Live data from Hacker News

Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

degoes.net

211–220 of 243 posts

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#211
post #113

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…

Racism is by definition a belief. Someone is racist if they believe in such a belief. Actions are actually irrelevant to this definition.

Similarly a fascist is someone that believes in the fascism ideology. That's just how these words work.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's pretty easy. If you have a mandate you ruthlessly cull anything not on that mandate. You don't need a blacklist of banned topic, you have a whitelist of worthwhile ones and you ignore anything else. Lambda is pretty solidly about functional programming. Maybe extending to programming/admin in general but not to politics. Speakers should always be tweaking their talk for the audience anyways to handle differe…

You don't understand what a code of conduct is, or what this debate is about.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#213
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Racism is by definition a belief. Someone is racist if they believe in such a belief. Actions are actually irrelevant to this definition. Similarly a fascist is someone that believes in the fascism ideology. That's just how these words work.

People have expanded the definitions to mean all sorts of bullshit to fit their agenda. You're expecting us to take your definitions at face value, that's laughable.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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.…

> ... 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 inde…

> 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?

It doesn't. I agree that what he said was unacceptable. But just because what he said was unacceptable, does that mean we shouldn't accept him and everything he does?

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

Right, sorry. He can attend for sure. I meant that he should be able to speak, since he'll be following all the rules and has an interest in tech.

> It's his authority figure as a speaker while being an outspoken member of the pro-racism community.

He doesn't identify himself by his racist beliefs. He keeps them separate from his technology. It has nothing to do with his tech. If he walked up to someone from a minority group and talked about his views at the conference, or if he said any of them from his podium, I wouldn't care as to what happened to him. But it looks like he'll make every effort to follow the rules.

> 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."

It's not far from being reasonable, except you seem to be forgetting that he's never made a call to action. And the fact that his views on race, in the way that he holds them, have nothing to do with tech. Actually, it is kind of far from being reasonable.

> And the amount of pressure brought to the sponsors is minimal.

Look, I don't really care about pressure to the sponsors. The possible damage here to them is minimal. What I do care about is how this affects LambdaConf. It's really sad that there is damage done to LambdaConf just because of this.

You even said that they're "taking the expensive road." You realize how much this one issue is hurting them.

> Don't these communities have a right and a duty to control their attendance as they see fit?

Who is "these communities"? On my post with the text "This just in", I have more than 30 upvotes. Your posts are going gray. You are trying to control the attendance of the community as you see fit. And there are people in the community that disagree with you.

> Why should an intolerant bigot be included in any community?

If you exclude bigots, they will be bigots forever. Imagine if someone hadn't included you into their community when you were, as you described yourself, "a hyper-right self-denying religious racist as a child." If you were shunned by the community, wouldn't you still be that way today?

I believe in including bigots because I believe that people can change. I believe in including racists because I believe in working with people to achieve something great, regardless of who those people are.

You're not just intolerant of racism (which is an understandable thing), you're being intolerant of an entire person. And you're taking action on it. You yourself are acting in an intolerant manner.

And that's a shame, because you're a well-reasoned person, you're clearly intelligent, and I'm enjoying this discussion with you.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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 inde…

> 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? It doesn't. I agree that what he said was unacceptable. But just because what he said was unacceptable, does that mean we shouldn't accept him and everything he does ? > No one has said he can't attend. Why would yous suggest this? Right, sorry. He can attend for sure. I m…

I'm intolerant of people who's world-view denies the personhood of an entire category of people. Differentiated just by how they look. He can choose to rectify his behavior and outlook and I will welcome him back into society. I believe people can change. And I will thank you for not assuming you know the hows or the whys of my past. It was not faux-tolerant people like you who would ever lead to that change. My past is full of enablers who spoke just like you did, conflating religious and ideolgocal freedom with bigotry and racism.

Intolerance of intolerance is a precondition to an actual open society. Suggesting I allow people to divide themselves in half in a way we'd never do in any other portion of society (imagine this person being appointed as a teacher at a university then promising his beliefs won't affect his communications with his students). It's ludicrous. It's absurd. Let him actually demonstrate the behavior he's pledging and then we can talk, but there is no rational reason to believe he won't bring conflict, strife, and bigotry with him wherever he goes. Even if you cannot see it because you don't seem to be the subject of his ire.

Mendacious Moldbug has brought this rejection upon himself in one of the few ways we universally recognize as a way to earn that rejection: by passing the identical fate upon a whole category of people just because of the circumstances of their birth. Far better to reject one toxic person than make every non-white person walk on eggshells throughout the conference. And you need not look far to find a number of people in the community who would feel that way, and already face substantial marginalization that no amount of behavior changing can ameliorate.

I'm fine being intolerant of intolerance. Any rational person should realize the implications of not speaking out against intolerance wherever we find it. And part of that speech is making proponents of intolerance feel unwelcome. We shouldn't invite Eric S Raymond or David Duke to speak at these events either.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those who assert must prove.

I didn't say I didn't have the evidence. You haven't sent me an email.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who assert must prove.

I didn't say I didn't have the evidence. You haven't sent me an email.

Then post it. This bullshit game of I-have-proof-by-na-na-na-I-won't-show-you is a waste of everyone's time.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#218
post #56

One thing that belonging to a political fringe has taught me, is that either you decide to live your life in constant conflict, or you learn to ignore the politics of a person when it has no direct impact on a given situation, even when it to you is utterly distasteful. The latter leads to a far happier life. And often you'll find even people who hold views you find offensive can be perfectly nice people most of the…

Hypothesis: It's hard to ignore someone's politics, even if they have no "direct impact", when the policies they advocate led to people that look like your grandparents getting lynched, and led to people that look like your great-great-grandparents being forced to work in horrible conditions against their will for no pay.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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.…

> ... 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 inde…

> 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."

Citation needed for the claim that Yarvin has called for the enslavement of black people.

I've seen him say that black people made better slaves than, say, Native Americans, but that's quite different from saying that they should be slaves. See this discussion from his recent AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's pretty easy. If you have a mandate you ruthlessly cull anything not on that mandate. You don't need a blacklist of banned topic, you have a whitelist of worthwhile ones and you ignore anything else. Lambda is pretty solidly about functional programming. Maybe extending to programming/admin in general but not to politics. Speakers should always be tweaking their talk for the audience anyways to handle differe…

You don't understand what a code of conduct is, or what this debate is about.

Yes, I do. I've run both tech and "fan" conferences.

I'm absolutely within my legal right to call the police on anyone who I kick out for anything other than a tiny list of protected reasons, and I do so. (Very rarely, almost everyone leaves immediately when you show that you aren't playing some rules-lawyering game but simply calling the police.)

Both as someone familiar with human behavior and as someone who's gotten legal advice, a code of conduct never helps me or the good attendees. It only offers refuge for the spoilers.

Post reply on HN