This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Nothing's off topic
This conversation is meant to be one where nothing is off topic. That is, a conversation which is unconstrained and able to take on any direction.
The diversity of background and depth of thinking of TED conversation posters is outstanding. Where will an open conversation lead? Let's see.
What's on your mind?
We are all adults here and capable of negotiating differences between ourselves. Although heated disputes have emerged in these conversations, they have as yet not led to violence. And the process of the community resolving conflict is one thing this conversation could exemplify. Remember Chris Anderson's insight:
"You need clear, open visibility of what the best people in that crowd are capable of, because that is how you will learn how you will be empowered to participate."
http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_anderson_how_web_video_powers_global_innovation.html
To posters: PLEASE DO NOT DELETE YOUR POSTINGS. If you are unwilling to allow your contributions to remain indefinitely, please go elsewhere. Let this conversation be an unadulterated record of human interaction.
Closing Statement from Tim Colgan
Internet forums such as this have become the new "public space". As such, it is essential that users demand normal rights of free speech in the places that they congregate as in any other public space.
This conversation, though initially open-ended, was singled out by TED for early termination, despite the fact that it generated significant traffic and interesting conversations.
Transparency and openness is essential for the success of an endeavor such as the one TED conversations has claimed as its purpose.
This has become a dictatorial and closed environment.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (see Birdia's Leopold Kohr quote "The Power Theory of Aggression" below for the more elaborate version).
In memory of Pabitra (PBUH).
For when this gets expunged - an unexpurgated version of this conversation will soon be placed here:
http://tcolgan.freeshell.org/nothing
Googling "Nothing's off topic" should work soon.
And keep your eyes out for TEDanon. For those wishing to relieve the withdrawal pains from quitting TED.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Gio Rana
Gio Rana
Comment deleted
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Gio Rana
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Tim Colgan 50+
Oops. I really didn't mean to trip you.
Happy trails partner.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan 50+
I really think you're overlooking the value of a personal ongoing discussion Jimmy. Ownership means a lot. And having the time to develope means a lot. There is room for all kinds of discussions here. Why, why, why add limitations?
But I suppose TED got their wish. They thought that by imposing a time limit they would accelerate the discussion. And that they did. But accelerating bodies produce a lot of heat.
PS - Be sure before passing judgement on what you see here that you compare the timbre of the comments before the arbitrary change on the time limit was imposed and after.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jim Moonan 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
or maybe in a closing statement? i don't know how it works, i don't believe in the expiry deadlines.
Tim Colgan 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
One of my life philosophies is: "If I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem". Sometimes, we need to work from within an established system to facilitate change. In my perception, you are an excellent model for what I'd like to see more of on TED, so I hope you stick around. I also respect whatever choice you make:>)
Tim Colgan 50+
Jim Moonan 30+
Tim Colgan 50+
"But then we turned to the actual topic that started the experiment in the first place: TEDc administration’s terms and conditions and how they are being implemented - and all hell broke loose."
Jim:
Get things straight.
All hell broke loose when they changed the rules from this being an open-ended conversation to one closing in three days. These people are control freaks and they need to be put in their place. If you are OK with such arbitrary control, that's fine, but I will speak out against the abuse.
Tim Colgan 50+
Comment:
Thanks Birdia. And thanks for everyone who supports this cause.
Internet forums such as this have become the new "public space". As such, it is essential that users demand normal rights of free speech in the places that they congregate as in any other public space.
We try to operate within the rules established by TED, but they keep pulling the rug out from under us. Changing the rules arbitrarily. Unwilling to openly discuss the decision making process. Total lack of transparency.
This conversation, though initially open-ended, was singled out by TED for early termination, despite the fact that it generated significant traffic and interesting conversations.
TED has apparently determined that openness and transparency in TED Conversations is damaging to their ???. Hence, this has become a dictatorial and closed environment.
Ronald Kimani
Now if someone thinks I shouldn't have such a conversation and such great outcomes that improve my day-to-day experience with my neighbor, well then, that just plain sad. But again, maybe they have a reason, perhaps something that they fear, and hence the need to decide for me what I can talk about with you on this forum.
I heard it said 'Love thy neighbor'. It didn't say 'Love thy Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist neighbor', which I think means we ought to be more open to others unlike us. But again, which all that free love going around, someone's bound to run out of business...
Tim Colgan 50+
"It was S.R. Ahmadi who said the holocaust was a lie. Of course I disagree with him. But I defend his right to have that belief. He and others are not going to change their beliefs by censoring. Though some might after open debate."
Agree or disagree? In favor of free speech or not?
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan 50+
Ronald Kiman's comment from below (important to this thread):
@ Lindsay, you know, I would REALLY want to have a conversation with anyone who is convinced that the holocast didn't happen. Really I would. And that to me would not be a breach of the rules of civility- I just would want to understand how they arrived at that conclusion. I know someone who is 100% convinced that dinosours never existed- they are some invention by some nuthead :) And I have gained a whole new understanding and even awe at the power of the human mind, just by talking with this person. Also, I have learnt how to share the space where our lives meet in a more harmonious and mutually beneficial way, where their belief systems don't determine whether we can plant a tree seedling together, or reach out to one another in times of need.
Now if someone thinks I shouldn't have such a conversation and such great outcomes that improve my day-to-day experience with my neighbor, well then, that just plain sad. But again, maybe they have a reason, perhaps something that they fear, and hence the need to decide for me what I can talk about with you on this forum.
I heard it said 'Love thy neighbor'. It didn't say 'Love thy Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist neighbor', which I think means we ought to be more open to others unlike us. But again, which all that free love going around, someone's bound to run out of business...
Jim Moonan 30+
I think it would help get this discussion back on track if we weigh in on some other examples and just let our opinions fall where they may....Here is an example (It is not hypothetical)
Someone uses comments you made within a different conversation and ties them to sexual abuse of chiildren.
In favor of this remaining in the thread?
Tim Colgan 50+
This red-flagging behind the scenes is just an abuse of power. And destroys the whole flow of the conversations. Usually the people involved in the conversations would prefer the debate to remain intact.
Jim Moonan 30+
I don't know what the answer is as far as red flags and their misuse (I definitely see how they could be). What If the red flag was removed from visibility but a person still had the ability to object to TED about a comment made by another based on TED terms and policies, and then TED had the ability to make a decision to remove the comment if they deemed it inappropriate. But I do think TED needs to stand their ground and steer far clear of trying to be politically correct when it comes to red flaggers with agendas!
Birdia, I totally agree that the integrity of conversation (and the integrity of the person) is violated when someone lifts/uses a comment made by someone within one conversation and uses it to (supposedly) prove a point in a different conversation. It feels like stalking and runs against the grain of TED.
So SR doesn't believe the holocaust happened (actually he does believe something happened, but not on the scale that the rest of the world knows it happened).
So WWTD? I think TED would do exactly what Tim says they would do. Accept it for what it is and let the people who know better get to work using their best persuasive skills. If that didn’t work, then maybe that’s the time we just have to accept that the world is a far from perfect place - TED included.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Tim Colgan 50+
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 200+
but i would strongly oppose any legislative, coercive measures against such opinions, whatever moronic they are. some people who bear the smell, will try to shed some light in the intellectual darkness.
however, it is completely OK to kick out such individuals from a club for example, and it is the club's decision. TED community is a club. the community can decide to kick such individuals, or disallow to express such opinions. every club is a self organizing, sovereign entity, and they are very different. so it is not against any "written in stone" rule for TED to exclude any opinion from its premises. it does not make the decision good or bad, of course, but it is the owner's decision to make.
on the other hand, non-owner members can and should propose ideas and changes, express opinions about the club's internal dealings. and it is wise for TED to listen to those.
my vote is: allow holocaust denial, but only in topics dedicated to it. or maybe if the conversation opener agrees to let it go.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Free speech at TED? NO!
If I read "the holocaust is a lie" I would flag, flag and flag (comment, conversation and member)... There is certain shit that you need to keep to your own fucked-up mind here at TED!
Tim Colgan 50+
Plus - could you respond to the argument instead of just blurting out your gut feeling?
Tim Colgan 50+
The fact that S.R. Ahmadi seems to have holocaust denial tendencies is an interesting point in itself. Especially considering the fact that Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, has expressed similar views. I think it is worthwhile for the world to be aware of those facts.
And the greatest argument in favor of allowing those ideas to be expressed is that then they can be debated. Analyzed. And discredited.
Now perhaps you have less lofty goals for TED. But I thought it was all about exploring ideas.
Debra Smith 200+
I went on to challenge SR directly in another thread on Antisemitism based on the consensus and input we had during the first conversation on Palestine and he not only admitted it happened but we could talk about why he hated what he considered its misuse. I believe however, that without the sincere and respectful dialogue that the common ground could never have happened.
I absolutly want us to have the freedom to talk about the tough stuff but it can only happen in a civil environment where people are not attacked and ridiculed.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I did not read them, I will no longer go into conversations hosted by SR, after visiting "Is the Koran a miracle?". If a TEDsters opinion differs too much from mine and I don't even find the person being able to reason in the same way as I do, I usually don't waste my time.
Concerning my "blurt", I thought that I was able to say anything in any way here... I stand behind most comments that promote some kind of censoring here at TED, the rules are sufficient as they are but they can be improved...
P.S. I must say that I'm certainly not feeling the TED-Love that usually goes around and that I'm actually glad that this conversation will be closing soon...
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Sorry you are leaving with this really stupid idea that I am responsible for every deletion that ever ocurred.when in fact I have doen very few..until this recent bizarrre tirade.
The problem here is a few people never got it..I guess that';s why they hired a conversation manager maybe???? I don't know. I only know that very big hullabaloo I've seen here has been caused by the same 4 or 5 people doing the same things..over and over and over. Icall them the magpies.
.
Colleen Steen 500+
Give it a rest. I'm ONLY entering the conversation because you say the "same few people never got it". Do you "get it" darlin'? You admitted on a site that you flagged an entire segment I was involved in because you didn't think it was "on topic".
You also have said many times that calling people names is not acceptable!
One of the "magpies"
Richard Dawson 30+
And that is the whole problem here with the greatly disgruntled...a few gaps in undertsanding what is and isn't civil.”
And what is Birdia’s “really shocking reaction” re "holocaust is a lie"?
It is this:
“Lindsay, I might have missed the "Holocaust is a lie" post, but if you have a problem with it, give evidence (links, videos, etc.) to prove that it is not a lie. Flagging a lie doesn't give you truth.”
According to Lindsay this isn’t civil and an offence to common decency and Birdia displays a lack of understanding about civility with this remark.
Respectfully in my opinion there is nothing uncivil in that response. It suggests the correct way to respond to such a statement and correctly points out flagging a lie doesn’t give you the truth. A lie has to responded to with the truth and not censorship.
@Lindsay "Three thumbs up on Birdia's remark suggesting the appropriate response is videos and documentaion to prove the holocausr was not a lie would suggest that the problem here are the four involved in that.”
So anyone who disagrees with Lindsay and thinks Birdia has a point are "the problem". It is a pity you view the world that way.
@ Lindsay “..Civilized intelligent people simply don't go around saying the holocausr was a lie.This is really pointing to the core truth of what the problem really is here. What is of issue here. What needs to be .sorted out here at TED Conversations… this is about a few people who need to work on civility.”
This shows your idea of civility - anyone who disagrees with you (which in this case is also the majority world view). The issue was never about whether the holocaust was a lie or not - it was about whether a person has the right to say it. That is what I will always defend. It was not said accompanied by any rude language or abuse so civility has nothing to do with it.
Richard Dawson 30+
I will pusue a more formal resolution, if necessar, but I strongly suggest you try civility and remove that unwarranted and untrue remark."
That threat is obvious and something that you use as your preferred method of control.
I guess saying things like "I strongly suggest you try civility" is very civil.
That unwarranted and untrue remark was merely a link to your own words regarding flagging in another conversation.
It can only be concluded from the above that you have shown a desire to control conversations you are taking part in, based on your opinions of what is right or wrong. And you are using the flags as the method for your control.
PS Talking about civility would you say "There is certain shit that you need to keep to your own fucked-up mind here at TED!" is very civil language?
And Jimmy gets 2 thumbs up for that. You dont need to be Sherlock Holmes to guess who those may be.
Colleen Steen 500+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Coleen
Yes and so you have..
Tim Colgan 50+
And TED - This may seem like a valueless conversation to you. But believe me, there is a lesson here to be learned.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
TED 10+
We encourage you to flag comments when you see it is clearly a spam and when it's inappropriate according to our Terms of Use http://www.ted.com/pages/conversations_terms
Flagging does NOT result in the immediate removal. While we check all the flagged and unflagged comments, flagging gets our attention first and we take close look at it. We do not delete most of the flagged comments, because sometimes people just flag what they don't like. We know that so we carefully approach to every comment. But it's very helpful to detect violations and take action accordingly.
Please do not take it as offensive and attack your fellow community members if they flag certain comments.
After All, TED Conversations is a platform for mature and respectful discussions.
If You have questions, please email us at conversations@ted.com and we'll be happy to further clarify this.
Best,
TED Conversations Admin Team
Gio Rana
Tim Colgan 50+
Comment deleted
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
Dominique deSalle 30+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Will miss you.
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 200+
(down with the healthcare reform!! this one is just to tease you.)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Tim Colgan 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Gio Rana
Dominique deSalle 30+
Tim, welcome to spreading worthless ideas.
Tim blackburn 30+