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

161–170 of 243 posts

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#161

Post by 13thLetter »

TabAtkins wrote: post #92
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.

I mean, okay, maybe, but that just means that they'd be hosting a conference about "nazis suck" and hey, I'm okay with that. That's a message I can get behind.

What if they wanted to host a conference about technology? Are they allowed to do that?

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#162

Post by 13thLetter »

kevinburke wrote: post #150
xmj wrote: post #104

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. Having read a good deal of his unqualified reservations, I wonder if you can source this quote for me please?

Search Google, Twitter, or send me an email. I'm not going to link to hate speech here.

So... no, then?

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#164

Post by kazinator »

greenrd wrote: post #129
striking wrote: post #2

This just in: preventing people to come to your conferences because of their beliefs is actually inadvisable and really, really difficult to make good on. I don't agree with the guy's views either, but I wouldn't disinvite him just because he thinks that way. Good on LambdaConf for letting him come anyway. Many of the quotes from this piece were shockingly powerful. I'm happy I took the time to read it.

And if you hate the guy a lot (I do) you can always go to the conference and boycott his particular talk.

Note that not simply not attending isn't a boycott; a boycott implies some sort of protest: not attending and inducing others not to attend. And that would probably not be appropriate at the conference.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#165

Post by brighteyes »

zahmahkibo wrote: post #142

There is an extremely simple test for such arguments: would anyone make this argument if the person in question was Osama bin Laden? Suppose old Osama was a Haskell wizard. Would anyone argue he should still be at the talk? No. But Nazis? Who make bin Laden's terrorism look like a rounding error? They're A-OK! And people wonder about why there's a diversity problem in tech.

1. Bin Laden actually killed thousands of people. If, instead, your example was a Muslim preacher who advocated controversial views, but was not violent himself nor the head of a violent organization, then yes - we should accept such a Muslim preacher, if he has an interesting technical talk to give.

2. Has Moldbug actually self-identified as a Nazi? He has offensive views to many, to be sure, but Nazi is much more specific, and to me, a weird way to interpret what he writes. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that what you call "Nazi" I would call "disgusting, wrong, and troubling." The fact we don't agree on what precisely he is - even if we both dislike him - is one reason why we should not ban him. Especially since on other people we might not agree on who to ban (e.g. some consider abortion doctors to be literal murderers; should they ban such doctors from a programming conference?).

3. About the diversity situation in tech: the article mentions how another industry, medicine, handles this kind of thing. LambdaConf's decision is the default in that industry. In fact, in practically all industries. Yes the gender difference in tech is larger than in medicine. That is inconsistent with your claim.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#167

Post by zahmahkibo »

moldbugisvile wrote: post #145
zahmahkibo wrote: post #142

There is an extremely simple test for such arguments: would anyone make this argument if the person in question was Osama bin Laden? Suppose old Osama was a Haskell wizard. Would anyone argue he should still be at the talk? No. But Nazis? Who make bin Laden's terrorism look like a rounding error? They're A-OK! And people wonder about why there's a diversity problem in tech.

But Marxists, they're cool right? Edgy even! If you want to hold these standards and exclude someone like Moldbug, fine by me. But if you do that there, do it consistently . Newsflash: Che Guevera executed blacks, gays, nuns, and more in cold blood; his face is now considered a bland apparel decoration. Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and Mengistu and many others killed and caused the deaths of 10s of millions of human be…

I gotta say, this is some next-level red baiting.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#168

Post by zahmahkibo »

erics32 wrote: post #149
zahmahkibo wrote: post #139

Not all views are equal. Some views are so horrendous it is our moral duty to ostracize their believers.

How right you are! Let's ostracize and noplatform all the wrongthinkers. How about we start by banning those horrendous muslims whose beliefs are homophobic, sexist, calls for the death of apostates and atheists etc. Or maybe those sexist homophobic christians?

Again, not all views are equal. Stop trying to pretend they are.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#169

Post by zahmahkibo »

13thLetter wrote: post #163
zahmahkibo wrote: post #139

Not all views are equal. Some views are so horrendous it is our moral duty to ostracize their believers.

For example, the view that people should be prevented from earning a living if they have the wrong political opinions.

No one is obligated to like you or associate with you, doubly so if you have political beliefs that would likely result in their slavery.

Community sanctions are part of what it means to be human.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#170

Post by striking »

kazinator wrote: post #164
greenrd wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you hate the guy a lot (I do) you can always go to the conference and boycott his particular talk.

Note that not simply not attending isn't a boycott; a boycott implies some sort of protest: not attending and inducing others not to attend. And that would probably not be appropriate at the conference.

> Boycott, trans. verb: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions[1]

Your definition isn't necessarily correct. I don't think the commenter you're replying to meant any harm, just that he'd rather not participate in listening to that particular talk.

Which is a shame, really. It's a shame that people feel the need to ignore entire people and all of their ideas just because of one idea that the person had. As the quote goes, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." [+]

But that's that person's right, to abstain from interacting from a person. I don't think it was meant maliciously. I think it's just a sort of misguided kind of thinking.

1: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boycott (emphasis mine)

+: I mean no offense to the person you're responding to either; I believe Eleanor Roosevelt should have exchanged the word "small" with "closed".

Post reply on HN