Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

degoes.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 243 posts

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#71

Post by EdHominem »

hythloday wrote: post #62
AKrumbach wrote: post #41

If your conference will dis-invite / "de-platform" people based on their opinion about topic {foo}, you are in fact hosting a conference about {foo} , regardless of what your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say. Kudos to LambdaConf for actually keeping on focus in the face of dissent.

Well, this works the other way around too, right? If you invite, or accept applications from, someone who is primarily noted for {bar}, then whatever your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say, you are now hosting a conference tolerant or supportive of {bar}. You seem to be making a declaration that acts are inherently political, and I'm all for that. It's just that the standard works both ways.

The participants were picked in a blinded process, and the participant in question agreed to leave their personal politics at the door as they would at work.

So not in this case.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#72

Post by pkinsky »

lhnz wrote: post #48
fiatmoney wrote: post #8

You'd think that someone could just come out and say exactly which of his views are so terrible, instead of pointing at his entire multiple-book-length blog and "wow just wow"ing.

This is a good primer on "neoreaction" [0]. To tell you the truth, what makes it a good primer is that it doesn't begin to describe the so-called solutions to democracy (this is where it gets weird/awful, as you see people recommending aristocracy, autocracy and monarchy, etc). [0] http://status451.com/2016/02/25/what-is-neoreaction/

Thanks for the link. Neoreaction seems superficially similar to Marxism, in that it makes some interesting criticisms but would probably lead to millions of deaths if actually implemented.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#73

Post by crispyambulance »

pkinsky wrote: post #72
lhnz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good primer on "neoreaction" [0]. To tell you the truth, what makes it a good primer is that it doesn't begin to describe the so-called solutions to democracy (this is where it gets weird/awful, as you see people recommending aristocracy, autocracy and monarchy, etc). [0] http://status451.com/2016/02/25/what-is-neoreaction/

Thanks for the link. Neoreaction seems superficially similar to Marxism, in that it makes some interesting criticisms but would probably lead to millions of deaths if actually implemented.

There is nothing even remotely similar to Marxism about it (and it wasn't "the implementation" of Marxism that lead to millions of deaths).

Neoreaction is just another form of asshole-ism in the blogosphere.

People have strong reactions to it and thus its proponents should not be surprised when their belief colors other peoples' judgement of them when they want to talk about something unrelated at a conference.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#74

Post by 13thLetter »

frontsideair wrote: post #33

If 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…

> 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.

Please be specific: how is Yarvin's presence making you unsafe? Are you concerned he'll physically attack you, or insult you personally or as a member of a group? If not, you have no reason to feel unsafe.

(And if you feel unsafe anyway and believe that's a reason to ostracize him, well, I have bad news: your viewpoints make me feel unsafe. So sounds like you're not going to be attending, either.)

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#75

Post by 13thLetter »

zorpner wrote: post #68
peteretep wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At what point does someone's routine vocal > endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of > violence become problematic? The Americans have a whole load of case law around First Amendment rights, it would be worth familiarizing yourself with that for a few hundred years worth of considered thought. > Or are we obligated to welcome these people into > our conferences Well in this case, their conferences - he'…

You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only to the government's response to speech. I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence. You can say anything you want, and the government won't intervene. That's all free speech means. Other people, groups, and corporations are free to judge you, criticize you, exclude you from the…

> You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only to the government's response to speech.

Darn it, I thought we were going to get all the way through this discussion without someone wheeling out that old nag.

Once again: Attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political views is not against the letter of the First Amendment to do this. But attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political views is quite certainly against the spirit of the First Amendment.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#76

Post by 13thLetter »

st3v3r wrote: post #61
f0code wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not. If anything, you're splitting hairs. Your assertion was "You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle." The guys in donglegate did none of those things, and yet they were in fact reported to staff. Over private words. My point is that you never know what is going to offend someone. This CoC says that you agree to be removed from the premises if someone…

One could argue that the guys in Donglegate did belittle and sterotype based on their tasteless jokes.

If one did that one would, of course, be wrong, both in the general case (the jokes were silly grade-school level puns that would concern no well-balanced person) and the specific case (if anyone was being stereotyped or belittled, it would be males, given that they were telling the jokes about a male presenter.)

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#77

Post by zorpner »

13thLetter wrote: post #75
zorpner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only to the government's response to speech. I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence. You can say anything you want, and the government won't intervene. That's all free speech means. Other people, groups, and corporations are free to judge you, criticize you, exclude you from the…

> You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only to the government's response to speech. Darn it, I thought we were going to get all the way through this discussion without someone wheeling out that old nag. Once again: Attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political views is not against the letter of the First Amendment to do this. But attempting to ban people fro…

What?! That has no support in law, history, or the documents surrounding the creation of the bill of rights. The idea that private fora would be required to accommodate all comers is antithetical to the ideas behind the Enlightenment philosophy which engendered the first amendment.

I honestly can't believe someone could be dumb enough to think that the founders would want the government to dictate who people were required to admit to non-public settings. There's no way you're being sincere.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#78

Post by f0code »

st3v3r wrote: post #61
f0code wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not. If anything, you're splitting hairs. Your assertion was "You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle." The guys in donglegate did none of those things, and yet they were in fact reported to staff. Over private words. My point is that you never know what is going to offend someone. This CoC says that you agree to be removed from the premises if someone…

One could argue that the guys in Donglegate did belittle and sterotype based on their tasteless jokes.

This is exactly the point I'm making. Their problem was that they spoke aloud in a manner that does not properly reflect the sensibilities of someone they weren't even addressing.

EDIT: Herein lies the rub, and some might say the whole purpose behind CoC's. As a cop might say, you might beat the charge, but you won't beat the ride. Even if you've been tried by event staff for wrongspeak and found innocent, your whole experience is ruined.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#79

Post by f0code »

parenthephobia wrote: post #67
f0code wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not. If anything, you're splitting hairs. Your assertion was "You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle." The guys in donglegate did none of those things, and yet they were in fact reported to staff. Over private words. My point is that you never know what is going to offend someone. This CoC says that you agree to be removed from the premises if someone…

(That was a different poster's assertion.) The code actually says that you agree to be removed if you "wantonly behave in a manner inconsistent with" it, and only one of the paragraphs mentioned minorities: they chose to lead with a general requirement to treat others with respect, dignity and empathy, regardless of who they are. This is not a code of conduct designed to punish accidental "thought crime" against mino…

I do not doubt the good intentions of the authors. They clearly spent a lot of time thinking it through, and came up with something they felt was the most inclusive, and opened it up for comment. None of that was required of them, yet they did it, and that is admirable.

Sure, it was just one paragraph (or 1 of 5 bullet points in the pledge). Let's look at another:

"That if I become aware of any behavior by others which is inconsistent with this pledge, I shall take immediate action to report such behavior to event organizers;"

Coupled with this in particular from the previous quote: "examples of minority groups include..."

40% of this pledge says: If an event-goer commits and/or witnesses a behavior that could be offensive to a minority group of some sort, thanks for your money but we'll be taking those badges back, unless this hourly event staff member thinks you're cool.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#80

Post by f0code »

parenthephobia wrote: post #67
f0code wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not. If anything, you're splitting hairs. Your assertion was "You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle." The guys in donglegate did none of those things, and yet they were in fact reported to staff. Over private words. My point is that you never know what is going to offend someone. This CoC says that you agree to be removed from the premises if someone…

(That was a different poster's assertion.) The code actually says that you agree to be removed if you "wantonly behave in a manner inconsistent with" it, and only one of the paragraphs mentioned minorities: they chose to lead with a general requirement to treat others with respect, dignity and empathy, regardless of who they are. This is not a code of conduct designed to punish accidental "thought crime" against mino…

Sorry for mis-attributing that comment.
Post reply on HN