Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

Here is a direct quote from Moldbug's blog:

    >> "Not all humans are born the same, of course, and the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery. For others, it is more suited to slavery. And others still are badly suited to either. These characteristics can be expected to group differently in human populations of different origins. Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences."

Just want to point out that I don't share Moldbug's beliefs whatsoever.

No one's endorsing him by letting him speak to an interested group.

Is Hacker News endorsing you by letting you comment here?

And I'd be concerned too if this conference let him talk about his viewpoints, but that's not what he's on the stage for. If someone looked into your history deep enough, wouldn't they be able to find something distasteful too?

Imagine not being able to talk about your software development career just because something thinks something you did (even if entirely unrelated!) was distasteful.

Do you think anyone seriously looks at Moldbug as an authority figure? Come on, you're blowing this way out of proportion. I think someone should be allowed to have their fringe views and be a member of the wonderful programming community. I don't agree with his views, but I'll defend his right to have them.

If you think it's easy to make editorial decisions on, I think you're missing some part of this.

> [...] censoring him [...]

I don't recall saying anything about censorship. I said it was "actually inadvisable". Because I think that his views have nothing to do with the presentation he's going to give. No one even realized that he was going to give this talk because the speaker names were anonymized to the editorial crew, probably as a way to prevent marginalized groups from being excluded.

> [...] Hacker News has and will continue to make editorial decisions about who is allowed to post here.

And those decisions are made judging by the person's interactions on HN and only HN, as far as I know.

> [...] you seem to pretend [...]

Am I being accused of something?

> [...] just because the subject of his talk is some technological function, that this means he will not be interacting socially or simply being present.

Firstly, there's a very well-written pledge that all LambdaConf attendees (speakers or otherwise) have to follow. What you are describing in his social interactions will be contained within those rules. He will be thrown out if he does something stupid.

Secondly, is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation?

I know he's dehumanized people in his writing and I think that's a horrible thing. At the same time, what do his purposely self-anonymized writings have to do with his code?

> [...] can and should face societal consequences.

Witchhunting? ...I hope I'm misunderstanding you. Can you please elaborate on this point?

> [...] people claim that any mention of feminism and the inherent biases of the programming community is "politics" and that should "stay out of tech." "Tech is neutral on this issue! All we care about is making something."

I said none of that, and I don't agree that feminism or bias are politics. They're intertwined with society, which touches everything we do. I agree with many of the ideals at play here, and you're not wrong about systemic violence and discrimination. At the same time, I wouldn't prevent him from talking to a group of people because of what he believes in a different context. It's not in scope. We shouldn't be seeing side-effects here.

If I or anyone else made a conference for feminist issues or the like, then I'd have to reevaluate whether people are interested in hearing what he has to say. But that's not even in scope in this instance.

> [...] someone clearly calling for oppressive action to be enacted against an entire category of humans [...]

Citation needed on his call to action. A quote from him:

>> I promote only one kind of action: reading old books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent or otherwise.

> But when you take a neutral stance [above quote] you are not being neutral. You're inherently supporting them, because inaction on human rights issues means not protecting human rights.

False dichotomy

> 2016?

I know what year it is

> even remotely difficult

You're boiling down a complex concept to "supporting racism"

> they've chosen the expensive road

Being inclusive and open-minded is priceless to me

> I have backchannel info

Is it just me or do you seem to revel in this? Realize that this kind of stuff is penalizing people not even remotely close to this argument or whatever's happening.

> [He] shows up at another tech conference and goes, "Wink wink nod nod I think black people make good slaves but we can be patient about that and passively do it."

... this is a really unfortunate way to carry a discussion. And I'll remind you that he's not carrying his ideals to the conference. That'd be against the Pledge, as well as against his public statement in the article.

> There is no threat to his speech.

I'll say it again. "I don't recall saying anything about censorship." I didn't say anything about free speech or censorship.

> [...] a devout racist.

> Why do you keep bringing [his code] up?

What does race have to do with it? What doesn't his code have to do with it? It is indeed a tech conference, and I believe that anyone who has an interest in tech and is willing to follow the rules should be able to attend.

He has given every indication of those two things.

It does take place between people, you're right. But do you think he's going to be an awful person in person? And I'll quote back again to my previous post: "is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation?"

It does not dis-serve the attendees of the conference for him to be able to go.

> I loathe that this is my responsibility.

This is your responsibility? What?

> [...] morally baseless and intellectually bankrupt.

Can you explain to me why you feel this to be the case?

And I agree that criticizing bad actors is a perfectly okay thing to do, within reason. I disagree with the idea that the shitstorm surrounding this is reasonable. This is totally excluding someone from a community. And as much as I agree with your right to have your opinion, I disagree with the idea of taking action on such an opinion.

I just can't fathom it. I don't get it. And I don't think that his racism in a totally different context precludes him from being able to participate in a conference.

> ... this is a really unfortunate way to carry a discussion. And I'll remind you that he's not carrying his ideals to the conference. That'd be against the Pledge, as well as against his public statement in the article.

Why exactly is it that a short written statement can somehow absolve someone of the social responsibility of a multi-year career of hate speech?

> What doesn't his code have to do with it? It is indeed a tech conference, and I believe that anyone who has an interest in tech and is willing to follow the rules should be able to attend.

No one has said he can't attend. Why would yous suggest this?

> But do you think he's going to be an awful person in person? And I'll quote back again to my previous post: "is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation?"

It's not his presence. It's his authority figure as a speaker while being an outspoken member of the pro-racism community. Do you actually know what he writes about?

> And I agree that criticizing bad actors is a perfectly okay thing to do, within reason. I disagree with the idea that the shitstorm surrounding this is reasonable.

How is this unreasonable. "We will not support your conference if you give the podium to a famous and vocal racist who calls for the enslavement of black people." This is a boycott. No one is suggesting they be made to comply by force.

And the amount of pressure brought to the sponsors is minimal. Tiny. People are choosing not to support LambdaConf because the notion of handing the microphone to a prominent and vocal defender of racism is a vile notion.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

> This is totally excluding someone from a community. And as much as I agree with your right to have your opinion, I disagree with the idea of taking action on such an opinion.

Why should an intolerant bigot be included in any community? Don't these communities have a right and a duty to control their attendance as they see fit?