then your thinking will be disordered. Reasoning accurately is actually a high level emotional accomplishment.
And all emotional systems have real logic to them, just not always the logic which is proposed. People like those mentioned today who propose, in effect, that we get rid of racism by promoting racism--despite the science saying that is a bad idea--are really saying "I will feel better as a person fighting this "battle". I really regret missing out on the true Civil Rights struggle in the 50's and 60's, and even though I am personally much too timid to have taken part in that, and undergone the true physical dangers involved, I will feel much better about myself by PRETENDING that participating in kicking people while they are on the ground is somehow almost the same thing."
It's very sad, really. Or comical, depending on your day and mood.
I have a graduate degree in the Humanities from a good school, and of course am familiar with Levi-Strauss and Derrida and Ricouer and Habermas and others. What I would say is that the words have an hypnotic quality to them. They actually mean nothing, but they lull some part of the critical mind to sleep. I have often compared them to a Greek Orthodox Church, filled with the smoke of incense. They confer a feeling tone, but nothing useful or actionable. The action is reflexive, childish and nearly always harmful. But the FEELS, those are good. They are the affective aftermath of the escape from logic, which is to say adult responsibility and confusion in the face of a genuinely complex world.
I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but I fear not as much as I should be, in discussing what is actually going on in our best schools.
I also have a PhD from a top school, but in social science. We read the post-structuralist during my studies (early 1990s). I always looked at it as an interesting intellectual exercise, that was limited in its ability to deal with reality. Once you got the nomenclature down, there really wasn't much there other than there is no objective reality. Imagine my surprise that a intellectual movement claiming no objective reality has become one demanding we adhere to theirs!
I was just thinking about this. If the reading itself is the process and the goal, then would it not more properly be relegated to a sort of intellectual poetry, with no pretensions to social relevance, and existing solely as an aesthetic endeavor?
Reason, and the notion of universal principle, is one of the crowning achievements of Western Civilization, and these people want to destroy both in the name of nothing. They claim they want to oppose, say, racism, but 1) they don't actually oppose racism; they just shout at specific times and places that are largely arbitrary and mob driven; 2) the very NOTION of racism being bad is WESTERN, and thus their critiques are self consuming. You won't find comprehensive critiques of bigotry and prejudice anywhere else. Africa is riddled with tribal factionalism, dehumanization, de facto racism and following violence. So is everywhere else.
All or nothing is a childish emotion. You are either all good or all bad is a stupid sentiment. And nearly all their critiques engage in nothing else. Timur was arguably a more prolific murderer than either Hitler or Stalin--he killed roughly 5% of the worlds population--but he was neither white nor Christian. Horrors are simply a feature of the human race, and reason and principle remain the best ideas in play for how to end them; which makes anyone opposing either effectively misanthropic, which of course is what we see. Joe Biden is a misanthrope, and so too are the people running him. Elitism and misanthropy are closely related.
Quillette's recent podcast with Yascha Mounk on his new book about the intellectual roots and inherent contradictions of woke/identitarian politics is a well worth listening to.
I think the reality is that the U.S. government supported regional apartheid and national racial caste system and didn't become a democracy until 1965.
We were racist, like every human society for all of recorded history, and like many even today, particularly in Asia and Africa. Unlike pretty much every other society in human history we did something about it, because we had a founding document which said that all human beings are created equal.
Now, if a potential employer were to say that "we don't hire black people" it would be national news, and on loop for weeks.
There is no white supremacy. What there is is very bad schooling in most inner cities, a complete disintegration of the nuclear families that psychologists and sociologists well understand to be necessary for optimal individual and social well being, and in recent years calls by white people to make black neighborhoods even less safe than they were, by eliminating or curtailing policing. Homicides and overall crime are up, obviously.
I read yesterday that Oakland, which is probably the same black majority city now that it was when I lived there in the 90's, is on track to have TWENTY THOUSAND cars stolen this year. They have just over 400,000 people. That is one car in 20.
That is a REAL problem, isn't it? Oakland business owners are getting ready to go on strike.
But once you enter this fairy tale world of "white supremacy" you never need to worry your little head about either facts or people ever again. You can cite papers in support of your "ideas" even if the actual papers say the opposite. Nobody will care. That isn't the game.
The game is self importance, and obviously the American Left plays that game to win.
I'm sorry. I was told during orientation here that were a "are" currently racist against white people and/or Asians.
Well, actually America reworked it into a racial caste system and support of regional apartheid that lasted until 1965. America is currently no more/less racist than any other industrialized nation, which is where the comparison should be. So, "did something about it" is really revisionist history and a complete distortion of the present.
No, there is white supremacy/white supremacists in America. The question is to what degree that is embedded in social, economic, political structures, etc. So, it is probably fair to say that it was "systemic" until 1965. Of course, I'm sure we can all agree that societies change their values, norms, ideologies, etc. immediately once a law is passed.
Sure, there was a small cohort that talked about "defunding the police" (bad slogan). I'd guess "Reappropriating a percentage of funds to more outreach, community involvement, mental health services and deescalation training, etc." is probably too much to put on a sign.
In reality, you can miss me with all the "defund" talk. The overwhelming majority of PDs kept their same level of funding and many actually increased.
Yes. There are always papers that say the opposite and vice versa, that's how it works. So, it's a two-way street.
The United States has NEVER been a Democracy. The idea is not mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation or the United States Constitution.
Very late to the game, but have to quibble with your first statement. The most efficient therapeutic modality — Cognitive Behavioral Therapy — is premised on the principle that in fact thoughts precede emotions. Because the brain goes from one to the other very quickly, most people don’t realize there was a thought that gave rise to the emotion. The best way to short-circuit the emotion is to change that thought. Anyway, I’m so sorry you were forced to read all of that comparative lit nonsense. What a huge waste of your time!
I am going to answer this, not because I think anyone will read it, other than perhaps you, but because it is an interesting question.
The way I think it works--what I feel when I meditate, which I do daily--is that everything starts with Sensations. Sensations, in turn, are tied at a very primitive level with images, which often flash at subliminal speeds. That is the thought.
The images in turn trigger Thought/Feelings. I don't think you can really separate one from the other.
CBT is a useful approach, but only because loops are formed between thoughts and feelings, and if you can alter half of the loop, you affect the trajectory of the whole thing.
But to take two obvious example, the abdomen has enough nerve plexuses (?) that it amounts to the brain of a cat. That brain sends signals TO the brain. It does not just receive them. Same with the heart. The heart sends as much or more information to the brain as it receives.
This means that our thinking is highly conditioned by our bodies. This is particularly relevant to people with PTSD. You cannot fix PTSD with CBT. That fixing has to be done elsewhere, in other ways.
Well, yeah. We have a sympathetic nervous system that drives a whole host of “feelings” — like panic in adults or crying in infants — that are distinct from “emotions.” But I think the jury is out on how the SNS gets triggered when it isn’t warranted. PTSD and panic disorder are both great examples of ‘inappropriate’ SNS responses. Typically, combination therapies work best for both, so there’s some indication thoughts are involved somehow. But, I remain agnostic on the issue. Thank you for the conversation.
"Their lives are devoid of meaning without racism, the various phobias and Global Warming.
But when you cling like that, you commit violence to facts almost as a matter of course. You bend everything into interpretations that suit your emotional needs; and of course, if people do this in groups, the process is largely invisible and seems legitimate, even though it isn't."
Thank you for this. My sister is like this & it's the most frustrating thing in the world to me. She's smart & educated and yet is 100% on board with all of this nonsense. She is all emotion all the time. Reason and reality be damned. The intensity of the virtue signaling is sort of amazing to me, but I realize the displayed performative morality is both for others and for herself.
They have taken to accusing everyone else of gaslighting—I was accused of it in this thread—but the reality is they do little else.
I am often reduced to wondering where their sense of our common humanity went. I am in bad neighborhoods and interact with low income people all the time. I am also very observant.
And everything these ignorant elitists do hurts people they never see, never talk to and dont understand, but on whose behalf they nonetheless—and with no consciousness AT ALL of the incongruity and harmfulness of it—arrogate the SOLE right to speak. I say sole thinking of the white woman whose name I can’t be bothered to remember telling Fifty Cent—who has a lot of the Black Experience under his belt—that he wasn’t black if he didnt agree with her.
Their sense of common humanity has vanished as far as I can tell. You're either in their tribe or possibly you're cowed & craven enough to go along with the nonsense even if you don't believe it, OR You're an Evil White Supremacist, Homophobe, Transphobe, Racist & Sexist. It's pretty unbelievable. Government censorship of reality-based non-woke opinions sped this along, for which I will never forgive them. Not that government actually cares about citizens anymore. I howl at the white women bossing around back men!!
I am very sure this is what the Soviet Union felt like, and many of them admit to dreaming of gulags.
It is literally hysterical people of a type we have all met who simply WILL NOT ADMIT WHEN THEY WRONG. They blame the messenger and fume at reality and wonder how they can make it go away; and of course they then realize WE CAN JUST LIE ABOUT IT AND MAKE THE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT GO AWAY.
Thats the whole game in a nutshell. Its psychotic.
They see danger everywhere but where it actually is. This is how projection—which is another word they have learned to abuse— works. You see what you are everywhere.
And I would suggest substituting Leftist for liberal. Liberalism is a good thing, but they are no longer liberal.
The way I diiferentiate them is if they are capable of rational dialogue. True Leftists are not.
Of course they suppressed it. Any religion worth its salt represses countervailing logic, science, thought. I mean we can't allow the parishioners to hear such blasphemy as our core beliefs might crumble and then they might stop paying I mean donating...
TED's leadership should have invited BLACK@TED to organize a TED talk on why colorblindness is problematic, instead of allowing them to muzzle Coleman like that. But like Coleman's repeated attempts to enagage Ibram Kendi on this issue, the folks opposing color-blindness don't want to expose their anti-racism ideas to an actual debate because their fig leaf will fall off.
Carol - yes, I live in Boson and have been enjoying the recent news reports on that topic. Anti-racism is not an academic field of study, so it was only a matter of time before that endeavour was exposed for what it was.
Absolutely. Some questions: What university is Project Veritas associated with? Which university hired James O'Keefe, his staff, and gave PV money, grants, and access to their donors?
Because, if we're going to apply the same standards, should the application be used for organizations in the same situation?
Sure. I’d say these standards apply to any organization that takes people’s money and promises something they don’t deliver. Didn’t the guy from Project Veritas get booted out?
Well how do we write TED Talks and tell them to get on it or we aren't listening EVER AGAIN. If Bud Light drinkers can abstain, so can we. This is exactly what FR readers want, pen, honest interchange. Ugh, the world is so upside down.
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.
Regardless of his political leanings, anyone with any semblance of honesty would have to admit that Coleman Hughes is one of the best intellectual orators of our time.
I'll summarize this TED story for folx. "Progressives Ruin Everything". The End.
BTW......his podcasts are outstanding. You can find Coleman at: https://colemanhughes.org/
“Black@TED”—which TED’s website describes as an “Employee Resource Group that exists to provide a safe space for TED staff who identify as Black”..... Safe space???? Are these fools five years old???? One does not give in to misbehaving brats. They are punished and sent to bed bereft of supper.
I see it is time to repost my liberals aren't liberal post:
I subscribe to an opinion newsletter called Common Sense. It mainly defends the First Amendment and it defends it from the nut cases on the left and the right. Common Sense does a pretty good job of being politically neutral. However, because the mainstream press and many universities have to the gone far left, most of the articles are how the left through political correctness, the woke and the me too movements are attempting to destroy the First Amendment. The left does not debate you on the merit of what is said or what you have written, they attack you and most times viciously.
Below is a response I wrote to an article in Common Sense:
You call the left, liberals. I can't bring myself to do that. A true liberal embraces free speech. John Stuart Mill one of the founders of liberalism was a staunch defender of free speech. He said in his essay on liberalism, I'm paraphrasing here, "You should listen to your adversaries because they might be right."
The left today are not liberals. If you don't agree with the left, you are pilloried by the left. I read the definition of a racist, "Is anyone who wins an argument with a liberal."
Whatever happened to, "I may not agree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? In July of 1977 the American NAZI Party was going to march through Skokie, Illinois. Seven Thousand Holocaust survivors lived in Skokie. Words cannot describe how disgusted and appalled I was by this proposed vile act. Of all people who defended this atrocity was the ACLU. I was shocked until I heard why they were defending the NAZIs right to march.
They weren't defending the NAZIs. They were defending the First Amendment, freedom of expression. I am a gentile and much as I despised the NAZIs I love the First Amendment more. I only wish the left loved the First Amendment as much as I do but they don't.
So please stop calling them liberals because they aren't. They are tyrants.
Here here! Well said. I hate that the honorable term "liberal" was hijacked out from under me by these twerps.
We agree on more things than we disagree on Shane.
Yep!!
I will be traveling to the Hudson River Valley soon. It has me re-reading “Rip Van Winkle” by Washington Irving published 1819.
I have indeed slept and woken a stranger in a strange land now. Liberals were always my heroes, now they are anti free speech, pro war, Orwellian newspeak all the way down. Unrecognizable
I was going to call them “Neo-Libs” but that is not true (nothing liberal about them) and would be a misnomer. They are the Democrat party and will go down wearing that name.
I sometimes call them "neoprogressives", which does not falsely imply that they are liberals. Indeed today's "Critical Social Justice ideology" - a more neutrally descriptive but bulky name for what I sometimes call neo-progressivism - is a clearly recognizable mutation of political progressivism, mixed with post-modernism, critical theory, Black militant perspectives, and fourth wave feminism.
It has also been called politicial correctness, the successor ideology, and other things. A critical thing to understand is that it openly desires to replace liberalism as the dominant political philosophy in the West (liberalism in the broader sense, as in "liberal Western democracies", not the narrower American sense). This is advocated by some of the founders, justified by liberalisms failure to overcome all oppressions; they feel a stronger and more robust ideology is needed, discarding concepts like free speech as tools of the privileged used against the oppressed.
I called myself a progressive liberal for decades and was active on many issues, but that movement has largely been hijacked by this new ideology which I find toxic, even if the nominal intention is often something I have long supported. I cannot in good conscience call it "progressivism" of the sort I spent my life promoting.
My values have changed very little over this period, but the concepts that "progressives" are pushing, and the means through which they are pushing them, has changed considerably.
I came of age reading Nat Hentoff. These fools would not even recognize his name. Am I a right winger because I share Hentoff's vision of the importance of free speech?
"The left today are not liberals. If you don't agree with the left, you are pilloried by the left. I read the definition of a racist, 'Is anyone who wins an argument with a liberal.' "
This produced a loud guffaw! It is so absolutely perfect.
Correct, LP. Tyrants, progressives, fools, whatever label one applies, these people are lumped, in principal, to ideals left of center, once singularly labeled liberal.
Sometimes I use “the illiberal left.” By which I mean that part of the left that is illiberal, not that the left is (all) illiberal.
Unfortunately it is built into the genome that liberals will seek utopia and the "perfection" of Man. I don't think you can be a liberal without at the same time being a starry-eyed fool.
I would respectfully disagree. I spent many years in the liberal sphere and most of my friends are of that persuasion. There used to be room for pragmatic liberalism, thoughtful discussion, and integration of reality feedback when a policy didn't work in the real world. Being liberal was more about shared values, rather than mandatory dogmatic buy-in to a specific strategy for getting there, so one could debate strategy without being ejected.
That was then, this is now. I think the utopian vision is more deeply embedded in today's Critical Social Justice ideology than in conventional liberalism.
Is that Dan Carlin of Hardcore History??
No that's all me.
Ohh, I know Dan had a podcast titled Common Sense so I thought that might be his blog as well.
No, Common Sense is what TFP used to be called. Bari renamed it TFP.
MAGA: Make America Grownup Again!!
Everyone should visit the TED link and just watch from the site directly- would love to see this talk rank up some serious # of views https://www.ted.com/talks/coleman_hughes_a_case_for_color_blindness
Just listened to it. Thomas Sowell blew this color-blind is racist nonsense up decades ago. Thanks for the link.
100% right
Brilliant, Tania, thanks for the link. An Excellent talk, Mr. Highes.
Done. And danged if Mr Hughes has one heck of a sun tan, doesn't he? Or could it be...?
Does he identify as tanned?
Thank you for the suggestion. The talk was excellent.
I am appalled that TED censored the talk! I have prided myself in being “Colorblind” since childhood, despite being raised in a household that had my grandfather as a Grand Dragon of the KKK!
TED’s treatment of this talk, along with other behavior of this ilk, are forcing me to reconsider my egalitarian thinking.
Consider this: forcing societal proportionality based on race/religion/sexual preference would have some very different results... in American football, try recruiting black, gay, Jewish, trans defensive linesmen for Norte Dame (or Florida State College for Women - now renamed FSU).
I will not delve into college admissions, especially medical school, engineering, law etc. where merit is fundamental to performance.
So, I say to TED “Don’t be stupid!”
Medicine overtly departed merit when it took up Faucism. Critical Theory began amongst lawyers and law schools. Stupid? ALL these folks are deranged intellectuals. You need a level of intelligence above stupid, and to be more than a little loony, to fall for this crap. Then there is cowardice and moral turpitude with their inevitable hypocrisy. Over all that are your blatent subversives and/or grifters. Stupidity hardly enters in to it.
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell
Steven - I think we are juxtaposed! Perhaps attributing their behavior to “stupidity” is overly generous on my part. Thank you!!
Tillman
Meh. It’s all the same populist garbage.
LOL! Unfortunately, due to extended adolescence, these adults literally do have the mentality of five year olds
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-millennials-hate-adulting
One thing we as a society must realize is the diversity, inclusion, these buzzwords are nothing more than Trojan Horses to push ideas and change society:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-budlight-shot-itself-in-the-foot
Fortunately, it’s easy to spot who’s behind these. All we have to do is follow the money:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/donating-to-a-good-cause-how-billionaires
Five year olds are smarter. At least they're curious about the world and don't make assumptions or draw conclusions without interrogating the evidence. True, sometimes an adult has to grab their hand before they stick it in something that will remove their fingers. But other than that, give me a five year old over that single-neuron organism called a "progressive."
" single-neuron organism" You are giving them too much credit. You have insulted "single-neuron organisms" the world over. You need to apologize otherwise you will be canceled.
Color is absolutely invisible to either of my grandkids; seven and nine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPf6ITsjsgk
Golly! If it registered at all when I saw this on the telly maybe forty-fifty the memory didn't survive. I read a lot of Mischener back in the day too; but never the stories that prompted 'South Pacific'. Daftism seems to have memory-holed and retconned a lot of the US' recent past. Tah for this; you've jogged my memory and supplied a lot of re-reading and re-watching to off-set the crap that passes itself off as a good read or good telly/film atm.
Amen!
The peak time for kids to believe in Father Christmas is five years old, according to research into 'magical thinking' from The University of Texas. So you are totally out of luck there. ;-)
Jonathan Haidt has been studying and writing about this for years, not the corporate/billionaire narrative but digging into the cultural and psychological roots of the attachment to safety and moral absolutism that drives this fear of debate, free speech, and respectful engagement with those who think differently. He identifies it as a Gen Z phenom, and now us liberal older folks are shaking our heads and wondering where open dialogue and curiosity went: Here's a 9 min video where he explains much of his thinking: https://youtu.be/QvrMNDv6iYU?si=kma_BnTtby34M4mT.
Franklin, thank you for your columns. I read all three and although I have become more aware of just how destructive three huge investment companies are, your points still had my jaw dropping.
There is some good news, however. A woman I know has been a freelance DEI trainer for corporations; this weekend she shared that her DEI business is dying. The Supreme Court rulings are instilling the fear of lawsuits and frightening the corporations away from such "trainings". (I did not share my happiness about this with her.)
Allow me to Translate Safe Space. A Safe Space is a Place where you will never hear any ideas that you disagree with, and everyone will always tell you how wonderful you are. This is opposed to The Real World where you will always be hearing Ideas you disagree with, and people will tell you you are wrong and stupid.
Safe place is where there is an incentive for being a victim and an echo chamber for why you are a victim.
"I Am Not A Victim!'
Michael Medved
Off Topic (not that I eve let a little thing Like That Stop Me! :-))
In Politics, Morality Always Matters | Opinion
Michael Medved
On 9/24/23
https://www.newsweek.com/politics-morality-always-matters-opinion-1828963
Does it make sense to evaluate the personal morality of politicians while judging their suitability for high office? Should a candidate's pattern of ethical—or unethical—behavior, influence our choices in a fiercely contested election?
These questions have become painfully relevant given the likelihood that both major-party presidential nominees in 2024 will display an abundance of character flaws that attract attention and inspire fierce debate in the months ahead. History shows that virtue and integrity can be essential for the office-holders we select—even more so than for those who occupy other positions of conspicuous responsibility.
Consider a brief but telling 1901 encounter between the vacationing President William McKinley and a photographer who had scheduled a session with the chief executive at his home in Canton, Ohio. As the journalist approached, the president hurried to hide his half-finished cigar and made a memorable declaration. "We must not let the young men of this country see their president smoking," he emphatically proclaimed, displaying conscious concern for his position as a public role model.
Three generations after that, another, very different William—Bill Clinton—took possession of the White House. He also enjoyed his cigars but used the stogies in a far less respectable context during his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. One of the most glaring defects of the Clinton administration involved the utter lack of McKinleyesque concern about the way his personal conduct might influence those tens of millions who felt deep admiration for both the president and the institution of the presidency.
(Snip)
Spanish-American War. Sorry, mate; McKinley was just another hypocritical US presidential fucktard indulging in morally indefensible wars murdering folk for "democracy" and a fast buck.
There is no safe space. Safe spaces are for two year-olds. Safe spaces are boring and intellectually mind-numbing. You could just stay in bed, but an airplane might fall on your house. Life is like that -- dangerous and exciting and challenging. And it's not all about you.
"Safe spaces" are intended to be safe for the minions of the elite, and no one else. And as safe spaces take over, so does the totalitarian mindset, which makes society more and more dangerous.
"Safe Spaces" = SS
Alas Bruce our world does indeed give in to misbehaving brats.
Hunter Biden
Lol.
Another well thought out, articulate response from a person (I use person because I don't want to offend, hurt or make this BBS an unsafe place for you if you are a LBGTQ nut case. OPPS!). You are a person who has a hard time stringing words together to form a sentence that people can understand. So, LOL is about all you can offer. Well done!
LOL loser On Line suits huggy to a z
I have become a big fan of Coleman. He is something rare in these miserable times — a courageous and honest person.
As a Penn graduate, the “well-known” social scientist at Penn Wharton, Adam Grant, I have to laugh because nothing positive or for social good comes from Wharton - their core focus is purely monetary (and clearly sloppy referencing of research).
You are correct. Adam Grant is a wannabe and intellectual lightweight. He knows how to ride the skirts of those like Sheryl Sandberg for cash. I have no problem with people making money but this guy reads the room and exploits the fruits of his "Basking in Reflected Glory" abilities.
Professor Roland Fryer, the youngest tenured black professor in Harvard’s history, faced a backlash similar to what you’re describing when his color-blind research on police statistics challenged the narrative of police bias against blacks. There’s a documentary detailing how other black professors, outraged by his work, orchestrated his suspension from Harvard.
His findings on police statistics are documented in this WSJ article by Heather Mac Donald: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883?st=a7pomm1lu82cql3&reflink=article_copyURL_share
As soon as I saw this passage, I was like , "bro, you should know by now that DEI + Federal Reserve" equals elite trying to control things:
----
"The first woman called my talk “racist” as well as “dangerous and irresponsible”—comments that were met with cheers from the crowd. The second commentator, Otho Kerr, a program director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, claimed that I was “willing to have us slide back into the days of separate but equal.”
----
The Federal Reserve and the "Race" card go all the way back to the days of the Civil War. Bankers who funded the South have been using it as long as they can to destroy America:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-esoteric-philosophy-is-vital-329
I just wish more African American would wake up to the fact that their skin color is being used as a weapon and stop falling for it :(
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-white-redneck-origins-of-black
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-culture-warfare-on-the-african
Isn't a designated "safe space" necessarily and by definition "separate"?
Always interesting to hear the pot describe the kettle.
I saw Ted Talk going downhill some time ago when they were cancelling and suppressing talks that questioned the climate change narrative and Michaela Peterson's talk on the carnivore diet.
"My experience suggests otherwise, with TED falling far short of those ambitions and instead displaying all the hallmarks of an institution captured by the new progressive orthodoxy." I just DO NOT understand how institutions let the tail wag the dog. The "new progressive orthodoxy" doesn't even make SENSE! How can it have so much power? Are people (those that run these institutions, be they Universities, Ted Talk, or a corporate shoe company, etc) really that afraid to stand up for what they KNOW is true? Thank you Coleman Hughes for bringing this to light!
I have never heard of Coleman Hughes, not that I remember at least. So thank you for posting the link to his podcasts. I'll have to check them out. Imagine surprise when I check out the link and saw he was black. But then I really shouldn't be surprised. African-Americans are only allowed to have one political viewpoint after all.
He's great. You may want to go back to his podcast in the 2020 times during the riots. He also testified before congress about reparations, and then had a convo with Sam Harris on the topic - I believe it was his very first podcast. He's an unusually thoughtful, honest young man.
Shelby Steele is incredible, too. He is an amazing man and has written many books. Research him. He and his son, Eli, have a Substack called Man of Steele. Check it out.
It appears that TED has indeed succumbed to the prevailing winds of the day. How sad to see how far we have fallen as a society when one compares this debacle (and the many others we talk about here) involving the present day debasement of free speech - to the epochal debate held at the University of Cambridge in 1965 between William F. Buckley and James Baldwin. Both men with towering intellects and opposing views, heads held high, debating on a stage that honored them both regardless of opinions.
Could you imagine Buckley even finding a platform to speak from today?
As an American, I can only shake my head in shame.
www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/12/james-baldwin-william-f-buckley-debate/602695/
agreed. and Glenn Loury loves him too. Those are all the bona fides one needs in this world.
Agree! Thank you, Evans W
Just subscribed to coleman hugh’s podcast - thanks for the tip
I've never heard of Coleman. If he is another far left progressive pushing DEI, no thanks. Quite frankly I am sick of DEI.
Quite the opposite.
Very very much the opposite. Coleman is fantastic. Check out his podcast.
Okay however what I see are endorsements from the likes of CNN and I despise them. Does CNN like him because he's black?
I agree.
Just curious...how does one "identify as black"?...and...how does this phraseology contain meaning?...sign me perplexed...g.
Coleman is treasure and I thank him for his unrelenting bravery. I look forward to watching his TED Talk, which may be the last one I ever view.....
Haven't watched a TED talk in years. Here's a song called "Poor Womxn South of Portland" that summarizes stunning and brave TED talks:
I’ve been sellin’ my soul, maskin’ all day
Work a few hours for $200K
So I can sit out here and preach climate change
Fly back home and pump DEI-BJ
https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/poor-womxn-portland-rich-men-richmond-parody
Check out Yuri's website, y'all. I just did and it's hilarious and serious. Seriously hilarious. Hilariously serious.
What a deeply creepy story. From an insencere invitation to converse with the people who disagreed, to publicly denounced, publicly "corrected", and then finally just supressed.
Always and forever, those most assured that they are right and have the right to censor/suppress others are terrified of open debate and free speech.
This is depressing. TED needs to figure out what they actually stand for and publish a more honest mission statement.
I wonder if they comprehend that their first mistake, as an organization founded to share ideas worth spreading and which is devoted to curiosity, reason, wonder, and the pursuit of knowledge—without an agenda, was hiring people who need a "safe space" at work. I mean...2+2 does equal 4.
Haven't you heard? Math is racist. 😆
How embarrassing for TED to be just another PC/Woke, bigoted, left wing tyrant.
Exactly. The "leadership" at TED was doing everything they could to disguise their blatant censorship. "Ideas worth spreading" is now right up there with "all the news that's fit to print" in the ignominy of journalism.
Marxism is as Marxism does.
Nothing new under the sun. It has been painfully obvious that ANY organization not solidly anchored (and some, no doubt, that were) moves left. No exceptions. Who thinks that, ie, Messrs Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller would approve of that which is being done in their names?
Thank you for your TED talk and for this essay. Stay strong. Color blindness is the only approach to human race. The fact that this is even a subject for debate is a distressing and shameful sign of our time.
If 93% of Americans believe that race should not be a major factor in decisions involving our civic and academic lives, why should we permit our country to be captured by a small majority of destructive and cretinous saboteurs?
Because there are too many cowards they can easily bully.
Coleman Hughes' account of Chris Anderson's actions reveals Anderson's abject cowardice and lack of integrity, much less leadership.
Do you think Chris Anderson considered firing the "troublemakers?" Whoa. Can't do that!
We must give new meaning to “ just say no.”
I blame Obama.
The 7% lunatic fringe weighs in….
We were so close, Bruce.
He ruined it. He ruined it all!!!!
It was his tan suit, you know. It ruined Our America.
Yes. America was a united, racial kumbaya drum circle until he came along with his radical, black nationalists, Nat X agenda and rhetoric.
We were soooo close and he ruined it!!
Hotel Rwanda? Yugoslavia? N. Ireland? Hey dingbat. Have you noticed that people the world over don't get along? So as the world's biggest experiment in multiculturalism, I think we're doing pretty damned well. Perfect? No country is. But light years better than anyone else.
we were not close he was lipstick on a pig bad lipstick at that he did nothing but polarize America . He did nothing to help
"Thanks, O'bummer!"
That first they came for [those I disagreed with] and I did nothing thing.
93%?
The other 7% are racists.
I mostly agree Zhenya; however, I think “viewing things through a lens of color” is an attempt to recognize that the playing field for African Americans and other persecuted minorities is not level after 400+ years of discrimination. If we ignore that fact and are completely “colorblind,” we shirk responsibility for years of systemic oppression and miss opportunities to enact policy or programs that might help level the playing field. This is possible only if you have some degree of “seeing things with color.”
I'm a Jew. Holocaust happened much closer to out time than slavery. And I know some Jews who still see everything through the prism of anti-semitism. That's the victim's complex which I resent. I have many black friends - they resent the same victimhood crown. Even more they resent when white people assume that 'never forgetting' slavery and racism helps.
I live in a black neighborhood where I’m oppressed by the three figure vehicles these poor victims drive, blasting thousand decibel “music” with lyrics like “pussy sweat” into my home. They are not poor. Someone needs to do the math on income earned under the table. That’ll end the “systemic racism” narrative.
Thank you; I regularly see black people driving vehicles that I never could and probably never will be able to afford. While I drive a 2012 Nissan. And you know what? Good on them for being successful and having nice things. And I believe most of it is earned legitimately. I respect their success and do not resent them for it. But just don't tell me that I'm more "privileged" than them or that they're "oppressed" by people who look like me when I'm sitting there in a car worth a fraction of theirs.
I disagree, but respect your opinion. If we choose not to see the how race has affected the current structure of society and the unequal standing of certain groups, that doesn’t mean that those disparities don’t exist. The question is always what to do about it, and in my opinion, that is the hard question. How to weigh the inequities of 400+ years while not giving in to policies that actually promote “reverse racism.”
Keith, I appreciate the response. Although I agree that is an extremely challenging question to answer, I feel like you stepped right over the initial question: how should we as a society/country decide who is warranted or deserving (for lack of a better word) of assistance/help/a push (whether that is through educational opportunities/acceptance rates, scholarships, job opportunities/advancement, etc.). And more to your point, should an individuals race or “group” (please feel free to define because I have a lot of questions) play a part in whether that individual should be granted those opportunities/benefits. And if so, how much of a factor should that be (in other words how are you weighing an individual’s race or “group” in that decision process). I feel that is the aspect that a lot people disagree with, and doesn’t mean they don’t believe that past/current disparities didn’t exist.
400+ years? America is not even that old...
Six million Jews were murdered within our living memory for the "crime" of being Jewish. But Jews should quit pointing out antisemitism because it's a "victim's complex?"
As for "Never Again," it remains a useful warning to those who would murder Jews or Blacks for the "crime" of being either. Not that anyone targets Jews or Blacks any more because of their race . . . . oh, wait.
"it remains a useful warning to those who would murder Jews or Blacks for the "crime" of being either."
Where are blacks being killed simply for being black? I mean besides inner city Democrat cities when they are being killed by other blacks? Also, I know you have Hutu militias killing mostly Tutsi in Rwanda.
But where is this mass killing of blacks comparable to the 6 million Jews, 700 thousand gypsies, 2 million soviet Russians and 10's of thousands of gays, millions of Polish catholics done by Germany in WWII?
Why should you group those together?
Nothing is comparable to the industrialized slaughter of the Holocaust.
But murders don't have to be Nazi-sized to warrant "Never Again." Early American history's slave horror. Modern American history's lynched, shot, strangled, and beaten black people. Newest American history's mass shootings: Dylan Roof killed nine in a church in South Carolina, their "crime" being Breathing While Black.
Jews? Robert Bowers, shouting anti-Semitic slurs, opened fire inside the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing at least 11 congregants and wounding four police officers and two others. There are others: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/shootings-targeting-american-jews
"Never Again" means just that, whether the victims are in the millions or dozens.
Your "inner-city Democrat city" is a cute attempt at politics, but doesn't fly. Blacks aren't killing blacks because they're black. Black gangsters are killing other black gangsters to protect turf and profits in a lethal industry. If white gangsters were trying to take their drug markets, they'd happily shoot white gangsters.
How would rate the 100,000,000 to 170,000,000 killed in the name of equity in the past century? For what it's worth, I put the guiding ideals behind DEI as being more pernicious than the ideals of Nazi Germany. NOTE: Both share many of the same idealogical roots.
How do you rate Darrell Brooks who reveled in mowing over 8 people (all of which were white) at a Christmas Parade? You could argue it was an "accident" but you can see him intentionally targeting people and he had social media posts detailing the exact situation on how to get rid of whites.
There are people of all races which have irrational hatred of other people based on some immutable characteristic. It is an abomination to hold ONLY one group guilty of that hate.
Yes. There are examples of whites killing whites, blacks killing whites, blacks killing blacks and Yes: some of them (but a very tiny minority of them are racially motivated.
And no, "inner-city Democrat city" is NOT a cute attempt at politics. These issues exist primarily BECAUSE of Democrat policies started in the late 1960's as part of the "great society" designed to destroy the family unit specifically of inner city black families.
I doubt you really want to compare white/black murders. That reveals one of the biggest lies being pushed in the last few years. After looking at the data, you will wonder why whites aren't rioting in the streets.
thanks for the lecture. sadly, you miss both the point and the context.
It wasn't a lecture. And I got your point, I simply do not agree with it.
When people quit attacking Jews for being Jews, perhaps Jews will be able to back off judging the world through the lens of antisemitism. Until then, it's intelligent self-protection.
With all due respect to your experience, I’m not talking about seeing everything through the prism of race, just acknowledging that race is a relevant factor in the disparate outcomes we have in society today. Thanks for your comment, Zhenya!
It's as relevant as we choose it to be. I've seen how uncomfortable my black friends get when someone starts emphasizing its relevance. And there are other blacks (and many whites!) who build their entire identities and careers on its relevance.
But there are many POC that don’t feel this way and they deserve to be considered in the movement forward. Weave together the absolutist goal of color blindness and the practical needs of those that do need a hand up out of a poverty that absolutely is the result of generational suppression.
I’m right with you! I think this is the hard problem. The absolute goal is color blindness as described by Dr. MLK Jr. That being said, I fear that a declaration of complete color blindness now is a pass to not consider the glaring negative outcomes we see today that are the result of generational discrimination and to not work on righting those wrongs in a meaningful way. Now, what is righting these wrongs in a meaningful way? That I’m not sure. Maybe there is now way lest you “discriminate” against other groups. I’m always filled with a lot of cognitive dissonance on this problem.
AsAJew. Thanks for making it clear that because you are Jewish everyone’s experience must match yours and see it through your lens which probably stuffs down antisemitism as your entrance to more progressive spaces. Calling out antisemitism is actually the opposite of playing a victim card, it is holding people responsible for their unacceptable words and actions and refusing to be anyone’s dhimmi.
Calling out antisemitism is important and has to be done. Seeing all interactions with non-Jews through the lens of antisemitism is entirely different thing. As a Jew who served in the Soviet Army in Russia, it's possible that I know about antisemitism more than you.
“Viewing things through a lens of color” is vile, repugnant and (above all) mind-numbingly racist.
The idea that every situation should be looked at to see not IF racism happened but WHERE it happened will result in a society torn apart with death and destruction.
Have bad things happened to different groups within America's history (hell, the Planets history), yes. You move forward by fixing the systemic injustices and removing the barriers (this was mostly done half a century ago). Do you go back and try to fix 250 years of "injustices" done by myriad people. Only if you want to destroy a functioning society.
The idea that the solution to past discrimination is current discrimination and the solution to current discrimination is future discrimination is evil at its foundation.
Cheers Steven, thanks for your comment! I think it all depends on how you define “viewing things through a lens of color.” If, to your point, a policy is enacted that actually results in reverse discrimination then that is not progress. If, however, you try to understand some of the disparities we see in society “through the lens of color” then we might come together to enact policy that can help lift people from destitution by accounting for historical injustices. If you take a purely “colorblind” approach, broad swathes of history wouldn’t factor into current decision making.
It doesn't mater. Viewing things threw a racial lens is straight out of CRT. The entire point of viewing interactions through a racial lens is to create policies that are racists (Note: anti-racists are simply racists. Reverse racism is simply racism. Reverse discrimination is simply discrimination). It has no other point.
You then had your revisionist history attempt of reframing the start of the United States with: "How to weigh the inequities of 400+ years [...]." This is, again, straight out of Nicole Hannah Jones 1619 travesty in her attempt to reframe the history and founding dates of the United States to 1619.
Your post was an example of a Motte and Bailey where you mix in reasonable views (Motte: bad things have happened to various groups of people in the past due to their group) with highly unreasonable views (Bailey: "we need to view things through a racial lens when dealing with 400+ years of inequity). There have been 10,000+ years of unequal treatment and inequities around and thinking this is a uniquely American thing dating back a mere 400+ years is simplistic.
Using this logical fallacy is highly disingenuous.
You can’t artificially “level” the playing field, that’s an exercise In futility. All you can do is try to ensure the playing field offers opportunities to everyone and then hope they take those opportunities.
Respectfully, may I ask you what ways we should level the playing field that we aren’t or haven’t done in the past few decades?
Schools would be number one for me. We have many drastically under performing schools in black neighborhoods that graduate a very low percentage of students at a level of proficiency. These schools need a complete overhaul. They are failing the students who then go out into the world without the skills to succeed. The failure of our education system which ranks on a low level internationally is in my opinion a more important factor than racism. Interesting that politicians always seem to find a private school for their own kids.
Agreed Lisa. Many communities (states) have laws prohibiting pooling education resources, which leads to unequal funding. Not a great senario!
Those students do poorly because their parents by and large don’t/won’t/can’t care about their kids’ education. Every city in America is testimony that more money doesn’t improve outcomes.
I am not talking necessarily about money although that may be a factor. There is obviously something wrong with the teaching methods and organization of schools producing such poor outcomes. This recent obsession with gender discussions is telling. Here are schools that are failing to give kids the necessary skills but apparently find time to discuss these topics in early grades. Another telling issue is bullying and major disruption. In a functional school system, these students would be removed or dealt with immediately. But I have repeatedly seen a lack of authority. Bullies can persist, and the schools actually suggest to kids they bully go to another school. Crazy. My father’s family was very poor and did not even speak English. Yet he had access to a functional school system and thrived.
The schools aren't failing anybody. The families are failing
You need to see some of the horrifically underfunded schools children of impoverished districts attend. To "thrive" in such an environment is near impossible.
That such facilities can pass-muster in this country as a "Public School" is shameful.
All racists think THEIR bigotry is justified and you are no different.
The key in my thought is weaving together the practical here-and-now need for infrastructure that reverses the tragedy of redlining for example, yet our common goal is to naturally become colorblind and unified in our effort to encompass the golden rule because we want to, not because we’re forced.
Leftists will try to financially ruin you if you don't comply. Dave Portnoy - a guy I'm not a big fan of - raised millions for small businesses during Covid and held a pizza festival last week. He also has said nice things about Trump in the past. The Washington Post contacted the pizza festival sponsors to say “We are planning to write about the festival and how some of the sponsors and participants have drawn criticism by seeming to associate themselves with Dave Portnoy, who has a history of misogynistic comments and other problematic behavior.” The Washington Post tried to shame sponsors from supporting a pizza festival for local vendors because they don't like the organizer's politics. These people are zealots.
Sadly, zealots with power. I love how Portnoy went after the journalist afterward. In this article, Coleman Hughes is not taking it lying down, either. Portnoy's strategy is a good one: go after them. Make them uncomfortable as their arguments don't hold water, and they need to get defeated soundly at some point. How that happens is going to make the next few years very interesting.
Hopefully they defeat themselves as Antifa thugs beating up feminists (several times in San Francisco), and Muslim teens (September 20th in Canada) is a really bad look. Also, applauding Nazis (Prime Minister Trudeau) looks bad too.
The hard part will be getting the leftist authoritarians out of all the institutions.
don´t forget Trudeau SR USED TO RIDE A MOTORCYCLE WITH A NAZI HELMET IN THE 40Ś AND 50Ś plenty of pics omline
"Zealots?" Or dangerous lunatics?
those terms are definitely not mutually exclusive
So glad you have brought this travesty to light. We have a tyranny of the minority, made possible by the cowardice of decision makers. Those people need to be shamed into standing up for free speech.
Then the "journalist" lied about doing it. Once caught she justified her conduct by saying that it was a common journalistic tactic. No wonder journalism is dead.
They're not only zealots, but extortionists.
I read about the Post's decision. If the details are true, Portnoy should ask the state to file criminal extortion charges against the Post, and file a civil lawsuit himself. What the Post did was no different than a mob boss saying, "Nice business ya got here. Shame to see anything happen to it."
I read that NONE of the sponsors or participants pulled out. Maybe Dave Portnoy, much like Joe Rogan, is that rare breed that cannot be cancelled!
What Dave Portnoy has said/done shall not be discussed.
What, expose the WaPo as a group of liars, cheats and thieves?
But that didn't happen, did it?
With all due respect to Coleman, his views and his TED talk, I quit tuning into TED years ago, finding that often the talks were just too slick and formulaic, less about the subject matter and more about the presenter's ego, and curated and directed to an self-selected smug elite, much like NPR. There's probably interesting and important information on the site, but the I just can't get over the production values and the editorial bias, as the Black@TED illustrates. But thanks for fighting the good fight Coleman, and hope science and evidence and reason triumph over ideology.
Yeah, you know I tuned out TED talks a while ago, too. You explained why, perfectly.
100%
I have to admit that I didn't know what TED Talks was so I googled their web site. Their descriptor reads - influential videos from expert speakers... When you have throw in "expert" to sell your product, you've lost me
"Experts™"
Them there is the folks (folx?) we need to be most wary of.
Well said.
I also quit tuning in a while ago also, for a similar reason. It just another box to tick on one’s professional resume and something to add to one’s LinkedIn profile and garnish more accolades.
I have read/listened to and supported Coleman for years. He is one of the most honest, self-reflective, and serious heterodox intellectuals discussing sensitive and controversial issues. This incident puts a final nail in the coffin of TED. They have 100% caved to extremist progressives/Marxists in and outside their company. Any company that bows even an inch to the pressure of these Marxist aggravators (see related words: community organizer, social justice activist, DEI anything, terrorist), is cowardly and complicit. All you have to do is say no, and continue to say no. Don’t give them a damn inch. Genuinely and honestly engage with ideas that are contrary to yours like Coleman does, but do not cave to terroristic tactics from these people.
And finally, start supporting and subscribing to platforms that do not cave, and stop supporting platforms like TED that do. Subscribe to Coleman and other heterodox honest good people and platforms.
For context and to justify the severity of my remarks... usage of the word terrorists is based on two defitions linked below. Many (obviously not all) of these leftist activist groups use coordinated pressure campaigns that threaten individuals and companies into compliance. The pressure and threats are backed up by the legitimate threat of violence that is well documented, as well as nonviolent tactics, such as endless public smear campaigns, identify based lawsuits, and employee subversion of companies. I don’t think that my terminology is overblown here.
1. Scroll down to US definition
https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/insurance/TerrorismDefinition-Table.pdf
2. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/fbi-and-terrorism
The Coleman Hughes 'Colorblindness' talk is great! Incredibly depressing how cowed and dishonest the response of the TED leadership was. Looking forward to the book!
"The second commentator, Otho Kerr, a program director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, claimed that I was “willing to have us slide back into the days of separate but equal.”"
I find this argument to be beyond ironic now that we're in the days of designated "safe spaces" on college campuses that are only for students who are POC (unless that C is Asian, of course), and when you have schools and companies developing programs specifically excluding whites.
Marcus, We ARE sliding into "separate but equal", SORT OF! The "separate" part is, indeed, becoming reality, as we see more and more race/gender/woke groups demanding, and RECIEVING, exclusive benefits for themselves to balance the, so-called, white oligarchy/privilege issue. Detractors not allowed! And the "equal" part? Not even close! it is more like a new "privilege" group is ascending to power and influence, and THAT is NOT "equal"!
I mean the equal part likely equal back in the days of segregated schools, trains, water fountains, etc. Segregation and apatheid are always like this -- one group ruling over the other.
Special privileges such as?
Males using female restrooms..
Hmmm....didn't know that was a big thing.
What about the concept of unisex bathrooms?
You asked. I answered. You diverted.
Good day.
There is never any point in engaging with this guy--he's 100% troll.
That is all he e et does. His programmers is not sophisticated to engage.
Lol. No. Not diverted. It's not a major issue, if that wasn't clear to you.
Just asking your thoughts on unisex. That's all.
Ask a woman.
Why not ask a man. Are they not allowed to have an opinion on unisex bathrooms?
I dislike unisex bathrooms because
1. The floor is always wet.
2. The seat is is lifted , also wet, and not returned to the seated position.
I dislike them because the floor is not simply "wet"; it frequently features a puddle of someone else's urine. As a woman, I have to lower my pants to pee in a way that makes it all too likely part of my pants will end up touching and soaking up some of that urine. And I have to clean someone else's urine off the toilet seat before I can even sit down (also a problem in women's bathrooms, but not nearly to the extent as in unisex toilets). It's gross and humiliating and it makes me feel as if the man who left the mess for me to deal with is probably getting off on the thought of some female stranger being forced to mop up his carelessly sprayed-around bodily fluids like a servant.
The classic, time-honored battle.
As a man, not a fan. Most don't have urinals.
a sink works
Black only dorms?
Yep. 99% of American history made explicity clear that things were "white only" Now, when people chose to socialize/live with those of similar background
Now, you've got a problem with it?
See, I was given explicit and implicit daily messages growing up and throughout my life by America that I was not white. Now, you want people to pretend that didn't happen?
" 99% of American history made [explicitly] clear that things were "white only" ---
Is that the best start of a lie you can come up with?
You wanted an example. I gave it. You deflected.
That's not an example. That is people chosing freedom of association. Sorry.
Yep for 99% of America's existence it supported a racial caste system, regional apartheid and only granted full citizenship to African-Americans in 1965.
Fact.
The Democrats of old would be delighted to see that the modern incarnation of their party has succeeded at something they could never manage: making black people WANT segregation.
Hey, maybe shouldn't have started that way.
Thank you Coleman, heading over to your TED talk now. I think I am the most annoyed by Adam Grant’s role in this tale.
Yeah he just lost 100% of his credibility with me. Sad.
I just enjoy white progressives acting as the approved gatekeeper of proper Black thought. Fight the power, Adam!
I became a Coleman Hughes fan right after the George Floyd murder, even before I found Joe Rogan, Bari’s common sense and Bret and Heather’s Dark Horse. They all saved my sanity through the riots, woke progressive movement Presidential Gong show and MSM’s relentless pretzel logic talking heads. I can’t wait see is book on Amazon and scoop it. He’s amazing
Same here. I enjoy his thought process. I don't always agree but he always makes me consider my views.
We are one step away from tearing down all MLK statues.
I think from a psychological perspective, much of this purported "anti-racist" BS is formally hysterical. It is dissociative. It is deeply rooted in psychological maladies which have only latched on race as an issue, and which could as easily--and of course often do--latched on gender, Trans issues, purported American Imperialism (in the economic realm it is quite real, but not very representative of America, but rather the banks the Fed represents), and the like.
Here is the thing; you cannot think clearly if you are emotionally confused. You cannot think clearly if you NEED a reason to exist that is outside something you control.
When I look at the issue of race in this country as it exists TODAY, what I see is a whole lot of white people who desperately need racism to be real and relevant, because that is all they have. Their lives are devoid of meaning without racism, the various phobias and Global Warming.
But when you cling like that, you commit violence to facts almost as a matter of course. You bend everything into interpretations that suit your emotional needs; and of course, if people do this in groups, the process is largely invisible and seems legitimate, even though it isn't.
It's been a source of anxiety and to some extent puzzlement for some time for me observing how thoroughly our best schools have been captured by epically stupid and counter-productive ideas. Really, really stupid shit, peddled by high IQ people, who really should know better.
It's a day ending in Y, so I will note again that our root problem is poor individuation. It is people simply not growing up and maturing and learning to see the pain and promise of the world as it is, and not how they would like it to be.
It is no secret that modern Western societies have replaced the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin and fallen man with new secular variants of human guilt. Acknowleding our capacity to sin is an essential part of Christianity, but an over-obsession on original sin has led the religion down some of its darker paths in the past (including the very ugly "blood libel" against the Jews, which has been more recently transformed into the secular "white oppression").
Given the left's fascination with critical theory and post-modern deconstruction, one might think they would have some self-awareness that these millenia-old ideas are simply being recycled into another narrative about our capacity to do evil to one another . . . . But critical theory is only for critiquing other people's ideas, apparently.
Thinking follows feeling. If your emotions are disordered, if decontextualized shame is a part of your sense of self, then your thinking will be disordered. Reasoning accurately is actually a high level emotional accomplishment.
And all emotional systems have real logic to them, just not always the logic which is proposed. People like those mentioned today who propose, in effect, that we get rid of racism by promoting racism--despite the science saying that is a bad idea--are really saying "I will feel better as a person fighting this "battle". I really regret missing out on the true Civil Rights struggle in the 50's and 60's, and even though I am personally much too timid to have taken part in that, and undergone the true physical dangers involved, I will feel much better about myself by PRETENDING that participating in kicking people while they are on the ground is somehow almost the same thing."
It's very sad, really. Or comical, depending on your day and mood.
I have a graduate degree in the Humanities from a good school, and of course am familiar with Levi-Strauss and Derrida and Ricouer and Habermas and others. What I would say is that the words have an hypnotic quality to them. They actually mean nothing, but they lull some part of the critical mind to sleep. I have often compared them to a Greek Orthodox Church, filled with the smoke of incense. They confer a feeling tone, but nothing useful or actionable. The action is reflexive, childish and nearly always harmful. But the FEELS, those are good. They are the affective aftermath of the escape from logic, which is to say adult responsibility and confusion in the face of a genuinely complex world.
I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but I fear not as much as I should be, in discussing what is actually going on in our best schools.
I also have a PhD from a top school, but in social science. We read the post-structuralist during my studies (early 1990s). I always looked at it as an interesting intellectual exercise, that was limited in its ability to deal with reality. Once you got the nomenclature down, there really wasn't much there other than there is no objective reality. Imagine my surprise that a intellectual movement claiming no objective reality has become one demanding we adhere to theirs!
I was just thinking about this. If the reading itself is the process and the goal, then would it not more properly be relegated to a sort of intellectual poetry, with no pretensions to social relevance, and existing solely as an aesthetic endeavor?
Reason, and the notion of universal principle, is one of the crowning achievements of Western Civilization, and these people want to destroy both in the name of nothing. They claim they want to oppose, say, racism, but 1) they don't actually oppose racism; they just shout at specific times and places that are largely arbitrary and mob driven; 2) the very NOTION of racism being bad is WESTERN, and thus their critiques are self consuming. You won't find comprehensive critiques of bigotry and prejudice anywhere else. Africa is riddled with tribal factionalism, dehumanization, de facto racism and following violence. So is everywhere else.
All or nothing is a childish emotion. You are either all good or all bad is a stupid sentiment. And nearly all their critiques engage in nothing else. Timur was arguably a more prolific murderer than either Hitler or Stalin--he killed roughly 5% of the worlds population--but he was neither white nor Christian. Horrors are simply a feature of the human race, and reason and principle remain the best ideas in play for how to end them; which makes anyone opposing either effectively misanthropic, which of course is what we see. Joe Biden is a misanthrope, and so too are the people running him. Elitism and misanthropy are closely related.
Quillette's recent podcast with Yascha Mounk on his new book about the intellectual roots and inherent contradictions of woke/identitarian politics is a well worth listening to.
I think the reality is that the U.S. government supported regional apartheid and national racial caste system and didn't become a democracy until 1965.
We were racist, like every human society for all of recorded history, and like many even today, particularly in Asia and Africa. Unlike pretty much every other society in human history we did something about it, because we had a founding document which said that all human beings are created equal.
Now, if a potential employer were to say that "we don't hire black people" it would be national news, and on loop for weeks.
There is no white supremacy. What there is is very bad schooling in most inner cities, a complete disintegration of the nuclear families that psychologists and sociologists well understand to be necessary for optimal individual and social well being, and in recent years calls by white people to make black neighborhoods even less safe than they were, by eliminating or curtailing policing. Homicides and overall crime are up, obviously.
I read yesterday that Oakland, which is probably the same black majority city now that it was when I lived there in the 90's, is on track to have TWENTY THOUSAND cars stolen this year. They have just over 400,000 people. That is one car in 20.
That is a REAL problem, isn't it? Oakland business owners are getting ready to go on strike.
But once you enter this fairy tale world of "white supremacy" you never need to worry your little head about either facts or people ever again. You can cite papers in support of your "ideas" even if the actual papers say the opposite. Nobody will care. That isn't the game.
The game is self importance, and obviously the American Left plays that game to win.
"Were?"
I'm sorry. I was told during orientation here that were a "are" currently racist against white people and/or Asians.
Well, actually America reworked it into a racial caste system and support of regional apartheid that lasted until 1965. America is currently no more/less racist than any other industrialized nation, which is where the comparison should be. So, "did something about it" is really revisionist history and a complete distortion of the present.
No, there is white supremacy/white supremacists in America. The question is to what degree that is embedded in social, economic, political structures, etc. So, it is probably fair to say that it was "systemic" until 1965. Of course, I'm sure we can all agree that societies change their values, norms, ideologies, etc. immediately once a law is passed.
Sure, there was a small cohort that talked about "defunding the police" (bad slogan). I'd guess "Reappropriating a percentage of funds to more outreach, community involvement, mental health services and deescalation training, etc." is probably too much to put on a sign.
In reality, you can miss me with all the "defund" talk. The overwhelming majority of PDs kept their same level of funding and many actually increased.
Yes. There are always papers that say the opposite and vice versa, that's how it works. So, it's a two-way street.
The United States has NEVER been a Democracy. The idea is not mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation or the United States Constitution.
No. It is set up as a form of democracy. Which is mentioned in those documents. Sorry. Just like a Honda and Ford are types of cars.
So...let's not get started with this stupid talking point, that suddenly sprang up after Trump's loss.
Very late to the game, but have to quibble with your first statement. The most efficient therapeutic modality — Cognitive Behavioral Therapy — is premised on the principle that in fact thoughts precede emotions. Because the brain goes from one to the other very quickly, most people don’t realize there was a thought that gave rise to the emotion. The best way to short-circuit the emotion is to change that thought. Anyway, I’m so sorry you were forced to read all of that comparative lit nonsense. What a huge waste of your time!
I am going to answer this, not because I think anyone will read it, other than perhaps you, but because it is an interesting question.
The way I think it works--what I feel when I meditate, which I do daily--is that everything starts with Sensations. Sensations, in turn, are tied at a very primitive level with images, which often flash at subliminal speeds. That is the thought.
The images in turn trigger Thought/Feelings. I don't think you can really separate one from the other.
CBT is a useful approach, but only because loops are formed between thoughts and feelings, and if you can alter half of the loop, you affect the trajectory of the whole thing.
But to take two obvious example, the abdomen has enough nerve plexuses (?) that it amounts to the brain of a cat. That brain sends signals TO the brain. It does not just receive them. Same with the heart. The heart sends as much or more information to the brain as it receives.
This means that our thinking is highly conditioned by our bodies. This is particularly relevant to people with PTSD. You cannot fix PTSD with CBT. That fixing has to be done elsewhere, in other ways.
My two cents.
Well, yeah. We have a sympathetic nervous system that drives a whole host of “feelings” — like panic in adults or crying in infants — that are distinct from “emotions.” But I think the jury is out on how the SNS gets triggered when it isn’t warranted. PTSD and panic disorder are both great examples of ‘inappropriate’ SNS responses. Typically, combination therapies work best for both, so there’s some indication thoughts are involved somehow. But, I remain agnostic on the issue. Thank you for the conversation.
"Their lives are devoid of meaning without racism, the various phobias and Global Warming.
But when you cling like that, you commit violence to facts almost as a matter of course. You bend everything into interpretations that suit your emotional needs; and of course, if people do this in groups, the process is largely invisible and seems legitimate, even though it isn't."
Thank you for this. My sister is like this & it's the most frustrating thing in the world to me. She's smart & educated and yet is 100% on board with all of this nonsense. She is all emotion all the time. Reason and reality be damned. The intensity of the virtue signaling is sort of amazing to me, but I realize the displayed performative morality is both for others and for herself.
They have taken to accusing everyone else of gaslighting—I was accused of it in this thread—but the reality is they do little else.
I am often reduced to wondering where their sense of our common humanity went. I am in bad neighborhoods and interact with low income people all the time. I am also very observant.
And everything these ignorant elitists do hurts people they never see, never talk to and dont understand, but on whose behalf they nonetheless—and with no consciousness AT ALL of the incongruity and harmfulness of it—arrogate the SOLE right to speak. I say sole thinking of the white woman whose name I can’t be bothered to remember telling Fifty Cent—who has a lot of the Black Experience under his belt—that he wasn’t black if he didnt agree with her.
Their sense of common humanity has vanished as far as I can tell. You're either in their tribe or possibly you're cowed & craven enough to go along with the nonsense even if you don't believe it, OR You're an Evil White Supremacist, Homophobe, Transphobe, Racist & Sexist. It's pretty unbelievable. Government censorship of reality-based non-woke opinions sped this along, for which I will never forgive them. Not that government actually cares about citizens anymore. I howl at the white women bossing around back men!!
I am very sure this is what the Soviet Union felt like, and many of them admit to dreaming of gulags.
It is literally hysterical people of a type we have all met who simply WILL NOT ADMIT WHEN THEY WRONG. They blame the messenger and fume at reality and wonder how they can make it go away; and of course they then realize WE CAN JUST LIE ABOUT IT AND MAKE THE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT GO AWAY.
Thats the whole game in a nutshell. Its psychotic.
Exactly!! That's the gameplan. My liberal friends can't see through it since they think it's their "side." They don't/won't see the danger here.
They see danger everywhere but where it actually is. This is how projection—which is another word they have learned to abuse— works. You see what you are everywhere.
And I would suggest substituting Leftist for liberal. Liberalism is a good thing, but they are no longer liberal.
The way I diiferentiate them is if they are capable of rational dialogue. True Leftists are not.
Of course they suppressed it. Any religion worth its salt represses countervailing logic, science, thought. I mean we can't allow the parishioners to hear such blasphemy as our core beliefs might crumble and then they might stop paying I mean donating...
As soon as I read “Black@TED” I knew the talk would not be published. TED has succumbed to the cancel culture progressives.
TED's leadership should have invited BLACK@TED to organize a TED talk on why colorblindness is problematic, instead of allowing them to muzzle Coleman like that. But like Coleman's repeated attempts to enagage Ibram Kendi on this issue, the folks opposing color-blindness don't want to expose their anti-racism ideas to an actual debate because their fig leaf will fall off.
I assume you are aware that Ibram Kendi has finally been exposed for who he really is.
Carol - yes, I live in Boson and have been enjoying the recent news reports on that topic. Anti-racism is not an academic field of study, so it was only a matter of time before that endeavour was exposed for what it was.
Which is?
https://dailyfreepress.com/2023/09/21/amid-mass-layoffs-bu-center-for-antiracist-research-accused-of-mismanagement-of-funds-disorganization/
Good. So....we will now apply this standard to all situations, correct? Such as Project Veritas and the like?
Absolutely. Some questions: What university is Project Veritas associated with? Which university hired James O'Keefe, his staff, and gave PV money, grants, and access to their donors?
Because, if we're going to apply the same standards, should the application be used for organizations in the same situation?
Sure. I’d say these standards apply to any organization that takes people’s money and promises something they don’t deliver. Didn’t the guy from Project Veritas get booted out?
A scam as is the Black Lives Matter organization.
Yeah....that title pissed off people from the jump.
But I thought the topic was Kendi?
It is. This is a comparison that can be seen if the thread is followed.
Or apparently research as demonstrated by Kendi's "institute" at Boston University.
Well how do we write TED Talks and tell them to get on it or we aren't listening EVER AGAIN. If Bud Light drinkers can abstain, so can we. This is exactly what FR readers want, pen, honest interchange. Ugh, the world is so upside down.
PS let's get all the FR readers to go to it and show TED where to go....to topics that others find too hard to handle.
Publicize this and no longer give TED clicks or other supports.
Go to TED TALKS, listen to Coleman’s talk and no one elses. That’s my plan.
they don't care. the protesters are much scarier because they wield the racism cudgel. nothing we do would ever be as damaging as that.