81–90 of 443 posts
Why is writing about certain political ideas OK, but writing about certain other political ideas not OK? Why are those certain other political ideas "not OK" enough for someone to be banned from a technology conference?
As of 12:30pm EDT, this has been flagged down to #111. Some people really don't want to discuss this.
I think posts with a high ratio of comments to up-votes automatically get buried. So I'm not sure that this was deliberately moderated, or it was just the automated flame-war detection being set off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to [boycott or pressure for no platform]" I don't like how this argument generalizes. For example, I am a strong opponent of the labor situation in Qatar as it relates to the World Cup. I want FIFA to either relocate venues or force Qatar to immediately improve their labor practices. Yet, I have no leverage over FIFA, so instead I decide to boycott FIFA's sponsors (Cok…
Did you tell coke, nike, and adidas that you're boycotting them?
I did tell Coke and Adidas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be fine to ban Curtis if his talk was about his politics. It would be fine to ban him if he did not agree to abide by the code of conduct. The conference obviously does not owe him a platform to discuss his politics. But his talk was about Urbit, not about his politics, and Urbit is a genuinely fascinating piece of technology. Even if the project fails, by studying it, I have learned a lot of ideas that I ha…
BTW, Urbit has neoreactionary politics hard-coded into the network layer. I don't know if that was to be discussed in this particular talk (usually the Nock/Hoon stuff is so weird people never get to the rest), but if Yarvin/Moldbug can't keep political rants out of his documentation then I think it's fair to consider the politics as part of the technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kind that lives in Benicia, CA. And recruiters wonder why I refuse to consider offers back in California.
What kind of person stereotypes an entire state of 40 million people based on their experiences in one small town?
Now that I think about it, I want to do just that and document the results. Should be interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This guy sounds like he would be happy to see anti-Zionism as a litmus test for conference speakers. Is that the kind of tech industry you want? Should speakers at technical conferences have all their political opinions pre-vetted for approval by a panel of progressives?
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
If I am the CEO of a company, and I listen to people before making my own decision, am I “handing them veto power?” I think this is Alex Miller’s decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll be his decision next time too. And now that the Red Guards know he'll succumb to even the slightest bit of pressure, there will certainly be a next time.
I don’t know that we can use words like “succumb.” It’s always that way when you have a strong opinion about a particular matter. For example, we can praise Obama for listening to scientists on certain matters, than complain he is caving under lobbying pressure on others. In the end, I prefer to say that it is Alex’s decision. He didn’t crumble, succumb, get browbeaten, or anything else. He decided, and that means yo…
How can you possibly know that? People have lost their jobs and have been forced out of their own companies for less than allowing somebody who other people might consider "racist", "sexist" or "homophobic" to talk at their conference. You can't be aware that these things have happened to other people and say that it doesn't influence the decision.
Once it was brought to his attention, the decision Alex faced was either let Curtis go on and eventually be forced out of his own conference or disinvite him and strengthen the atmosphere of political compliance. I think he made the right short term choice for him, which is all you can realistically expect people to do, but in the long term allowing this sort of thing to persist will come and bite him in the ass.
The longer this goes on, the more radical you need to be to not become victim to the political correctness mob. In the end, if you're a straight white male, you will fall prey to it because you're not a protected class. You can see this playing out in video games, movies and SF&F publishing right now. Joss Whedon and Wil Wheaton especially are vocal feminists who have taken a beating by feminists because their views aren't extreme enough.
What outcomes do actions like this encourage? Well, it encourages controversial writers to stay in the shadows, hide their real identities, lest the vigilante mobs find them. This outcome also encourages people in general to say less, creates an atmosphere of self-censorship, and so harms our free society. Whatever happened to "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say i…
Marxism happened. Limiting speech has always been a tactic employed by the political left. Words like "racist", "sexist" and "homophobe" were designed to shut down free speech. It's extremely effective at silencing any opposition.
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?
While I wouldn't take it out on a child, I won't want to associate with somebody who was against gay marriage or try to save somebody who was against women's rights to their own bodies.
I feel that anybody who spends time with the people they strongly disagree with, when they don't have to, lack a moral backbone.