@ that could be part of an automatic spam filter. It could be with a word filter or an algorithm that detects bad think. I've had my own comments removed before because of something like this.
Yea, that's the thing. His explanation of "dumb skepticism" is really lacking. Instead of saying that "dumb skepticism" is just contrarianism he says that you can't question certain things. Yes, almost every racist is a dumb skeptic, there's a single sentence that can debunk their entire ideology, but that doesn't mean they can't question it. It just means that they need to approach it the right way. Instead of resorting to crime rate statistics and climbing up the stairs from there they need to understand that those statistics do not represent the whole race. The easiest way to get this is to actually meet with people of different races. This, of course, requires them to go out and talk to people instead of alienating themselves in their rooms and browse image boards all day.
@@YehudiNimol "there's a single sentence that can debunk their entire ideology," if this was true like you say it is then there wouldn't be an ideology
@@thepope2412 you can make anyone believe anything by using enough manipulative tactics to influence their minds as long as they're gullible enough. You can tell racists that the actions of some people within the group do not represent the whole and they'll quickly respond with "but 13%" like an automated response. Once the seeds are planted in their brains, it takes a lot of work to get them out.
Hold up there Mr Marantz, this is the problem with modern journalism. When you open that the NY Bomber "was an American citizen", well yes, that's true, but he is ALSO an immigrant from Afghanistan. You conveniently leave that out, especially when you claim the "conspiracy theorist" from California used him as a case against immigration. Well, I would say zero for you, one for the "conspiracy theorist". Next time learn to code if you can't learn to journalism.
He is Bangladeshi not Afghan. Yes he should of included that, Akayed Ullah is an Immigrant, but it should also be noted the troll started making the accusation before any information of the attacker had been released which is what Marantz' point is.
Yeah but the right do that and then some Andy Ngo isn't telling you he has a gentleman's agreement with a far right group that they act as his bodyguards while he pushes their bs for example.
@fluff I would say this "journalist" is about as credible as the troll - they're both pushing agendas, but only one is not upfront about their agenda, and that's Mr Ted talk here
@@unholyrevenger72 Mr Marantz does not cite who this troll is, so I can only take Marantz's word what the troll's intentions were. For all we know the troll had credible information on who the bomber was before hand. Or perhaps the troll was merely pointing out that certain members of a certain unnamed religious affiliation are vastly over represented per capita in terrorist activities. I'm sorry, but because of Marantz's own history with leaving out important details, I'm going to be "smartly" skeptical about his claims
@@EmoBearRights Why would Andy Ngo have to use bodyguards? 🤔 (and by "bodyguards" you mean people that dont assault him and may stop the assault if it happens I'd assume)
He made it pretty clear that he wasn't talking about conservatives but about far right extremists. If you feel spoken too by that then i strongly urge you to reconsider your world view.
Also: "Anyone talking about Jewish control of the media is a conspiracy theorist. Now let me talk about how incredibly Jewish I am while endorsing online censorship"
@@ryangrider9607 Who cares? He thinks that when very wealthy tech companies create and spread memes (such as promoting military industrial complex friendly centrist democrats for example) with the goal of influencing millions that's not exactly fair vs. the average person in the street. Not sure why you find that so silly? He mentioned being decent. I don't think murdering millions in response to 9/11 was a decent thing do you? The media and only the media promotes these ongoing wars. Lets speak out against them. And that is what he was doing. All good things. May we see the light and apply the golden rule both as individuals and nations.
I love being a progressive in the brave new world. I used to rely on rational arguments to make my points but now I can just plug my ears and scream "RIGHTWINGNAZITROLLS!!!!" whenever I hear a dissenting opinion.
This is the most unsurprising talk ever. I think that after listening to him for a single minute. I could tell the whole direction of a talk. We don't want censorship and no words are EVER going to change that.
It's not Censorship , when you disobey the rules that A Private Company put forward , and You Agreed ,for the use of their platform .!!! I guess you were educated in the USA !
bogdan78pop I’m sure it’s still not censorship when it’s an oligarchy of media platforms who all have pretty the same agenda who also use their platforms to promote their politics and silences others.
@@bogdan78pop quit fucking lying to yourself about the reality of the media and social networking monopolies. The free market isn't real, it's MANAGED and controlled.
How is this allowed as a legitimate TED talk? He is doing the exact same thing as those he is talked my about. He is pushing his ideology by attacking another ideology.
these comments make me want to cry and laugh all at the same time. The trolls really came out of their caves for this video, and I mean the passive-aggressive and circular logic comments just go on and on. It's genuinely hilarious!
@@NoExitLoveNow Maybe fascist is descriptive for the most extreme people in society but calling your opponents fascists is not a way to open dialogue and labeling people fascists en mass will only create a cover for real fascists. I hate the idea of an ethno-state but I don't think open-borders are workable. Am I a fascist in your opinion?
@@AdrianTechWizard no but he is not categorizing his opposition as fascists, he is saying that the current systems and social media companies allow for fascists to meet and grow a community. He doesn't really consider his opposition too much in the sense that "even racists should be able to have a twitter account because free speech should be defended in public forums", that you could argue against but you are just also lying about what he is really saying. I think the categorization of smart skeptics vs dumb ones is good. If you can point to respectable facts that show evidence why some beliefs should not be held then that's fine, but there are also people who deny just to deny who are not contributing meaningfully to the overall conversation. I won't pretend to know which you are, but at least I'd like for everyone to consider if they are a skeptic or a contrarian for themselves.
@R G well his investigation was not whether or not these people were trolls rather that, based on the assumption that they were, to find out why Trolls did what they did and what allowed them to do that. He's not saying that he has statistical evidence, only his experience with these persons. But you're right that it is not a fair minded scientific study, but statistical or forensic analysis is not the only type of data.
There have always been political TED talks on both sides. It’s not a bad thing; it’s always good to hear the other side through a good orator. You don’t have to agree.
Ted has always been mostly there to program you into the new world orders thinking , they have a few legitimate people on from time to time like G.Hancock or Sheldrake but mostly they are stooges pushing agendas .
One good learning tool to identify hate mongering comments is from the list on the SPLC website."Intensify"is one of the new lingo used by anti-semitic hate groups.Just be careful with that word and how you use it.Thanks.
I don't 'want' to disapprove of what he said. I adamantly DO disapprove of what he said. Anyone who advocates to stifle free speech will gain that title. So if that makes me a 'troll', I wear the badge proudly. Good and bad news for you, if you buy into this crap... Depending on who runs your govt at a given time, you may or may not be able to even make that post in the future. And yet you applaud that. Who is really the troll here anyway???
What did you expect, the left is all good, the right is bad. The grass is blue if it feels blue, or you will go to jail for discrimination, but hey, we are the good ones! :D
@@hectorftraducciones2785 The grass is blue if it feels blue and smells blue or even just thinks its blue or maybe just wants to be blue when blue gets it what it wants.
Opens with: (paraphrasing) _"I contacted a propagandist to talk with him about..."_ Why not speak to the person like they're human and determining their motivations for yourself afterward. Then, present your Ted talk neutrally, instead of framing them as a propagandists, and allow the audience to determine this for themselves. If your presentation is honest, it ought to hold up and this should happen organically.
well considering that his first case was a person who manipulated social media even when he knew the facts were off, I would expect at the very least that that one should be considered a propagandist. It's not like he gives an account of all the people he met but those he described seemed to match the description. I understand the need to first evaluate that they are propagandists, but his investigation works on the premise that these people are trolls/propagandists, which should be easy enough to tell from their social media feed. Also he clearly is left leaning so he'll talk more about right propagandists than those on the left (which would be a more fair and honest assessment of internet trolling in general) he does describe the problem in all encompassing way (albeit with only xenophobic or racist examples). I would say that it is neutral in showing that the internet leads to trolling and the growth of such beliefs but biased when giving examples of what is trolling.
@@juanperret7044 How is anyone to trust this mans, when he opens from a biased position, establishing a narrative ahead of presenting evidence, and merely stating his own opinion as fact. "his first case was a person who manipulated social media" so says he, support by nothing, other than his personal interpretation. That's a bad faith way to start off a presentation, were by the audience is supposed to accept him as both a truthful, and reliable source of information. Hence, why objectivity and neutrality is a crucial part of honest journalism.
@@RpattoYT I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning is a bit worrisome. He describes this individual as someone who promotes an opinion with "facts" that he knows are incorrect. For him and I this entails social media manipulation. You are entitled to ask who this person is yourself to confirm that you would also describe him in the same way. But if we can't trust the facts of his own story than there is no point in even hearing his argument since with little effort to actually look into the facts one might dismiss it. If everyone mistrusts everyone's own story then we will never actually get to discuss the topic. If you can verifiably say that his impression that such a man was a troll is incorrect then fine. Otherwise it would be wiser to at least trust the facts since we ourselves have not done the same research. Whether you agree with his arguments or not is up to you. But to deny someone's (admittedly mentioned but not shown) evidence without providing your own is only going to halt discussion. I think it's good you're worrying about whether or not he had a sort of agenda and perhaps manipulated information to make it look that way but unless you can give solid evidence of that then your own argument cannot be held in as high regard.
@S E well if they intentionally lie to promote their ideals then yes. But don't say that they have blood on their hands for a shooting they did not commit unless you would also say the same about Trump in the cases of shootings which were targeting mexicans.
I was really hoping for an intellectual talk about internet trolls. Why am I instead getting Liberal Propaganda? Keep in mind, I'm not a conservative, but I have to call BS when i hear BS.
AUS, guess what generation lots of parents are who make their kids into Mama's and Daddy's boys? LOL. If you don't want kids to have participation trophies, STOP HANDING THEM OUT DUMBASS. XD
He made it pretty clear that he wasn't talking about conservatives but about far right extremists. If you feel spoken too by that then i strongly urge you to reconsider your world view.
The answer is "yes" anyone can say anything they want. There is no such thing as hate speech. If you don't like someone's tone, style content, views or opinions....then decide not to watch, listen or read.
I mean, I stand by that point, but it could lead young teens to radical views that are very unhealthy in the long run. There should be places for those kinds of hateful, radical or plain stupid discussions, but it shouldn't be a part of the mainstream media.
Yeah cuz he’s talking about you and you don’t like it. Everyone should be on the same page but we’re not and it’s definitely not this guy that is the problem. Do some self reflection as I am too
Bill Murray from The Man Who Knew Too Little yeah that’s exactly what I’m saying. You have no clue what your talking about. Which means we are not at all on the same wavelength rather
The most ironic thing about this is that while he is fighting against the alt-right tropes (especially those concerning the Jews), his own behavior is the perfect corroboration of those same tropes
10:44 "We're all pro free speech, but if that's all you know how to say again and again, you're standing in the way of a more productive conversation." Ok, hmmm. That's quite vague.
Gotta love a comment that says... "Look, we all believe in free speech, but..." Always love that last word. Like the racist that says "I'm not a racist, but..."... same thing here.
@@biologicalengineoflove6851 Huh. So what your saying is, is that just because I have different political beliefs than you, I can be banned on twitter for sharing them.
The ultimate reason for his talk is to provide an argument to eventually assert mass subjective censorship and control over the Internet. Its ironic that one tactic he uses to make his case is fear.
You still don't understand the First Amendment , and free speech !...It only applies to Government , and not the private corporations .! As an example , a restaurant that enforce a dress code , does not impede on your free speech that you have on your T-shirt . and neither your movie theater , when forbids you to scream Fire during the movie..!!!
@@bogdan78pop he didn't say anything about the 1st amendment you idiot. Quit trying to be smart, because you're really just being a douche. We get it. It's their platform, their rules.
@@bogdan78pop His application of ideas had a clear aim for govt. control of new definitions of 'hate speech'. As for big platforms such as TH-cam, Facebook, or Twitter, yes they are private companies. However, since they claim they are only outer content providers, they are immune to lawsuits from people who could actively sue other outlets (such as news organizations) for content on their site. This 'special' protection should ensure they do not censor voices based on political/religious/or ideological perspectives. They in concept still can 'ban' what they like, but should have to be upfront about their own ideologies with said protection I mentioned. Otherwise, they are nothing more than a political tool for the party of which their holders prescribe. If you don't like content someone makes, provide an argument against it. Take flat earth for example. Don't demonetize/deplatform/hide that content because you 'don't like it'. How do you not see the horrid danger in this??????
10:44 No, you aren't. If you support censorship you are not for free speech. You need to understand that when someone says they are for free speech, they didn't say they are for the First Amendment. I'm for free speech. That means that in every situation, I favor the least restrictions on speech possible. This is the part where you want to play whatabout and I'm like, "yes". If the speech doesn't disrupt the ability of other people to use the venue or cause harm, it should not be restricted. In the context of social media, end users should be able to block words, images, or people they don't want to interact with. Platforms should be allowed to be as totalitarian as they wish, they should not be prohibited from censoring content. But I'm against censorship. And if you are for censorship, then you are against free speech. It's that simple.
bad fame is not fame that provides, quite the oposite it provides less money like you would rather buy a product that is bad or a product that you dont know ? , il rather get the unknown rather the 100% sure bad product
Skepticism is really just questioning information. If you don't question information and believe everything you see, hear, or read, then you become easily manipulated; believing what someone else tells you to, no matter how dangerous.
@@DrZudsi But being a dumb skeptic, you just believe stuff that you already think by yourself and nothing that comes from the outside, which prevents learning.
Translated: "You can't believe your lying eyes". "We have "data," frosted by _pal review_ that shows that your "lived experience" didn't happen." "You can't believe your lying eyes."
@@michaelhayes7849 it's people like you that made people hang journalists in public last century. You know that's a lie and you don't care if people are fooled by your lie. The Saudi prince owns a small share through an investment firm which is not "largely owned". Going by your brain dead logic he's also a "largely owner" of Twitter. Jesus fucking Christ you wonder why people are becoming attracted to fascism, just look at how fucking stupid you left wingers are. And you act like we don't see exactly what you are doing
@@lukeskycocker9370 I agree we should prove misinformation wrong but one problem is there is just constant misinformation that continues to change and then nothing gets done. For example, we've been talking about climate change for decades (since around the 60s I believe). And we've talked and talked to the point we're at now where it's pretty much too late to stop it. One side of the conversation was funded by people that directly profit from not changing the status quo. So it went from it's not real, to it's not humans, to humans are causing it but we can't address the problem. How do we fix this problem? I think it's very important to be able to discuss positions with people and it's usually through discussions of two sides where the best answer can be found but there is so much propaganda misdirecting the conversation away from meaningful dialogue about solutions. And people put too much of their identity into their politics where they would rather double down than be wrong. This is just my 2 cents and I don't have an answer and obviously don't expect you or others to have one on the spot but its a serious concern that is only amplified when we seem to have no agreement in terms of common facts and so many can now make a living off of purposefully misrepresenting facts or making them up altogether.
What's your endgame? When will you rest? Your path seems a little ambitious, on top of everything else. Will you ever be 'done' and put down the megaphone?
Whenever they say it's only one-sided (right wing) you know they are exactly what/who they're attacking. Shameless. Fortunately, many people know what they're doing. They're not as clever as they think they are.
Possibly, but not likely. They're (absolutely) going to use the algorithms to help *prune* the comments, so that only the most extreme and stupid ones remain. They want people to believe that opponents of their agenda are evil and/or stupid. Those (extreme comments) are the easiest to instinctively recognize as 'bad' and to 'learn' to reject. It's called *ideological inoculation.* Pro-tip: If you're a threat, they quarantine you. If you remain, it's not because you're some genius 007 who used your Virtual Shield to slip through the filter; it's more likely because they see you as an idiot who ought to be showcased. Most of the "oy vey, here come the censors" comments in this comments section respect that heuristic. It's the same reason, for example, why most of the anti-feminism you'll ever come across is some "go make me a sandwich" jackass, not offering anything substantive. Wherever ideological-quarantine (i.e., outright censorship) is unavailable, they're ideologically-inoculating the young'ns. That's what this *entire video was,* in case you didn't understand.
The people who have found this video and disliked it are certainly in a tiny minority. The like/dislike ratio on this video just shows that this video has been found by a hoard of Anti semetic wankers.
I actually liked most of this presentation, but there is one thing I think he should’ve placed more emphasis on, and that is: when it comes down to it, acknowledging evidence or lack thereof really is the thing that ultimately separates the smart skeptic from the contrarian. Smart skeptics have an acceptable threshold of evidence and then demand that what they’re told be able to meet that threshold; contrarians, on the other hand, either make claims without any evidence outright or use inconsistent standards for what they’ll consider evidence so that they never have to admit to even possibly being wrong.
TBH, as a centrist lefty, this video was pretty annoyingly 'talking point' oriented. A lot of this dude's spiel was disturbingly unrelated to what he's supposed to be talking about. I absolutely despise any -ism, but I dislike the whole 'smug and facetious' way of broaching those -isms.
@@rageagainstmyhairline5574 I think comparing skepticism over things like the whole "muh white male privilege" to being flat earth is incredibly dishonest Who in all honesty would rather be a poor white man rather than a rich black woman. Pointing at someone and saying theyre evil and privileged and conspiring to keep everyone else down because of the colour of their skin and whats between their legs is the actual loony position
1:17 This is why we need to have an open and frank discussion about common sense speech control. Nobody wants to take away your grand dad's subscription to Time magazine, but do you really need a PC with an i9 and 64gb of RAM to read the WSJ? Anyone can just walk into a big box store and walk out a few minutes later with a weapon of mass information without so much as showing ID. You can even buy these devices on the internet.
This is such a ridiculous argument against gun control. A gun doesn't serve nearly the same positives as the internet, at all. The negatives to positive ratios of the internet and guns are entirely different. You're dumb.
There is so much wrong with everything he said, but I'll focus on this clip. th-cam.com/video/2ix8JEqCJ1s/w-d-xo.html 1) He first lists "round earth skeptic", not because this form of skepticism is a serious problem for society but because he knows that listing an obviously false and crazy theory is a great propaganda tactic to discredit other forms of skepticism he's about to list. 2) He then lists "male privilege skeptic", which is most commonly associated with the claim that "women make 77 cents a man makes for the same job", this claim has been shown to be false because women and men choose different career paths, not because men receive favorable treatment. If you look at men and women who do the same job however, you will find that women tend to make slightly more. Another aspect of this argument that is misleading, is that women often take time away from their career to raise children. The years they spend raising children and not working translates into less earnings, which again isn't due to men receiving favorable treatment, but women making the choice to keep their family line in existence. 3) Then he lists the "racism is bad skeptic". Yes racism sounds like a terrible thing on the surface, but you will notice that the current mainstream message is that only whites can be racist. Unless you actually believe there is something inherently biologically different about white people, then this is obviously false because everyone can exhibit the same nepotistic behavior towards their own race while discriminating against other races. Whites who tend to suggest that racism isn't necessarily bad often argue this point as well as this analogy: "Imagine you're playing a soccer game. The white team is told to pass the ball to the closest person regardless of color, but the brown team is told to only pass the ball to other brown players. Can the white players hope to succeed under such conditions?" The real world manifestations of this analogy are things like minimum racial hiring quotas for minorities, while discrimination against whites is legal. Whites are the only major group that contributes more money to the federal and state budgets than they take in services. Whites are the focus of movements to lower fertility, while at the same time we're told to import more brown people because we're not having enough children. Whites are also expected to tolerate discrepancies in the application of hate crime legislation. Recently a black man, Claude Andrew, committed the crime of holding a gun on a white woman saying "this is what happens to white people". He didn't face hate crime charges. However recently a white man in Maryland (if i recall correctly), fleeing a group of blacks defended himself after being tackled and is facing a hate crime charge even though he tried to flee and didn't begin the attack. Considering the fact that the playing field is arguably tipped against whites, adopting racism is arguably a wise strategy for self preservation. 4) I realize that's a lot to take in, but here's the point. He hand waves away these arguments, not with fact based counterarguments, and not with a source that contains facts that debunk our positions, but with "You're not being a skeptic, you're being a jerk". We want open, unrestricted dialogue because we believe the facts support our positions. If he truly felt the same way about his positions, he'd support open dialogue too.
I am from ISRAEL and here all people are so nationalistic and protective of their own culture and heritage and to say the least of their land, and the most extreme of all of them all are american Jews. when the land and the culture is yours then you protect it, but it is funny how things play out when the Jews in america are so generous and open to liberal ideas when the culture and the land is not theirs.
His suggestions does not work. The way to deal with it is for people with the more 'accurate' opinions who knows how to gain influence on the Internet to step up and challenge the trolls and defeat them.
"That`s how I ended up in the living room of a social media propagandist" You live there, it`s you, you are talking about yourself, can you not see that?
Being skeptical about the ideology of white privilege does not automatically make you a jerk. I am skeptical of any ideology that divides us based on skin color, no matter how well intentioned. The compassionate people that promote the idea of white privilege and other similar ideas are largely, I believe, well meaning. The danger is in unintended consequences. What happens if you teach a generation of white people to view themselves as terrible oppressors, while at the same time teaching minorities that they should primarily view themselves as the victims of white oppressors? Might that spawn hatred and resentment on the part of the minorities? Might that actually wind up perpetuating racism instead of curtailing it? We should be very careful and thoughtful before making racial identity the lens through which we view the world. Actually I'd argue it is a terrible lens to use. We need to work toward minimizing racial division not highlighting it and focusing on it. Racism should never be ignored and should always be opposed without exception. Likewise I am not now, nor would I ever suggested that we should whitewash or sugar coat the terrible history of racial injustice in this country. At the same time, we are not those people, and we can and will do better as long as we continue to strive for racial equality.
This was quite the magnet for those same trolls he talked about. If the comments suggest anything, it's that Marantz is right on the money with this talk.
Or, and hear me out on this one, or it is possible, just possible, just maybe (AND FOLLOW ME ON THIS) he might be wrong and a lot of people are voicing their concern.
why is your statement framed like a rhetorical question? 🤔.. is this a rhetorical question?.. was that??.. does expecting people to fall into your rhetorical trap make you a jerk?, Is that a rhetorical question?....
Yuppp, calling it right now, comments are probably going to get turned off on this one...
364
Likes:176 Dislikes atm, haven't watched it yet but I know it's going to be... interesting?
its anuddah shoa
screen capping
@ that could be part of an automatic spam filter. It could be with a word filter or an algorithm that detects bad think. I've had my own comments removed before because of something like this.
SHUT IT DOWN
Think for yourself except on x, y and z.
Yea, that's the thing. His explanation of "dumb skepticism" is really lacking. Instead of saying that "dumb skepticism" is just contrarianism he says that you can't question certain things. Yes, almost every racist is a dumb skeptic, there's a single sentence that can debunk their entire ideology, but that doesn't mean they can't question it. It just means that they need to approach it the right way. Instead of resorting to crime rate statistics and climbing up the stairs from there they need to understand that those statistics do not represent the whole race. The easiest way to get this is to actually meet with people of different races. This, of course, requires them to go out and talk to people instead of alienating themselves in their rooms and browse image boards all day.
@@YehudiNimol "there's a single sentence that can debunk their entire ideology," if this was true like you say it is then there wouldn't be an ideology
@@thepope2412 dude shutting down entire segments of world social media platforms is WAY easier and productive than providing a counter argument.
Yeah. You don't wanna be a jerk do you?
@@thepope2412 you can make anyone believe anything by using enough manipulative tactics to influence their minds as long as they're gullible enough. You can tell racists that the actions of some people within the group do not represent the whole and they'll quickly respond with "but 13%" like an automated response. Once the seeds are planted in their brains, it takes a lot of work to get them out.
Useless Media Man Tells Useless Media Men Why They're Losing, Gets It Wrong
Hold up there Mr Marantz, this is the problem with modern journalism. When you open that the NY Bomber "was an American citizen", well yes, that's true, but he is ALSO an immigrant from Afghanistan. You conveniently leave that out, especially when you claim the "conspiracy theorist" from California used him as a case against immigration. Well, I would say zero for you, one for the "conspiracy theorist". Next time learn to code if you can't learn to journalism.
He is Bangladeshi not Afghan. Yes he should of included that, Akayed Ullah is an Immigrant, but it should also be noted the troll started making the accusation before any information of the attacker had been released which is what Marantz' point is.
Yeah but the right do that and then some Andy Ngo isn't telling you he has a gentleman's agreement with a far right group that they act as his bodyguards while he pushes their bs for example.
@fluff I would say this "journalist" is about as credible as the troll - they're both pushing agendas, but only one is not upfront about their agenda, and that's Mr Ted talk here
@@unholyrevenger72 Mr Marantz does not cite who this troll is, so I can only take Marantz's word what the troll's intentions were. For all we know the troll had credible information on who the bomber was before hand. Or perhaps the troll was merely pointing out that certain members of a certain unnamed religious affiliation are vastly over represented per capita in terrorist activities. I'm sorry, but because of Marantz's own history with leaving out important details, I'm going to be "smartly" skeptical about his claims
@@EmoBearRights
Why would Andy Ngo have to use bodyguards? 🤔
(and by "bodyguards" you mean people that dont assault him and may stop the assault if it happens I'd assume)
It takes an extremely subversive personality to lump flat earthers with diversity and democracy skeptics like they are the same thing
@Edgar Friendly hm... how many countries again? 109? really gets the noggin joggin'.
TO SAY THAT ABOUT A JEW IS ANTI-SEMITIC , TO HAVE ANYTHING BUTT UTTER LOVE FOR EVERY JEWISH PERSON, IS ANTI=SEMITIC , WHERE U NOT LISTENING..LOL
Old jew trick. They can't help themselves.
@@dustyfox8532
No, they really can't.
They've been doing this same routine for over 2000 years.
Imagine that.
Rebecca Leeman I fulfilled my dreams. Then I read the Culture of Critique
Wow a propagandist pretending not to be
This is pretty antisemitic plz delete
@@Altered.Frequency elaborate... You did not state any opionion except for personal dislike in that comment.
Yeah lol. Kinda shows you what TED is :9 Pathetic
He made it pretty clear that he wasn't talking about conservatives but about far right extremists.
If you feel spoken too by that then i strongly urge you to reconsider your world view.
@@calistohuettich WHich world view is that? Please enlighten us.
"Think for yourself. Except for this, this and this!"
Also: "Anyone talking about Jewish control of the media is a conspiracy theorist. Now let me talk about how incredibly Jewish I am while endorsing online censorship"
First I wish I could like 10,000 times
@@TheGoldenFluzzleBuff The Majority of America lives with 100km of the Coast.
SparkStop why do you have quotes around your silly comment??
@@ryangrider9607 Who cares? He thinks that when very wealthy tech companies create and spread memes (such as promoting military industrial complex friendly centrist democrats for example) with the goal of influencing millions that's not exactly fair vs. the average person in the street. Not sure why you find that so silly?
He mentioned being decent. I don't think murdering millions in response to 9/11 was a decent thing do you?
The media and only the media promotes these ongoing wars. Lets speak out against them.
And that is what he was doing.
All good things. May we see the light and apply the golden rule both as individuals and nations.
The irony that TedTalks has an episode of propaganda is palpable.
Yawning a few minutes in. IMOH.
@@AJBeamish n-word
@AJ Beamish oh man you really showed him
I love being a progressive in the brave new world. I used to rely on rational arguments to make my points but now I can just plug my ears and scream "RIGHTWINGNAZITROLLS!!!!" whenever I hear a dissenting opinion.
This comment is extremely antisemitic please delete
Nice straw man you've got there.
If by dissenting opinion you mean white supremecy and full blown nazis than yes, that would be a pretty reasonable reaction.
There's not much point in reasoning against something non falsifiable
@@lukeskycocker9370 lol.
This is the most unsurprising talk ever. I think that after listening to him for a single minute. I could tell the whole direction of a talk. We don't want censorship and no words are EVER going to change that.
It's not Censorship , when you disobey the rules that A Private Company put forward , and You Agreed ,for the use of their platform .!!! I guess you were educated in the USA !
bogdan78pop I’m sure it’s still not censorship when it’s an oligarchy of media platforms who all have pretty the same agenda who also use their platforms to promote their politics and silences others.
@@bogdan78pop quit fucking lying to yourself about the reality of the media and social networking monopolies. The free market isn't real, it's MANAGED and controlled.
@@bogdan78pop That means private companies such as TikTok can discriminate against homosexuals? after all they are a private company
@@bogdan78pop what about when you dint break the rules and get censored anyway?
How is this allowed as a legitimate TED talk? He is doing the exact same thing as those he is talked my about. He is pushing his ideology by attacking another ideology.
Elaborate the ideology of his, please.
@@curlyprivat22 jewishness
these comments make me want to cry and laugh all at the same time. The trolls really came out of their caves for this video, and I mean the passive-aggressive and circular logic comments just go on and on. It's genuinely hilarious!
If only we could expose them like the south park episode
"Let's make decency cool again", I'll start by characterising my opposition as fasc1sts.
Cognitive Dissonance in the form of a TED talk.
Hurt your fee fees snowflake? Sometimes fascist is descriptive.
@@NoExitLoveNow Maybe fascist is descriptive for the most extreme people in society but calling your opponents fascists is not a way to open dialogue and labeling people fascists en mass will only create a cover for real fascists.
I hate the idea of an ethno-state but I don't think open-borders are workable.
Am I a fascist in your opinion?
well there are fascist internet trolls, he's not so much characterizing as he is describing those that he says he met
@@AdrianTechWizard no but he is not categorizing his opposition as fascists, he is saying that the current systems and social media companies allow for fascists to meet and grow a community. He doesn't really consider his opposition too much in the sense that "even racists should be able to have a twitter account because free speech should be defended in public forums", that you could argue against but you are just also lying about what he is really saying. I think the categorization of smart skeptics vs dumb ones is good. If you can point to respectable facts that show evidence why some beliefs should not be held then that's fine, but there are also people who deny just to deny who are not contributing meaningfully to the overall conversation. I won't pretend to know which you are, but at least I'd like for everyone to consider if they are a skeptic or a contrarian for themselves.
@R G well his investigation was not whether or not these people were trolls rather that, based on the assumption that they were, to find out why Trolls did what they did and what allowed them to do that. He's not saying that he has statistical evidence, only his experience with these persons. But you're right that it is not a fair minded scientific study, but statistical or forensic analysis is not the only type of data.
I remember a time when watching TED was non political. If you did not see this talk was one sided then our future in this country is unstable.
You are right ignorance and hate are all some people have to live for.
I agree... he's doing exactly what he claims to be against.
There have always been political TED talks on both sides. It’s not a bad thing; it’s always good to hear the other side through a good orator. You don’t have to agree.
I can’t tell if your joking or not. And thats not a good thing
Ted has always been mostly there to program you into the new world orders thinking , they have a few legitimate people on from time to time like G.Hancock or Sheldrake but mostly they are stooges pushing agendas .
Let me start by condemning the subject of my research!
Even by Ted standards, this was embarrassing to watch.
Nice Like/Dislike ratio, propagandists.
I was here last night, it was 1:2. Now it is brigaded 2:1. Soon it will be 1:1 and perfectly Thanosed, like all things should be.
Comments section:
*Disagreements intensify*
I whoheartedly agree 🤔💝
@@ailithic5448 😱
*Everyone hated that*
One good learning tool to identify hate mongering comments is from the list on the SPLC website."Intensify"is one of the new lingo used by anti-semitic hate groups.Just be careful with that word and how you use it.Thanks.
@@bauhausbauhaus9699 it's a joke meme, and this is a joke comment. 0 hate mongerings going on here
This presentation for sure attracted the trolls. They really want to disapprove what he said.
We aren't trolls, and we don't need to "disprove" what he said since he didn't give a single source for his fabricated stories.
I don't 'want' to disapprove of what he said. I adamantly DO disapprove of what he said. Anyone who advocates to stifle free speech will gain that title. So if that makes me a 'troll', I wear the badge proudly. Good and bad news for you, if you buy into this crap... Depending on who runs your govt at a given time, you may or may not be able to even make that post in the future. And yet you applaud that. Who is really the troll here anyway???
Does the word "troll" mean anything to you or is it just a buzzword you use as an excuse to ignore people while being smug about it.
People who prefer truth like to disprove lies. It's fun.
Being skeptical of postmodern ideologies such as "white male privilege" is being a jerk? This guy is delusional.
Did he look at anyone other than “conservative” or extreme “right” trolls.
Doubtfully
I mean correlation doesnt mean causation, but I think in this cause if the shoe fits...
that would be taking an unbiased approach! and we couldn't have that now could we!!
What did you expect, the left is all good, the right is bad.
The grass is blue if it feels blue, or you will go to jail for discrimination, but hey, we are the good ones! :D
@@hectorftraducciones2785 The grass is blue if it feels blue and smells blue or even just thinks its blue or maybe just wants to be blue when blue gets it what it wants.
So you only followed right wing agitators? Why not left wing trolls?
I was wondering that myself. Online I get bombarded by extremes from both sides. It's not a one-sided problem.
@Erik yes, it matters. By intentionally painting this issue as a right wing thing, he is part of the problem.
Opens with: (paraphrasing) _"I contacted a propagandist to talk with him about..."_
Why not speak to the person like they're human and determining their motivations for yourself afterward. Then, present your Ted talk neutrally, instead of framing them as a propagandists, and allow the audience to determine this for themselves. If your presentation is honest, it ought to hold up and this should happen organically.
well considering that his first case was a person who manipulated social media even when he knew the facts were off, I would expect at the very least that that one should be considered a propagandist. It's not like he gives an account of all the people he met but those he described seemed to match the description. I understand the need to first evaluate that they are propagandists, but his investigation works on the premise that these people are trolls/propagandists, which should be easy enough to tell from their social media feed. Also he clearly is left leaning so he'll talk more about right propagandists than those on the left (which would be a more fair and honest assessment of internet trolling in general) he does describe the problem in all encompassing way (albeit with only xenophobic or racist examples). I would say that it is neutral in showing that the internet leads to trolling and the growth of such beliefs but biased when giving examples of what is trolling.
@@juanperret7044 How is anyone to trust this mans, when he opens from a biased position, establishing a narrative ahead of presenting evidence, and merely stating his own opinion as fact.
"his first case was a person who manipulated social media" so says he, support by nothing, other than his personal interpretation.
That's a bad faith way to start off a presentation, were by the audience is supposed to accept him as both a truthful, and reliable source of information.
Hence, why objectivity and neutrality is a crucial part of honest journalism.
@Russell Grant jokes a side, this man isn't honest that is for certain.
@@RpattoYT I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning is a bit worrisome. He describes this individual as someone who promotes an opinion with "facts" that he knows are incorrect. For him and I this entails social media manipulation. You are entitled to ask who this person is yourself to confirm that you would also describe him in the same way. But if we can't trust the facts of his own story than there is no point in even hearing his argument since with little effort to actually look into the facts one might dismiss it.
If everyone mistrusts everyone's own story then we will never actually get to discuss the topic. If you can verifiably say that his impression that such a man was a troll is incorrect then fine. Otherwise it would be wiser to at least trust the facts since we ourselves have not done the same research. Whether you agree with his arguments or not is up to you. But to deny someone's (admittedly mentioned but not shown) evidence without providing your own is only going to halt discussion. I think it's good you're worrying about whether or not he had a sort of agenda and perhaps manipulated information to make it look that way but unless you can give solid evidence of that then your own argument cannot be held in as high regard.
@S E well if they intentionally lie to promote their ideals then yes. But don't say that they have blood on their hands for a shooting they did not commit unless you would also say the same about Trump in the cases of shootings which were targeting mexicans.
I was really hoping for an intellectual talk about internet trolls. Why am I instead getting Liberal Propaganda? Keep in mind, I'm not a conservative, but I have to call BS when i hear BS.
If you think this is liberal propaganda, you might not know the meaning of either "liberal" or "propaganda".. 😂
You're an idiot, son.
all he did was counter antisemitic points with basic explanations.
@@snap8626 what explanations? He didn't give any. All he did was say people are wrong about "x" and provide no proof to his claim
@@Xiph1980 oooooh easy to set someone straight without a counterpoint
Nice seeing you in the comments while it lasts.
Oh yeah, I hope he reads them all and realises what a giant fuchwit he is.
Fcking spoilt mommas boy millenial.
@@UNcommonSenseAUS when the trolls get triggered
AUS, guess what generation lots of parents are who make their kids into Mama's and Daddy's boys? LOL. If you don't want kids to have participation trophies, STOP HANDING THEM OUT DUMBASS. XD
Interesting it’s been 4 years when were you expecting you to be silenced?
@@qwite9309 i just figured they were gonna nuke the comments they often do w this kinda thing
Garbage. The description of himself in the opening remarks is the only accurate statement.
How would you describe yourself Chris ?
It really is. They cannot win through ideas, so they want to silence all opposition. They're scared.
Internet trolls and propagandists describe most of the trash on TED.
jonharson Snowflake
Quit with the bigotry, "propagandists" is a very antisemitic term
@@lukeskycocker9370 how so
If you think this individual is being intellectually honest and unbiased !!Embrace your mindcontrol!!
Be skeptical. That's smart.
Unless you're questioning me.
Free speech is good.
Unless you disagree with me
This video should be called "Everybody who disagrees with me is a troll, a childs view of how the internet works"
exactly
That perfectly sums up this video
So... the world is really flat?
Circe No! That’s just a shill distraction. But please try to prove the Talmud is a good religious book.
He made it pretty clear that he wasn't talking about conservatives but about far right extremists.
If you feel spoken too by that then i strongly urge you to reconsider your world view.
The answer is "yes" anyone can say anything they want. There is no such thing as hate speech. If you don't like someone's tone, style content, views or opinions....then decide not to watch, listen or read.
I mean, I stand by that point, but it could lead young teens to radical views that are very unhealthy in the long run.
There should be places for those kinds of hateful, radical or plain stupid discussions, but it shouldn't be a part of the mainstream media.
But, but, I can't unwatch this TED Talk. They have my view number. I'll just chalk it up to education about handwringing, emotional, but passive bias.
@@dann5295
So who decides what's unhealthy, forbidden, offensive? The domestic terrorist group, the ADL?
Don't be ridiculous.
@@1neAdam12 It's not complicated. Trans gender fluidity is good to force on your five year old but not pride in your heritage
What an ironic title for this talk.
Yes, it have a propagandist feel to it? Don't it?
True, it should be the Channel Banner.
Yeah cuz he’s talking about you and you don’t like it. Everyone should be on the same page but we’re not and it’s definitely not this guy that is the problem. Do some self reflection as I am too
@@koenarmstrong1376 "Everyone should be on the same page."
Read that again, mate.
Bill Murray from The Man Who Knew Too Little yeah that’s exactly what I’m saying. You have no clue what your talking about.
Which means we are not at all on the same wavelength rather
Nobody else finds this video ironic?
I find it fascist
Ironic, typical, and nauseating.
I do! And so does Dr. Randomercam :-) th-cam.com/video/5Le8YwQ6ZS4/w-d-xo.html
The most ironic thing about this is that while he is fighting against the alt-right tropes (especially those concerning the Jews), his own behavior is the perfect corroboration of those same tropes
10:44 "We're all pro free speech, but if that's all you know how to say again and again, you're standing in the way of a more productive conversation." Ok, hmmm. That's quite vague.
Agreed. It’s also quite dumb.
Hmm, must be code- maybe he's paid by soros to stop the flat earth truth!
Gotta love a comment that says... "Look, we all believe in free speech, but..." Always love that last word. Like the racist that says "I'm not a racist, but..."... same thing here.
He lists examples to show that there are always many conversations to be had around free speech. Not everyone deserves a Twitter or Ted Talk.
@@biologicalengineoflove6851 Huh. So what your saying is, is that just because I have different political beliefs than you, I can be banned on twitter for sharing them.
The ultimate reason for his talk is to provide an argument to eventually assert mass subjective censorship and control over the Internet. Its ironic that one tactic he uses to make his case is fear.
You still don't understand the First Amendment , and free speech !...It only applies to Government , and not the private corporations .! As an example , a restaurant that enforce a dress code , does not impede on your free speech that you have on your T-shirt . and neither your movie theater , when forbids you to scream Fire during the movie..!!!
@@bogdan78pop he didn't say anything about the 1st amendment you idiot. Quit trying to be smart, because you're really just being a douche. We get it. It's their platform, their rules.
@@bogdan78pop His application of ideas had a clear aim for govt. control of new definitions of 'hate speech'. As for big platforms such as TH-cam, Facebook, or Twitter, yes they are private companies. However, since they claim they are only outer content providers, they are immune to lawsuits from people who could actively sue other outlets (such as news organizations) for content on their site. This 'special' protection should ensure they do not censor voices based on political/religious/or ideological perspectives.
They in concept still can 'ban' what they like, but should have to be upfront about their own ideologies with said protection I mentioned. Otherwise, they are nothing more than a political tool for the party of which their holders prescribe. If you don't like content someone makes, provide an argument against it. Take flat earth for example. Don't demonetize/deplatform/hide that content because you 'don't like it'. How do you not see the horrid danger in this??????
10:44 No, you aren't. If you support censorship you are not for free speech. You need to understand that when someone says they are for free speech, they didn't say they are for the First Amendment. I'm for free speech. That means that in every situation, I favor the least restrictions on speech possible. This is the part where you want to play whatabout and I'm like, "yes". If the speech doesn't disrupt the ability of other people to use the venue or cause harm, it should not be restricted. In the context of social media, end users should be able to block words, images, or people they don't want to interact with. Platforms should be allowed to be as totalitarian as they wish, they should not be prohibited from censoring content. But I'm against censorship. And if you are for censorship, then you are against free speech. It's that simple.
only 3 years? pffffff let me do this talk for you
@Right Wing Crusader, most public libraries offer free adult education to some degree or the other. You may wish to look into it.
It took you longer?
@Right Wing Crusaderyet you can't spell a simple word?
What school did you go to, Trump U?😂🤣😂
@Right Wing Crusader try me, Einstein.
@Right Wing Crusader you brought to the table thus it is your burden. Any reputable school explains that.
Free speech
This is sad and pathetic
@yourmanwatson including you... the irony is real.
He probably has troll accounts on twitter.
why?
I have a cuckbait account.. agreeing with Peta etc lol
He is one of the ''as a fellow white person i hate my race'' type
@Lei P i know. he is a ''fellow white person''
This emotional algorithm thing is identical to marketing.
Bad fame is still a fame, which provides money.
A couple of things ...
Bad fame is infamous.
Money isn't everything.
Considering your name, i'm going to imagine you're one of the people he was talking about
bad fame is not fame that provides, quite the oposite it provides less money like you would rather buy a product that is bad or a product that you dont know ? , il rather get the unknown rather the 100% sure bad product
Till your snake oil kills 3 people and Arthur Morgan gets sent to collect your bounty
Why not look to see who actually created social networking and what’s its true purpose is.
Aliens from mars
Capitalists
Just because you told me to be a "smart skeptic" i'm going to ask you why
Yeah, I'm sceptic about asking why....
@@Xiph1980 I'm skeptic about your skepticism
Skepticism is really just questioning information. If you don't question information and believe everything you see, hear, or read, then you become easily manipulated; believing what someone else tells you to, no matter how dangerous.
@@DrZudsi But being a dumb skeptic, you just believe stuff that you already think by yourself and nothing that comes from the outside, which prevents learning.
@@xFelix1307x That's called confirmation bias. Really the only way to get over that is to try to find information that disagrees with you.
They deleted my comments.
Look at those likes!!! ZOO WEE MAMA!!!
This guy has a history of interviewing people and putting two different quotes together in order to make them look bad. He's a shameless liar.
Sources please?
@@pineapplekun he's a journalist for the new yorker
This is an important topic, which should be taught and discussed at schools, as a part of media literacy.
Welcome to Austria.
Where extremism is taught in history :)
Taught in SCHOOLS? OK, let's start in Florida...hahahahahahaha
Sure right after the schools teach kids reading, writing, history and math.
Only trolls tell the truth these days.
This guy is such a shill omg, he was just on the radio and I couldn’t believe my ears.
This man is a Troll from Elder Scrolls 5
It just works
Sam Hyde performed the best TED episode
Sam's good, but look up GG Allin's TED talk. A true masterpiece.
Notice the comment above this one and it’s 56 thumbs up..trolls
Only trolls call people trolls.
clown operation
So we looked at the data
Lol!
He can't keep getting away with this!
Imagine spending three years of research grant money or employee salary and this is what your results are
And as it turns out, 13 do 50.
Translated:
"You can't believe your lying eyes". "We have "data," frosted by _pal review_ that shows that your "lived experience" didn't happen."
"You can't believe your lying eyes."
Paradigm Shift 2070
I guess we shouldn't have our own opinion anymore because someone's ego gets there feelings hurt...
it's about misinformation, not about how hurtful one's comment is.
@@dann5295 So instead of pointing out misinformation and proving it wrong the solution is to censor it?
@@lukeskycocker9370 Fox news is largely owned by a Saudi prince.
@@michaelhayes7849 it's people like you that made people hang journalists in public last century. You know that's a lie and you don't care if people are fooled by your lie. The Saudi prince owns a small share through an investment firm which is not "largely owned". Going by your brain dead logic he's also a "largely owner" of Twitter. Jesus fucking Christ you wonder why people are becoming attracted to fascism, just look at how fucking stupid you left wingers are. And you act like we don't see exactly what you are doing
@@lukeskycocker9370 I agree we should prove misinformation wrong but one problem is there is just constant misinformation that continues to change and then nothing gets done. For example, we've been talking about climate change for decades (since around the 60s I believe). And we've talked and talked to the point we're at now where it's pretty much too late to stop it. One side of the conversation was funded by people that directly profit from not changing the status quo. So it went from it's not real, to it's not humans, to humans are causing it but we can't address the problem. How do we fix this problem?
I think it's very important to be able to discuss positions with people and it's usually through discussions of two sides where the best answer can be found but there is so much propaganda misdirecting the conversation away from meaningful dialogue about solutions. And people put too much of their identity into their politics where they would rather double down than be wrong.
This is just my 2 cents and I don't have an answer and obviously don't expect you or others to have one on the spot but its a serious concern that is only amplified when we seem to have no agreement in terms of common facts and so many can now make a living off of purposefully misrepresenting facts or making them up altogether.
EVERY👏🏻 SINGLE👏🏻TIME👏🏻
EBIIINN!
What's your endgame? When will you rest?
Your path seems a little ambitious, on top of everything else. Will you ever be 'done' and put down the megaphone?
free speech for marxists, this is what he supports
I always love seeing left wing people break down "trolls" or "memes" or other parts of internet culture. so out of touch.
I don't care about the topic much, but I don't think he understands memes.
he does witch is why he must censor it to survive
Propaganda...brought to you by TED.
> I am Jewish
no surprise there
What are you implying..?
/thread
@@Trophonix Bet you can't even greentext bro
@vaas d lel you probably oppose the idea of a Jewish state anyways so why bother
Trolls trolling the comments of a video about trolls, gosh what a shock.
So this video is defending Soros?
Whenever they say it's only one-sided (right wing) you know they are exactly what/who they're attacking. Shameless. Fortunately, many people know what they're doing. They're not as clever as they think they are.
It is the Left-wingers that are tricky . They fade their agenda in and out of hate speech .
@NP CHE Jews who killed the Lord Jesus
@@jumpingjack7674 lol no, romans killed jesus you damn foreskin suckers.
TED is probably going to disable likes and comments on this one...
Possibly, but not likely.
They're (absolutely) going to use the algorithms to help *prune* the comments, so that only the most extreme and stupid ones remain. They want people to believe that opponents of their agenda are evil and/or stupid.
Those (extreme comments) are the easiest to instinctively recognize as 'bad' and to 'learn' to reject.
It's called *ideological inoculation.*
Pro-tip: If you're a threat, they quarantine you. If you remain, it's not because you're some genius 007 who used your Virtual Shield to slip through the filter; it's more likely because they see you as an idiot who ought to be showcased.
Most of the "oy vey, here come the censors" comments in this comments section respect that heuristic.
It's the same reason, for example, why most of the anti-feminism you'll ever come across is some "go make me a sandwich" jackass, not offering anything substantive.
Wherever ideological-quarantine (i.e., outright censorship) is unavailable, they're ideologically-inoculating the young'ns.
That's what this *entire video was,* in case you didn't understand.
@@danielsteel5251 I comment a lot and this is the largest reply I've ever recieved, I admire your craft.
It's really a 1 sided TED talk...
🙊ggiiinnmnnnnngggggggggeeerrrr
This "jew" "guy" is "Up On Things". Ughh..wwatch out now!!
*inhales through nose*
Shuuuuuut iiiiiiiiit doooooown
ROTFL... good one.
"Inhales through nose"? "Shut it down? And also you're mocking of Jewish surnames.You sir are reported.See you latter.😁
@@bauhausbauhaus9699
>Cohen
>Wants to shut it down
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME
_Can I get a thumbs up for every time that this guy demonstrates his lack of understand of online culture_
“I’m Jewish.” I just instinctively knew that from the very beginning of your speech.
It's impossible not to notice. Just look at his face.
Vishnu yeah he sounds too smart not to he Jewish
I didn't?
Nerd with a steel core.
Vishnu: If you had read his name in the opening titles, you would have known it sooner. How is it relevent to his argument?
Typing SKEPTICISM is like playing ping pong on your keyboard. Try it.
bruv it's a hard word to spell.
Skeptisizm
Skepticism
Clever haha
@@matt414344 I don't need to try it I believe you...
"fringe" talking points
*42% dislikes*
The pendulum swings
and soon HIS opinions will become fringe
The people who have found this video and disliked it are certainly in a tiny minority. The like/dislike ratio on this video just shows that this video has been found by a hoard of Anti semetic wankers.
Stupidity is very popular.
I feel like this kind of talk is more segregating than unifying.
Indeed. A possible ulterior motive, if only subconsciously so, on the speaker's part.
How can you possibly consider yourself qualified to give a talk on internet culture without even the most basic understanding of memes.
lol, right? I want to know how he thinks he "traced these memes to their origins".
One does not simply ASK where memes come from
TED can't meme
This isn't about meme's.
Boiii this is about learning
More about different things
Expecting Ted to reacted like a 14 year kid is quite sad.
I actually liked most of this presentation, but there is one thing I think he should’ve placed more emphasis on, and that is: when it comes down to it, acknowledging evidence or lack thereof really is the thing that ultimately separates the smart skeptic from the contrarian. Smart skeptics have an acceptable threshold of evidence and then demand that what they’re told be able to meet that threshold; contrarians, on the other hand, either make claims without any evidence outright or use inconsistent standards for what they’ll consider evidence so that they never have to admit to even possibly being wrong.
Sorry, you lost me with how one-sided and out of touch with reality this is. Please try again.
You only say that because you don't agree.
@Tobyy You only say that because you don't agree.
@@ailithic5448 NPC says what
TBH, as a centrist lefty, this video was pretty annoyingly 'talking point' oriented. A lot of this dude's spiel was disturbingly unrelated to what he's supposed to be talking about.
I absolutely despise any -ism, but I dislike the whole 'smug and facetious' way of broaching those -isms.
@@rageagainstmyhairline5574
I think comparing skepticism over things like the whole "muh white male privilege" to being flat earth is incredibly dishonest
Who in all honesty would rather be a poor white man rather than a rich black woman. Pointing at someone and saying theyre evil and privileged and conspiring to keep everyone else down because of the colour of their skin and whats between their legs is the actual loony position
Another NPC ted talk, nothing to do here.
Yep
1:17 This is why we need to have an open and frank discussion about common sense speech control. Nobody wants to take away your grand dad's subscription to Time magazine, but do you really need a PC with an i9 and 64gb of RAM to read the WSJ? Anyone can just walk into a big box store and walk out a few minutes later with a weapon of mass information without so much as showing ID. You can even buy these devices on the internet.
You first.
This is such a ridiculous argument against gun control. A gun doesn't serve nearly the same positives as the internet, at all. The negatives to positive ratios of the internet and guns are entirely different. You're dumb.
It is sad how he discredits Russian influence... just because he didn’t encounter someone with a Russian accent at a computer.
what do you mean?
Likes and comment section just proving his point. Great talk
There is so much wrong with everything he said, but I'll focus on this clip. th-cam.com/video/2ix8JEqCJ1s/w-d-xo.html
1) He first lists "round earth skeptic", not because this form of skepticism is a serious problem for society but because he knows that listing an obviously false and crazy theory is a great propaganda tactic to discredit other forms of skepticism he's about to list.
2) He then lists "male privilege skeptic", which is most commonly associated with the claim that "women make 77 cents a man makes for the same job", this claim has been shown to be false because women and men choose different career paths, not because men receive favorable treatment. If you look at men and women who do the same job however, you will find that women tend to make slightly more. Another aspect of this argument that is misleading, is that women often take time away from their career to raise children. The years they spend raising children and not working translates into less earnings, which again isn't due to men receiving favorable treatment, but women making the choice to keep their family line in existence.
3) Then he lists the "racism is bad skeptic". Yes racism sounds like a terrible thing on the surface, but you will notice that the current mainstream message is that only whites can be racist. Unless you actually believe there is something inherently biologically different about white people, then this is obviously false because everyone can exhibit the same nepotistic behavior towards their own race while discriminating against other races.
Whites who tend to suggest that racism isn't necessarily bad often argue this point as well as this analogy: "Imagine you're playing a soccer game. The white team is told to pass the ball to the closest person regardless of color, but the brown team is told to only pass the ball to other brown players. Can the white players hope to succeed under such conditions?" The real world manifestations of this analogy are things like minimum racial hiring quotas for minorities, while discrimination against whites is legal. Whites are the only major group that contributes more money to the federal and state budgets than they take in services. Whites are the focus of movements to lower fertility, while at the same time we're told to import more brown people because we're not having enough children.
Whites are also expected to tolerate discrepancies in the application of hate crime legislation. Recently a black man, Claude Andrew, committed the crime of holding a gun on a white woman saying "this is what happens to white people". He didn't face hate crime charges. However recently a white man in Maryland (if i recall correctly), fleeing a group of blacks defended himself after being tackled and is facing a hate crime charge even though he tried to flee and didn't begin the attack.
Considering the fact that the playing field is arguably tipped against whites, adopting racism is arguably a wise strategy for self preservation.
4) I realize that's a lot to take in, but here's the point. He hand waves away these arguments, not with fact based counterarguments, and not with a source that contains facts that debunk our positions, but with "You're not being a skeptic, you're being a jerk".
We want open, unrestricted dialogue because we believe the facts support our positions. If he truly felt the same way about his positions, he'd support open dialogue too.
I am from ISRAEL and here all people are so nationalistic and protective of their own culture and heritage and to say the least of their land, and the most extreme of all of them all are american Jews. when the land and the culture is yours then you protect it, but it is funny how things play out when the Jews in america are so generous and open to liberal ideas when the culture and the land is not theirs.
@Thor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane
This guy is just a propagandist too. Don't believe his b s
I bet the ADL really likes this guy
Censorship is repulsive.
How dare you suggest otherwise!
just look at him obfuscate the reality.
walls are closing in.
How is Palestine doing, dear?
This dude has called for an end to free speech... Ted Talks have fallen far.
His suggestions does not work. The way to deal with it is for people with the more 'accurate' opinions who knows how to gain influence on the Internet to step up and challenge the trolls and defeat them.
"That`s how I ended up in the living room of a social media propagandist"
You live there, it`s you, you are talking about yourself, can you not see that?
The sad part is I think he knows. I think it's an intentional effort to push censorship on social media.
*Calls speaker propagandist, is subscribed to Black Pigeon Speaks, Freedom Toons, Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joseph Watson and Jordan Perterson*
good meme
@@plaguerat5911 Cult of Dusty and Creationist Cat follower. Bless you little one xx
stunningarrayof Got me there comrade! I love good content
Though im kinda sad you didnt include my bois Vaush and PIGPUNCHER
Being skeptical about the ideology of white privilege does not automatically make you a jerk. I am skeptical of any ideology that divides us based on skin color, no matter how well intentioned. The compassionate people that promote the idea of white privilege and other similar ideas are largely, I believe, well meaning. The danger is in unintended consequences. What happens if you teach a generation of white people to view themselves as terrible oppressors, while at the same time teaching minorities that they should primarily view themselves as the victims of white oppressors? Might that spawn hatred and resentment on the part of the minorities? Might that actually wind up perpetuating racism instead of curtailing it? We should be very careful and thoughtful before making racial identity the lens through which we view the world. Actually I'd argue it is a terrible lens to use. We need to work toward minimizing racial division not highlighting it and focusing on it. Racism should never be ignored and should always be opposed without exception. Likewise I am not now, nor would I ever suggested that we should whitewash or sugar coat the terrible history of racial injustice in this country. At the same time, we are not those people, and we can and will do better as long as we continue to strive for racial equality.
Reason... logic... how dare you. This is about trolls.
@@Bocbo LOL! Thanks, I needed that!😀
Jojo’s BIZARRE adventure
Ahhh yes.
More like JewJew's BIZARRE adventure.
Maratz.. were right every time
This guy looks like he's about 5'2"
I think it's just the way he dresses
He's one Rogan tall.
@@melgibsonaftertwobeers6119
Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Don't shame him for his height.
Shame him for being a liberal.
More like 5’Jew”
This was quite the magnet for those same trolls he talked about. If the comments suggest anything, it's that Marantz is right on the money with this talk.
Or, and hear me out on this one, or it is possible, just possible, just maybe (AND FOLLOW ME ON THIS) he might be wrong and a lot of people are voicing their concern.
@@MMDelta9 What a weird, very long way to say a very short sentence. Just because a lot of people are wrong, doesn't mean they're right.
@@brokenrecord3523 And just because this guy is doing a TED Talk, that doesn't mean he is right either.
@@brokenrecord3523This has to be one of my all-time favorite comments in the internet! 🙌 💯
Smart skepticism is when you agree with him and dumb skepticism is when you disagree with him.
He's talking about Mark Dice? Mark Dice is cool
I read this as dark mice wtf is wrong with me
Cink Pactus its called dyslexia.
@@fabio5.56 it's actually a vinegar preserve.
The irony of this person claiming to be exposing propaganda.
Have TED talks always been trash, or is it a relatively new thing?
Always(well maybe not the first dozen or so, but Maybe.
questioning stuff never makes anyone a jerk
Why do you say that?
@@michaelhayes7849 because questioning stuff never makes anyone a jerk
why is your statement framed like a rhetorical question? 🤔.. is this a rhetorical question?.. was that??.. does expecting people to fall into your rhetorical trap make you a jerk?, Is that a rhetorical question?....
@@aeiouaeiouaeiou , why do you say that?
@@michaelhayes7849 because its a truth the jew in the video denied, im correcting him you could say
10:04
Your way of being independent minded should follow a set of rules that I make.
What an oxymoron.
10:45 Everyone is pro-free speech
11:50 Social networks need to 'fix' their platforms
Okay - no wrongthink then? No listening to other sides of a "set" truth? I will see what I can do about it.....
Troll.
Obviously.