The TED boss wrote:
In a nutshell, we invited him to TED to give a talk we knew would be controversial. But the talk ended up causing more upset than we foresaw. So there was pressure from some on our team not to post it. ...No, no one was genuinely hurt or offended. He tweeted:
His talk was received with huge enthusiasm by many in the audience. But many others heard it as a dangerous undermining of the fight for progress in race relations. ...
Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say. This is not what we dream of when we post our talks.
Some commenters below just don’t understand how anyone could be upset by a talk arguing for color blindness. This speaks to their own lack of immersion in the rich debate that has swirled on this topic in recent years.He is telling me that I am ignorant. No, he is the bigot. I have listened to the anti-racists. They are the ones trying to block an open discussion of these issues.
He cited an expert who wrote:
His case for color blindness is directly contradicted by an extensive body of rigorous research; for the state of the science, see Leslie, Bono, Kim & Beaver (2020, Journal of Applied Psychology). In a meta-analysis of 296 studies, they found that whereas color-conscious models reduce prejudice and discrimination, color-blind approaches often fail to help and sometimes backfire.The research is bogus. Color-conscious models do not reduce prejudice and discrimination.
This is what the world has come to. There is no longer any push for a race-neutral society. Our leaders and academics no longer even recommend it.
The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs — 94% went to people of color.Obviously our top companies are not doing race-neutral hiring. They are discriminating against Whites.
Wikipedia has an article on White genocide. The editors adamantly argue that it is a conspiracy theory that makes dozens of claims that are dead wrong, as shown by 330 references. I commented:
You say the claims by the believers are dead wrong. Maybe it would help if the article explained specifically who those believers are, and what are the claims that are dead wrong. The info is probably buried in the article somewhere, but if it is so important to say that the claims are wrong, then it should be clear about what claims are wrong. When looking, I found claims that were not attributed to anyone, and claims that were not actually wrong.To my surprise, they were unable to give me any specific examples. Far right activists say a lot of crazy stuff, so I thought that they would have some examples. No. They terminated the discussion. Soon they will be saying that Martin Luther King and Coleman Hughes are in on the White Supremacist conspiracy theory.
I tried chasing down those links. Sure, there are people who promote interracial marriage, racial integration, immigration, etc. There are others expressing adverse opinions about those things. There are sources complaining about far right conspiracy theories. There are a lot of straw man attacks. I am just not finding the specific claims that are dead wrong. The article should explain them more directly.