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

131–140 of 243 posts

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#131

Post by greenrd »

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…

So Donald Trump is against the 1st amendment? Along with any other politician who has people removed from events for political disagreement?

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#132

Post by greenrd »

mcantelon wrote: post #90
specialist wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL: neoreactionary, anti-democratic blah blah blah aka libertarian fruitopia

Pretty much the opposite of libertarian, IIRC.

There's this weird thing where libertarians go so far right they become neoreactionaries, and vice versa. It's sort of the horseshoe theory for the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum I guess. I don't really understand it.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#133

Post by hga »

greenrd wrote: post #131
13thLetter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So Donald Trump is against the 1st amendment? Along with any other politician who has people removed from events for political disagreement?

Along with any other politician who has people removed from events for disrupting them and preventing him from being heard by the other participants?

FIFY.

If you can cite cases where people silently disagreeing, e.g. with t-shirts or signs that didn't block the view of others, were removed, I'm all ears. But while I haven't watched this closely, I'm under the strong impression the removees were shouting him down, and were often physically violent.

To quote Ronald Reagan in an analogous situation, "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green".

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#134

Post by greenrd »

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,…

Discriminating against homophobic people is going to discriminate against a lot of Muslims, Russians etc. Discriminating against racists is going to discriminate against a lot of people from all over the world. Are you OK with that?

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#135

Post by greenrd »

spriggan3 wrote: post #55
atom-morgan wrote: post #51

It's a code of conduct. Not a code of thought.

> It's a code of conduct. Not a code of thought. Given how most codes of conduct are written there is virtually no difference between the two. If a code of conduct in a community applies everywhere its members might be on the internet or in the real world, then they are not free to say what they want publicly anymore. If one can be excluded from an opensoure community because of a totally unrelated comment on some ob…

Please cite specific examples, so that everyone can know where they stand.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#136

Post by greenrd »

crb002 wrote: post #85

Embryonic CRISPR is here and humanity is not only hereditary. It's the genetics debate that needs to happen. Moldbug's racist viewpoint is now irrelevant. How much should the State intervene? Wrath of Kahn and GATTACA were both dystopian. Roe v Wade will reopen soon on CRISPR grounds.

Will be irrelevant in a few hundred years, you mean.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#137

Post by greenrd »

EdHominem wrote: post #65
st3v3r wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but that's not everything. What about talks with sexist content? Remember the "Perform like a porn star" talk ( http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2009/04/25/why-rails-is-still-a... )? The person giving the talk might not be actively harassing someone, but they're clearly making the conference a place where women do not feel welcome.

That's the content they choose to sponsor (with a soapbox), and which they should curate.

You need a code of conduct to prevent that if you are not to pre-vet all slides, which is excessively bureaucratic and creates an implicit code of conduct anyway.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#138

Post by greenrd »

f0code wrote: post #81
st3v3r wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My allowed attendance would be contingent on remaining silent the entire time on premises." Only if you are incapable of acting like an adult human being. As someone who is also a member of the majority, I would find no problem in being able to follow the rules, because I can behave like an adult.

That is already expected of people. Why do we need to take a pledge before going to hear some people talk about code?

If it's already what you feel is expected of you, why object to agreeing to it?

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#140

Post by zahmahkibo »

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.

All life is political. Sorry that hurts your feelings.
Post reply on HN