TED Conversations

TED
  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.

For discussion: http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/01/a-note-to-the-ted-community-on-the-withdrawal-of-the-tedxwesthollywood-license

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 6 2013: Continuation of press release:

    At press time, no response by TED had been made to Taylor’s request that the Live Stream be promoted in the TED community and that the blog be kept open longer, post-event, for dialogue about whether the program in fact met TED’s standards and about any reimbursement TED should be making to replace lost sponsorship.
    Physicist Russell Targ and physician Larry Dossey shared their frustration about the cancellation.

    [ gave excerpts from Targ and Dossey statements posted elsewhere on this blog -- not enough characters available to reprint here...ST]

    Contact: Suzanne Taylor: suzanne@mightycompanions.org, Los Angeles, 310-652-3440
    Event website for program and tickets: www.TEDxWestHollywood.com
    Live Stream free April 14: https://new.livestream.com/extedwesthollywood
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2013: Why would you expect TED to support this event when they have made it clear that they do not support this event? If you keep posting announcements of the event in this conversation, I think they should be flagged as inappropriate spam.
      • Apr 6 2013: This is just mean, sorry.
        • thumb
          Apr 6 2013: Why is it permissible for Suzanne to take advantage of TED's website to post press releases and continue to promote an event from which it has been made clear that TED had withdrawn sponsorship? If the ideas are not worth spreading, then they should not be repeatedly advertised here. The event should also not continue to be promoted as the "TEDx West Hollywood" event. It is no longer a TEDx event.

          As noted in her profile, Suzanne "is a crop circle authority on the 'Ancient Aliens' television series on the History Channel." Would it be acceptable for her to repeatedly post announcements of episodes of that television program in a conversation here? For those not familiar with that program, it is one that is dedicated to persuading an uninformed and credulous audience that practically ever major accomplishment ever made by humans in the past was due to the influence or assistance of extraterrestrials.

          Ancient Aliens
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_aliens

          I think one notice of the West Hollywood event is sufficient. I do not think it is acceptable to post advertisements for it multiple times each day up until the scheduled event. That is spam.
      • pal rao

        • +1
        Apr 6 2013: Of course Suzanne Taylor should be "allowed" to post here, it is a public site and her posts are entirely germaine to the topic: the planned event she must now scramble to re-put together. (And f there is a Humpty-Dumpty here it is TED.)

        There are more interesting, pertinent questions: Why did it take TED over a year to evaluate the event? Will TED treat other events similarly (stringing them along, then dropping them)? Does TED take any interest in TEDx talks themselves, or is it just interested in their publicity? Will TED wait for TEDx events to be flagged (ie, brought to their attention by Coyne), or will they be evaluating the upcoming talks themselves?
        • thumb
          Apr 6 2013: Paul, I am not arguing that Suzanne should not be allowed to post here. I am arguing that Suzanne should not be allowed to either promote pseudoscience or post spam here. The wording in the TED Conversations terms of use are clear on that. The terms of use should be applied to all TED Conversation participants equally and fairly.
      • Apr 6 2013: I had not read the Terms of Use, which gives standards by which no discussion pages claiming to be a forum to discuss the pseudoscience it has foregone conclusions about could exist (ie, the so-called talk pages about Sheldrake's and Hancock's talks- little of those conversations should be allowed to remain), and I agree, if one is to have guidelines, they are meaningless unless kept.

        Unfortuantely, TED has no coherent definition nor understanding of pseudoscience (nor of "new-age fluff" - it seems name-calling is "mature" when TED does it) to enforce, shown by TED's use of Coyne's pseudoscience as part of its justification for removing the Sheldrake talk. Anyone making an effort to enforce TED's vague, uninspiring standards should flag any of your own (John Hoopes') posts that are conspiracy theories about pseudoscience, and given their volume TED would have to consider revoking your membership.

        Is noting the "beam in your eye" new-age fluff? I would were it not, but I suspect it would be considered as such. I will point to a a TED conversation premised on fantasy asking, "Assuming socialism is right, the rich should give the poor their money. Why does it not also follow that the poor must also then share in the risks/debts/expenses/hard work/smart work/saving money which the wealthy use to create economic wealth?" (As if "the poor" did something but "share" in these, then again TED did banish a talk addressing just this.) I'd also like to quote Blake to express the power of imagination, but again, new-age fluff.
        • thumb
          Apr 6 2013: "Anyone making an effort to enforce TED's vague, uninspiring standards should flag any of your own (John Hoopes') posts that are conspiracy theories about pseudoscience, and given their volume TED would have to consider revoking your membership."

          Surely you're joking. I have not posted any conspiracy theories about pseudoscience. That does not mean I don't have any theories about pseudoscience conspiracies. I just haven't posted them.
        • thumb
          Apr 6 2013: You assert that "Unfortuantely, TED has no coherent definition nor understanding of pseudoscience (nor of 'new-age fluff')"

          The burden of proof is upon you. What's your evidence?

          Burden of proof
          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
      • Apr 6 2013: TED doesn't define them, and its guidelines for pseudoscience are malleable and over-broad, but I don't play Burden and Fallacy (besides the burden being on TED (and besides that it's always and only on the one who cares to find it), critiquing structure is typically a way to avoid content), thank you for the offer though! This time it is Milton I have to resist quoting, it too would likely be interpreted as fluff!

        Some of your comments are conspiracy theories (seeing pseudoscience as something imbued with a special power to sway, used by the dark for malicious end), and it is not me but the ToU you quote that has a problem with that; I would not like to see your comments go, in part because I am a fan of dialogue and openness, but mostly because I think it is important to remember that research and has been (and is and will be) used to justify all sorts of things (plus eugenics is always looming in materialism; it would be a shame were TED devotees to not be reminded of this).
        • thumb
          Apr 6 2013: Sorry Pal, something is not a theory unless it's articulated as such, even indirectly, and haven't done that. I have not offered any theories. An implication is not a theory.

          "I think it is important to remember that research and has been (and is and will be) used to justify all sorts of things (plus eugenics is always looming in materialism; it would be a shame were TED devotees to not be reminded of this)."

          I agree with you that research has been used to justify all kinds of things. I do not agree that eugenics is always looming in materialism, though I do think that antisemitism may always be looming in antimaterialism discourse and there are those who would draw a connection from materialism to antisemitism to eugenics, further compounding the antisemitism. Shall I identify those implications and insinuations in your comments as conspiracy theory? Giving you the benefit of a doubt that you haven't given me, I won't.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.