This is the second part of a stream that was initially taken down by RUclips, probably because I was reacting to a TED video? I mean, look, I’m not trying to steal anyone’s content, so I understand if they removed it for copyright infringement reasons but… given the ‘suppression’ theme of the two pieces I’m reacting to, it was a pretty ironic coincidence! Anyway hope you enjoy this. You’re welcome to drop any likes on feedback on this situation, and color blindness in general.
I was born bi-racial in 1963. I was raised in the era of true color blindness. It worked for 50 years. We have a new victimhood that gives a huge amount of power to people who, if seen as equal through color blindness, are now central in everything. News, politics, religion, everything. New segregation puts the minority into the privileged spotlight. If we return to color blindness, those who use their skin color as a point system are no longer victims, experts, authorities in a central subject. They are the same as the rest of us and are going to be treated as such. They strike against color blindness in fear of being average.
Same thing happened to Mikhaila Peterson when she gave a TED talk about being healed from her chronic and severe health issues through a carnivore diet. They refused to release her talk, because the animal activists won out over TED.
I grew up with Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s vision being what we should hold as the gold standard in race relations. Content of character being the supreme judge of a person of any ethnicity. That was until 2020.
I watched the TED talk. I think he did fantastic. I would only add in the beginning, that Coleman should have made a quick comment about how culture is important to a person, but not necessarily tied to skin color, as some people might erroneously assume. I also thought it was interesting how he already addressed and answered the questions that he was asked at the end. And how the second question implied we should lower our standards for access just in the name of equity. Meaning, No, the orchestra or any other profession should have the best performers, even if it's not always the most diverse. I liked his response to helping people get there. But that doesn't mean we sacrifice talent and quality and push those aside who worked hard because they're the wrong color or privileged in some way. We can all want success for people who have been historically held down, but at the end of the day we want competency in those who work around us. And this isn't to say that people of certain races aren't competent already, because they are. It seems to be a left idea that they aren't when that's not the reality I see. (bigotry of low expectations and all that)
Thanks for raising this issue, Kimi. I found the Ted Talk in question (not the easiest to do directly from the TED site) linked somewhere. Anyway, Coleman's talk was excellent! His answer to the fellow who challenged him at the end (the orchestra question) was perfect!
Recently a young man who got up to speak in my church wandered off topic to delve into politics for a moment. His crowning statement was "The last thing we need is more colorblind people." I was shocked and dismayed. He was using the propaganda of the world in church. He didn't even try to justify this statement with a verse. This sort of thing seldom happens in my congregation. I wish he would have at least defined what colorblindness meant to him. I wish that he could have acknowledged that many people consider colorblindness to be a very noble thing, to consider all people of equal value no matter what they look like and to treat them as such. I'm still trying to decide whether to ask him about it.
Is he a member of the church? If so, I think it might be best to try to get to know him a little before asking about it. Familiarity with him would help you gauge his reactions and mood, and may help you avoid any pitfalls in conversation. I also think if you pose the conversation as open ended questions and letting him do most of the talking, instead of telling him he's wrong, it would help him think about what he is saying and what he really means. A lot of people hold beliefs that they don't think deeply enough about and don't know what those beliefs lead to down the line, if followed. By you prompting him with focused questions to speak his reasoning out loud, he may see the flaws in his own thinking as he answers you.
@@basicforge You're welcome. It's what has been done for me several times and it has helped me grow and mature. And I want to say that even if the conversation doesn't go in the way that you hope, you have planted a seed that may grow later on. Don't lose hope! 🙂
Consider the animal community there are various varieties of dogs and cats but they don’t engage in race wars. Why do we? Who is and why are they fanning these fires?
I agree. I think a fundamental difference is the definition of words, but they should have established that before responding. They should listen to how Coleman defines it before going on with a reaction. I also thought it was interesting how Grant says this approach lessens prejudice but increases discrimination, and then the next second, it decreases discrimination but increases prejudice. Pick one.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Nuff said.
I subscribe to The Free Press (and you should to). I read/watched both articles I have a question for Adam Grant and Chris Anderson. Just how many (basic) minority people do you know and interact with on a regular basis? I suspect we are talking a very small number, have Masters/PHD's or are in the Professional class. My question has always been Why Am I Supposed To Care (one way or the other) about someone's Race? BTW I'm the Token White Guy in my neighborhood.
'Rigorous research' = all my friends agree with me; Peer reviewed publications that hold the same political ideology I do agree me. I can interpret the findings any way I want, up to & including coming to the opposite conclusion the paper indicates.
Kimi I just realized something. These "black at TED" and likely many others are probably threatened by this *because they don't believe it's possible*. They probably don't think that others can view them outside of race. They're so embroiled into the whole race idea and seeing others through the lens of race, that they can't imagine that maybe others don't do that. And I can understand that to a degree, if you're stuck in the past. But I really don't think it's that way anymore. There's times I'm with more conservative/country/military people in a shop that's very liberal/BLM signs/trans flags all over and sometimes I feel some tension (whether that's based on a misinterpretation on their part doesn't really matter), but at the same time, I just also tell myself people likely aren't judging and assuming, just be kind and don't assume people have something against you (even if they do). I know who I am, so their impression doesn't really matter, especially when it's incorrect. Maybe they're just moody. And you know? It feels better to see it that way than to see it as them having an issue with a specific type of person. What's more, his talk is just an idea, a sharing of the idea that people think this way. That actually, not everyone does view and judge on race first. It's not like allowing his talk is going to change everyone's mind and legislation overnight. Plus, people already think what he does, he's just saying it out loud. So really, what are they so afraid of? Progress? Sometimes I think about how people get so upset at an idea that really isn't that wild and it makes you wonder why.
![GUILTY GEAR -STRIVE- Season Pass 4 Playable Character #1 [Queen Dizzy] Trailer](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nXDsAgYXXv4/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the second part of a stream that was initially taken down by RUclips, probably because I was reacting to a TED video? I mean, look, I’m not trying to steal anyone’s content, so I understand if they removed it for copyright infringement reasons but… given the ‘suppression’ theme of the two pieces I’m reacting to, it was a pretty ironic coincidence! Anyway hope you enjoy this. You’re welcome to drop any likes on feedback on this situation, and color blindness in general.
Coleman Hughes is always so sane and reasoned. If Coleman was more heard we would have less rioting, looting and violence.
I was born bi-racial in 1963. I was raised in the era of true color blindness. It worked for 50 years. We have a new victimhood that gives a huge amount of power to people who, if seen as equal through color blindness, are now central in everything. News, politics, religion, everything. New segregation puts the minority into the privileged spotlight. If we return to color blindness, those who use their skin color as a point system are no longer victims, experts, authorities in a central subject. They are the same as the rest of us and are going to be treated as such. They strike against color blindness in fear of being average.
Same thing happened to Mikhaila Peterson when she gave a TED talk about being healed from her chronic and severe health issues through a carnivore diet. They refused to release her talk, because the animal activists won out over TED.
I remember this!
I grew up with Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s vision being what we should hold as the gold standard in race relations. Content of character being the supreme judge of a person of any ethnicity. That was until 2020.
I watched the TED talk. I think he did fantastic. I would only add in the beginning, that Coleman should have made a quick comment about how culture is important to a person, but not necessarily tied to skin color, as some people might erroneously assume.
I also thought it was interesting how he already addressed and answered the questions that he was asked at the end. And how the second question implied we should lower our standards for access just in the name of equity. Meaning, No, the orchestra or any other profession should have the best performers, even if it's not always the most diverse. I liked his response to helping people get there. But that doesn't mean we sacrifice talent and quality and push those aside who worked hard because they're the wrong color or privileged in some way. We can all want success for people who have been historically held down, but at the end of the day we want competency in those who work around us. And this isn't to say that people of certain races aren't competent already, because they are. It seems to be a left idea that they aren't when that's not the reality I see. (bigotry of low expectations and all that)
Thanks for raising this issue, Kimi. I found the Ted Talk in question (not the easiest to do directly from the TED site) linked somewhere. Anyway, Coleman's talk was excellent! His answer to the fellow who challenged him at the end (the orchestra question) was perfect!
Yes his answer at the end was excellent!
Thank you for insightful analysis...
Best wishes 👏👏👏
Recently a young man who got up to speak in my church wandered off topic to delve into politics for a moment. His crowning statement was "The last thing we need is more colorblind people." I was shocked and dismayed. He was using the propaganda of the world in church. He didn't even try to justify this statement with a verse. This sort of thing seldom happens in my congregation. I wish he would have at least defined what colorblindness meant to him. I wish that he could have acknowledged that many people consider colorblindness to be a very noble thing, to consider all people of equal value no matter what they look like and to treat them as such. I'm still trying to decide whether to ask him about it.
Is he a member of the church? If so, I think it might be best to try to get to know him a little before asking about it. Familiarity with him would help you gauge his reactions and mood, and may help you avoid any pitfalls in conversation.
I also think if you pose the conversation as open ended questions and letting him do most of the talking, instead of telling him he's wrong, it would help him think about what he is saying and what he really means. A lot of people hold beliefs that they don't think deeply enough about and don't know what those beliefs lead to down the line, if followed.
By you prompting him with focused questions to speak his reasoning out loud, he may see the flaws in his own thinking as he answers you.
@@angelica9311 I do know him, but your suggestions are helpful. Thank you. 🙂
@@basicforge You're welcome. It's what has been done for me several times and it has helped me grow and mature.
And I want to say that even if the conversation doesn't go in the way that you hope, you have planted a seed that may grow later on. Don't lose hope! 🙂
@@angelica9311wonderful advice!
Consider the animal community there are various varieties of dogs and cats but they don’t engage in race wars. Why do we?
Who is and why are they fanning these fires?
I agree. I think a fundamental difference is the definition of words, but they should have established that before responding. They should listen to how Coleman defines it before going on with a reaction.
I also thought it was interesting how Grant says this approach lessens prejudice but increases discrimination, and then the next second, it decreases discrimination but increases prejudice. Pick one.
That part!
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Nuff said.
I subscribe to The Free Press (and you should to). I read/watched both articles I have a question for Adam Grant and Chris Anderson. Just how many (basic) minority people do you know and interact with on a regular basis? I suspect we are talking a very small number, have Masters/PHD's or are in the Professional class. My question has always been Why Am I Supposed To Care (one way or the other) about someone's Race? BTW I'm the Token White Guy in my neighborhood.
'Rigorous research' = all my friends agree with me; Peer reviewed publications that hold the same political ideology I do agree me.
I can interpret the findings any way I want, up to & including coming to the opposite conclusion the paper indicates.
Kimi I just realized something. These "black at TED" and likely many others are probably threatened by this *because they don't believe it's possible*. They probably don't think that others can view them outside of race. They're so embroiled into the whole race idea and seeing others through the lens of race, that they can't imagine that maybe others don't do that. And I can understand that to a degree, if you're stuck in the past. But I really don't think it's that way anymore.
There's times I'm with more conservative/country/military people in a shop that's very liberal/BLM signs/trans flags all over and sometimes I feel some tension (whether that's based on a misinterpretation on their part doesn't really matter), but at the same time, I just also tell myself people likely aren't judging and assuming, just be kind and don't assume people have something against you (even if they do). I know who I am, so their impression doesn't really matter, especially when it's incorrect. Maybe they're just moody. And you know? It feels better to see it that way than to see it as them having an issue with a specific type of person.
What's more, his talk is just an idea, a sharing of the idea that people think this way. That actually, not everyone does view and judge on race first. It's not like allowing his talk is going to change everyone's mind and legislation overnight. Plus, people already think what he does, he's just saying it out loud. So really, what are they so afraid of? Progress? Sometimes I think about how people get so upset at an idea that really isn't that wild and it makes you wonder why.