“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674643

Here's an excerpt from that rambling, incomprehensible post:

> But, from our point of view here, all these people believing, like everyone around them, that sovereignty must be concentrated and tightly defined, that nobody should have influence over government who wasn’t officially part of government, and the rest of it would be neoreactionaries. Similarly, today, with the exception of a few points of economics, the ideas that almost everyone in communion with Harvard University believes are communist ideas, and would have been labelled as such even fifty years ago.

OK, not everyone can find the time to read "The Elements of Style" but then this comes up:

> Why was Adria Richards lying? Because that’s her job. As some guy wrote, “It’s a mistake to think these people have opinions. They have careers.” Her career was to go around technology events, and fuck them up in the name of women’s access. Why? Whatever is the point of that? The point of that is to create a line of control from political activists to industry. Because of Adria Richards, and the many like her before and since, everyone in the technology industry knows that they cannot afford to upset far-left activists. They only succeeded in this, though, because people like Alex Miller believed their lies—that these misdemeanours against political correctness, such as making similar jokes to those aired in Superbowl commercials, are responsible for a 5:1 male–female ratio or whatever in technology...

I literally can't make any sense of that, except it involves Adria Richards, and why the fuck is she even relevant to this? I'll admit, that previously submitted (and rightfully flagkilled) post was the first I had read about this Strangeloop thing, by merit of it somehow reaching #1 on HN...and after having read the current OP, I'm much more inclined to give benefit of the doubt to Curtis Yarvin. The previous submission did nothing except make me think that Yarvin was backed by rabid anti-SJWers.

Or they all get flagkilled regardless of content if the community/mods do not want the issue discussed here, even if a particular post is well-reasoned and well-written.

This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. One is allowed to espouse any ideology that you wish. However, other people are allowed to respond with their own speech. They can call the idea racist if they want. They can take away speaking platforms if they want.

Whether a statement is "racist" is a determination made by the current social taboos and mores of a society. I think there are a lot of terrible ideologies out there, and I like that we don't have to give them equal platforms. The free marketplace of ideas means we don't have to "teach the controversy" and give both sides "equal opportunity for debate".

Which is great. There are plenty of people who's methods and ideas I so disagree with that I don't think it's worth my time to listen to them (neo-nazis, members of the Westboro Baptist Church).