[deleted]
Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
31–40 of 243 posts
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#32"That I shall not talk or act in ways that could make minority groups feel bullied, harassed, intimidated, stalked, stereotyped, or belittled; examples of minority groups include women, people of color, lesbians, gays, and people who are disabled, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, intersex, transgender, and gender-variant;" So as a member of the majority, I'm expressly the only person bound by these rules of behavior i…
No, one member of such a group is also bound to conduct themselves relative to members of another such group. One way that one could attend is to not say offensive things. Yes, anything could be offensive and you have no way of knowing a priori. But a reasonable person should be able to sort things out.
"But a reasonable person should be able to sort things out."
We have two articles on the front page condemning a two second soundbite at a keynote which was vetted by one of the most image conscious companies on the planet. I don't think your statement is true. If a code of conduct does not treat everyone as equals then it sets up a dynamic that will cause some group of people to shutdown and not participate.
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#33If you don't care about political views of presenters, there's no need to bring inclusion to the table; just consider their technical talents and call it a day.
If you actually care about inclusion, you need to think about how including backwards-views that oppose inclusion itself could affect your effort. Banning only physically violent behavior is behind the times, it's obvious there are many ways of harming someone without lifting a finger. If you're supporting inclusion for inclusions's sake, including everyone may make sense. But if you really care about people who depend on you including them, it's obvious some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented.
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#34If you don't care about political views of presenters, there's no need to bring inclusion to the table; just consider their technical talents and call it a day. If you actually care about inclusion, you need to think about how including backwards-views that oppose inclusion itself could affect your effort. Banning only physically violent behavior is behind the times, it's obvious there are many ways of harming someon…
They didn't say hate speech was not bannable. They simply confirmed that the potential of hate speech is not sufficient to preemptively ban an individual without significant evidence. That seems about as much protection as you can provide without just permanently banning people who have ever expressed non-inclusive world views.
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#35From the article: "Well, I believe in free-market capitalism. A well-known and popular programmer has tweeted, repeatedly, that he supports violence (real violence, e.g., the firing squad) for people who believe that." Well, that's a political position with sizable historical backing. The people behind the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and China's revolution would all have agreed. "Let the ruling classes…
The KKK is a political position with sizable historical backing. I don't see how this is relevant to either side of the argument here.
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle . It's contingent on actual behavior. Which was kind of the point of the whole article.
See Donglegate.
Since you're apparently talking about how unreasonable LambdaConf's code of conduct is, "donglegate" seems totally irrelevant given that it didn't involve the consequences of violating any conference's code of conduct, much less this one.
"Donglegate" involved person a being offended by what another person said whilst at a conference, and somebody else - not the conference organizer, or indeed anyone at the conference at all - punishing the person who caused offence.
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#37If you don't care about political views of presenters, there's no need to bring inclusion to the table; just consider their technical talents and call it a day. If you actually care about inclusion, you need to think about how including backwards-views that oppose inclusion itself could affect your effort. Banning only physically violent behavior is behind the times, it's obvious there are many ways of harming someon…
> some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented.
Then it comes down to defining what "safe" means. To most people, that does mean basic physical safety, meaning you won't be physically assaulted or have your stuff damaged/stolen.
However, once you get into subjectivity of a listener's interpretation of others' words or social actions (like disinterest in their topics or cultural mismatch), calling any difference from their beliefs or expectations "unsafe", all procedural sanity flies out the window. The only types of meetings that can be rationally and formally capable of running under such specific clauses would be particularly exclusionary meetings of only certain beliefs.
Inclusivity means exposure to difference, and if exposure to difference means "unsafe" to someone, then inclusivity itself is unsafe to them. There are those who also simply equate "socially uncomfortable" with "unsafe", and social discomfort can come from literally anything.
(Edit: I would strongly prefer responses from the downvoters. Defining some specific, actionable policy capturing subjective interpretation by attendees without becoming exclusionary is something I'd be interested in actually seeing. I'm not talking about subjective application of policy, but actual full capture within policy.)
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
See Donglegate.
Since you're apparently talking about how unreasonable LambdaConf's code of conduct is, "donglegate" seems totally irrelevant given that it didn't involve the consequences of violating any conference's code of conduct, much less this one. "Donglegate" involved person a being offended by what another person said whilst at a conference, and somebody else - not the conference organizer, or indeed anyone at the conferenc…
They were reported to staff, who escorted them to a private area to shame them for saying something that someone found offensive.
You don't see that as having a chilling effect?
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#39It would be trivial to find hundreds of twitter posts from prominent conference speakers who blatantly support Planned Parenthood, a racist, eugenicist organization that routinely causes literal death and has done far more damage to human beings of all colors than the demented windbag Moldbug will ever do.
Fact: Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Planned Parenthood was founded to advance eugenics, in particular against black and other non-white children.
Fact: Abortion kills 2/3 of black babies in this country.
And yet.
All of the hypocrites rioting about LambdaConf's decision on twitter would never dream of boycotting a conference based on a speaker's past support for Planned Parenthood, a racist, eugenicist organization. Think about that.
Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
And out of curiosity, who is the firing-squad person?
Mostly likely referring to Steve Klabnik https://archive.is/BtDaA