Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

Post by DrPizza » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 7:02 AM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #86

jamesdutc wrote: post #46

This is an odd perspective on inclusivity, but I understand where it comes from. I would think it would be well within the mandate of the conference organisers to pick talks that reflect the material they want to see presented and the conversation they want attendees to be able to participate in. The conference is a curated collection of talks, and will necessarily reflect an active political position held by the org…

They stated that they accepted the talk on the merits during the anonymous review phase.

Post by seivan » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #96

jmspring wrote: post #69

The choice quote is here -- "In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems." What you believe in, in everyday society, shouldn't matter either. It is how you treat others and if you do so with politeness and respect, you should expect the same in return.

Curtis Yarvin is a professed fascist who has written about his belief that some races are more suited to slavery than others. That _does_ matter; it makes large swaths of the potential talk audience (and other attendees) feel unwelcome. How can you engage in polite, respectful discussion with someone who believes that you're more suited to be a slave than a free man?

Post by xmj » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 7:28 AM UTC

seivan wrote: post #113

kevinburke wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curtis Yarvin is a professed fascist who has written about his belief that some races are more suited to slavery than others. That _does_ matter; it makes large swaths of the potential talk audience (and other attendees) feel unwelcome. How can you engage in polite, respectful discussion with someone who believes that you're more suited to be a slave than a free man?

I'm always wary when people call someone racist/fascist. I'd like to see some definitive proof otherwise you're just labeling him without providing anything to backup your claims. Isn't that essentially just hearsay and libel? Just to clear any ambiguity, I don't accept the modern definition where you can call someone racist because you don't like their writings in sensitive topic. I'd like to see some hard evidence…

Post by mcantelon » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

jellismymind wrote: post #97

"Include all! White supremacists, non-white... If a few people (say non-white) feel uncomfortable and don't want to come, we're OK with that 100%! Everyone should feel included! Racists, homophobes... Respect the beliefs of everyone, like believing there is a god, or that white people are superior, or believing you are being discriminated, or believing people will insult you or assault you at a whim for who you are,…

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 8:11 AM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #96

jmspring wrote: post #69

The choice quote is here -- "In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems." What you believe in, in everyday society, shouldn't matter either. It is how you treat others and if you do so with politeness and respect, you should expect the same in return.

Curtis Yarvin is a professed fascist who has written about his belief that some races are more suited to slavery than others. That _does_ matter; it makes large swaths of the potential talk audience (and other attendees) feel unwelcome. How can you engage in polite, respectful discussion with someone who believes that you're more suited to be a slave than a free man?