“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop” • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by topynate » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:05 PM UTC

pep888 wrote: post #31

topynate wrote: post #11

Kicking people from your tech conference because they were racist outside of it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist'. The same goes for the other beyond-the-pale isms like sexism, fascism, etc. I commented on a flagged post on why this is an issue for me personally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674958

No, it is not. That is flatly untrue nonsense. It is always SL's decision, that they are making with feedback It saddens me that you're making this obviously fallacious argument, because your reasoning is so transparent. You're a Zionist, who has sworn allegience to a genocidal government. As a supporter of genocide, you are concerned that someday you'll face consequences for your decision to materially support mass…

Much as I dislike entering into this sort of (highly off-topic) conversation, it needs pointing out that "Progressive Except Palestine" was coined by people who agree with you. Just search for it and see what comes up.

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

#42

Post by saryant » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:05 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #40

saryant wrote: post #30

This incident reminds me of growing up as the son of an oil company's PR man in the Bay Area. We lived in one of the small towns in the North Bay. My father handled public and government relations for the oil refinery in that small town. A contingent of the opposition was especially vocal in their distaste for the plant. An orthodontist refused to take me on as a patient due to my father's job. Snide remarks from tea…

What kind of extremist attacks a child because of their father's political views?

The kind that lives in Benicia, CA.

And recruiters wonder why I refuse to consider offers back in California.

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

#43

Post by antics » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:07 PM UTC

I recently helped organize a conference.

Since it is apparently not obvious to many people, I'd just like to point out that amongst conference organizers, it is an extremely common belief that your primary responsibility is to deliver a good conference experience to your conference-goers. This is not just a belief StrangeLoop holds -- it is a belief that many beloved tech conferences have (e.g., PyCon), and if you think this can't happen at your conference, you are likely in for a surprise when/if something rough happens to that venue.

In fact, this claim is stronger than you might think. This belief is prominently reflected in pretty much every decision every conference makes. People choose codes of conduct to deliberately exclude some people and certain behavior. They make you "apply" to go to their conferences so that they can hand-pick attendees to fit whatever criteria they have for their crowds (e.g., xoxo). People select talks and their speakers to fit profiles they want.

And so on.

I can name on my hand the number of people I've met who organize conferences, who believe their job is to provide a fair platform ideas. It's just not the way people seem to think.

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

#44

Post by paxdickinson » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:08 PM UTC

pixelperfect wrote: post #39

I am curious, could someone link to the most objectionable content by Curtis Yarvin? I don't think prohibiting someone from speaking at a private tech conference due to offensive views is necessarily a bad thing (e.g. prohibiting a KKK member from speaking), however without seeing his objectionable content I don't know if it's appropriate in this circumstance. Alex Miller said he made his decision without reading any…

Those calling for his removal from the conference cited this six-year-old blog post about Thomas Carlyle as their only specific complaint.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-car...

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

#45

Post by twoodfin » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:09 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #27

topynate wrote: post #11

Kicking people from your tech conference because they were racist outside of it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist'. The same goes for the other beyond-the-pale isms like sexism, fascism, etc. I commented on a flagged post on why this is an issue for me personally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674958

> it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist' 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 determi…

But what does any of that have to do with a talk on urbit?

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

#46

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:09 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #27

topynate wrote: post #11

Kicking people from your tech conference because they were racist outside of it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist'. The same goes for the other beyond-the-pale isms like sexism, fascism, etc. I commented on a flagged post on why this is an issue for me personally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674958

> it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist' 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 determi…

Similarly, if Jessitron (singling her out solely because she wrote a really good blog post today [1]) wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology, you are ok with that also?

Let me also emphasize that no one disputes that strangeloop has the legal right to do this. The discussion is simply over whether the strangeloop organizers are a bunch of anti-intellectuals who deserve to be in the spotlight for their decisions.

[1] http://blog.jessitron.com/2015/06/ultratestable-coding-style...

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

#47

Post by topynate » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #27

topynate wrote: post #11

Kicking people from your tech conference because they were racist outside of it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist'. The same goes for the other beyond-the-pale isms like sexism, fascism, etc. I commented on a flagged post on why this is an issue for me personally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674958

> it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist' 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 determi…

I am not suggesting that racists (however defined) be invited to advocate racism to people who find that repugnant. I'm suggesting that that racism not disqualify them in other matters.

You are quite correct that people can boycott or pressure for no-platform if they want to. Who on earth would benefit from forced contact? What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to do that. Further, that when that does happen, those who disagree speak up about it.

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

#48

Post by jpt4 » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #15

jpt4 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "No Voice, Free Exit" response: Hopefully right next to each other, dutifully segregated with freedom of movement maintained between each. Edit: Now, certain of the neo-reactos are hyper-cautious about the effects of entryism, which the above scenario would seem powerless to prevent, but so long as public displays of political identification have no effect on the actual behavior of the governors in the NVFE world…

Sorry, but yuck! Must politics divide everything in our lives? That sounds like a horrible world to live in.

The advocatus diaboli is obliged no apology (nor the promotor fidei for that matter), being (ideally) merely hypothetical, to be spun-up and shut down as dialectic requires. However, do note that there is a difference between political divisions existing, and political divisions having effects beyond the groups of their self-identified constituents. The former, like the poor, will always be with us [0], differing only in visibilty. But, if visibility is a no-op, meaningless to the res publica's execution of policy, then is not the venom neutralized? We currently live in a world of political polarization, but worse, one's affinity towards those poles has material impact on one's life. Surrender Voice, NVFE claims, let like associate with like via Exit, and never be troubled by politics again.

[0] Until humans are so radically different that neither remains.

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

#49

Post by jessaustin » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

pixelperfect wrote: post #39

I am curious, could someone link to the most objectionable content by Curtis Yarvin? I don't think prohibiting someone from speaking at a private tech conference due to offensive views is necessarily a bad thing (e.g. prohibiting a KKK member from speaking), however without seeing his objectionable content I don't know if it's appropriate in this circumstance. Alex Miller said he made his decision without reading any…

Search for "Mencius Moldbug", but be warned: Moldbug, his supporters, and his detractors are all sorely in need of aggressive editing. If you can find a TL;DR less than a single-spaced page, please link it because I can't even...

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

#50

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 4:12 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #27

topynate wrote: post #11

Kicking people from your tech conference because they were racist outside of it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist'. The same goes for the other beyond-the-pale isms like sexism, fascism, etc. I commented on a flagged post on why this is an issue for me personally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674958

> it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist' 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 determi…

There are extremely good game-theoretic reasons to support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea.

Specifically, I'm imagining a degenerate case where there's a norm of killing people who do X, as well as people who don't kill people who do X, as well as people who advocate making the anti-X policy more lenient.

My point is that we can end up in a bad situation that nobody is better off trying to fix. We're arguably in this situation right now with excessive punishment of "sex crimes".