Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin) • Hacker News Board

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#11

Post by amcastillo » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:00 PM UTC

lexcorvus wrote: post #9

savanaly wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone is wondering about the actual views and arguments of Moldbug and his neoreactionaries, they were covered and responded to by economist blogger Noah Smith here. http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries.... The crux of it (and something I never saw quite covered in all the essays bouncing around) is "Essentially, neoreaction is the dream of a society of mostly white people, living in a hier…

the actual views and arguments Getting the views of neoreactionaries from Noah Smith is like getting the views of Luther's 95 Theses from Pope Leo X. How about, you know, just reading Moldbug? http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com

Looks like this person edited their comment. Anyway, you're right, Noah Smith is one of the less objective filters you could seek to fairly summarize a right-of-left-of-center viewpoint.

Read Moldbug, people.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#12

Post by sudioStudio64 » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:01 PM UTC

Even though I'm deliciously close to 200 karma I'm going to ask this anyway...

If someone has a view that is actually destructive for the forum its aired in ( I'm speaking hypothetically now ) does it have to be accommodated.

By that, and I genuinely want to know what you guys think, what if a political candidate advocated the end of democratic elections? A "one man, one vote, one time" kind of thing. How is that handled in an open society?

Extreme conservative opinions like Mr Yarvins are actually shocking to me. I don't think his particular writings should be banned or anything like that. However, are they so reactionary as to represent to the organizers a position that they don't want to even tacitly or obliquely endorse?

I will say this, the first post on this subject the other day saw me having one of the most interesting exchanges I've ever had on HN. That was cool.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#13

Post by nemo » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:01 PM UTC

While Moldbug holds hideous political views, if the talk is on tech. and doesn't overlap him advocating hideous things, then this is akin to the old Hollywood blackballing, the excuse for dropping him was pathetic, and I agree that promoting a culture of free speech must be a core value of a liberal society.

I'm pretty far-left (though more liberal than leftist), and found the black-and-white leftist-bashing in the article didn't add much besides giving the author the opportunity to vent his spleen at a segment of leftists while pretending we're all some monoculture, which is ludicrous. Would have been better to just focus on the issue of why an open society needs to be willing to accept diverse political views, even hideous ones like Marxism or neoreactionary craziness, without using it as a platform for pontificating about a crudely conceived culture war.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#14

Post by Castlereagh » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:03 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #8

In case you were wondering what Curtis's talk might have been about (and whether it would have held any technical merit) this page has a link to Clark's earlier introduction to Urbit: http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-... The "Exit, voice, and loyalty" terminology might seem odd if you don't know it's origins. It's from 1970 book by economist A. O. Hirschman that's coming back in popularity:…

Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk (wisely?) refrain from posting out of (legitimate?) fear of career repercussion?

This. It also has the perverse effect of leaving the defense of "racists" to actual racists (e.g., [1]), thereby leading to guilt by association: "See, only racists are willing to defend this guy, so he's obviously a racist!"

[1]: https://twitter.com/B8GodDante/status/607201146017615872

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#15

Post by sudioStudio64 » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:03 PM UTC

clarkhat wrote: post #5

forgottenpass wrote: post #3

Clark does a great job elucidating the point I've heard many other people struggle to present. One of the things I love about writers that specialize in legal matters, they're very good at articulating a position. The "questions for sponsors" bit is particularly sharp at cutting towards the discrepancy between the standards dissenters expected from the conference and those they saw. There may be widely agreeable answ…

Despite writing at a legal blog, IANAL, but am a mere techie like yourselves. Or was, till I took an arrow to the knee. Anyway, thanks for your kind words re the post!

I enjoy your writing but I think I disagree with the successes that you attribute to the blue team. Some of them are right on, but some successes are only that if you say that blue means liberal like Adam Smith was a liberal and not a mercantilist. That's just my take though. Cheers!

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#16

Post by joelgrus » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:07 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #8

In case you were wondering what Curtis's talk might have been about (and whether it would have held any technical merit) this page has a link to Clark's earlier introduction to Urbit: http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-... The "Exit, voice, and loyalty" terminology might seem odd if you don't know it's origins. It's from 1970 book by economist A. O. Hirschman that's coming back in popularity:…

Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk refrain from posting out of fear of career repercussion?

No and yes. I have been pretty vocal about it on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606474432509394944 https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606673594198794240

but I've also been sitting on a 75%-written blog post that I'm hesitant to actually post.

Not because of career repercussions (I have never had an employer who really gave a shit what I write about in my spare time) but because of conference repercussions.

I am promoting a book, and to that end I am scheduled to speak at various conferences and meetups. And I worry that the mob would somehow try to get me uninvited. It's not like there's an actual policy that Yarvin violated that I can be confident I'm on the right side of.

So I am torn between my natural inclination to say exactly what I think, and the more practical takeaway of "don't write or have written anything that might anger the mob".

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#17

Post by d9h549f34w6 » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #8

In case you were wondering what Curtis's talk might have been about (and whether it would have held any technical merit) this page has a link to Clark's earlier introduction to Urbit: http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-... The "Exit, voice, and loyalty" terminology might seem odd if you don't know it's origins. It's from 1970 book by economist A. O. Hirschman that's coming back in popularity:…

I for one support Curtis on this issue, but tend not to post here on the subject except under an alternate username. I do this because I do in fact fear the "social justice" crowd and their ability to mess with people and their careers when they don't follow the party line.

If I were to hazard a guess, I think I'm not alone in this and I think you're not in a minority (or at least a small one). The recent HN stories seem to get a good number of "silent upvotes" before anyone steps into the fray to add a comment.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#18

Post by lexcorvus » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #10

lexcorvus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the actual views and arguments Getting the views of neoreactionaries from Noah Smith is like getting the views of Luther's 95 Theses from Pope Leo X. How about, you know, just reading Moldbug? http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com

tl;dr? Seriously, any interest I've ever had in whatever he's talking about has been stymied by his lack of concision, even simple methods like the pyramid style which allows for the full treatment. When this blew up I tried reading, then skimming the Carlyle essay, couldn't make myself (and I am somewhat interested in learning about political philosophies I'm not yet familiar with, and of course the peculiar institu…

In contrast, I devoured the full UR archives over the course of a couple weeks. In this context, his verbosity is a feature, not a bug, because it's people like me Moldbug was trying to reach.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#19

Post by hga » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #15

clarkhat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite writing at a legal blog, IANAL, but am a mere techie like yourselves. Or was, till I took an arrow to the knee. Anyway, thanks for your kind words re the post!

I enjoy your writing but I think I disagree with the successes that you attribute to the blue team. Some of them are right on, but some successes are only that if you say that blue means liberal like Adam Smith was a liberal and not a mercantilist. That's just my take though. Cheers!

The general, reductionist way I've seen it put and like, is that the "blue team" has been so successful in the culture war that they are now reduced to policing the battlefield and shooting the survivors. Which Yarvin obviously was, seeing as how there's little to no chance Urbit will ever get a chance in this current totally politicized environment.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#20

Post by amcastillo » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #12

Even though I'm deliciously close to 200 karma I'm going to ask this anyway... If someone has a view that is actually destructive for the forum its aired in ( I'm speaking hypothetically now ) does it have to be accommodated. By that, and I genuinely want to know what you guys think, what if a political candidate advocated the end of democratic elections? A "one man, one vote, one time" kind of thing. How is that han…

Some important context to recognize in this incident is that it was a handful of explicitly (leftist) political personalities that rose any stink to begin with. Clark more or less names them all in his piece. Most of the ones who pushed to censor Urbit from Strange Loop even admitted that they personally were not attending the conference. Most conference attendants would not have had the first clue that a member of the Urbit team maintained a conservative political blog from 2007 to 2013 or so under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. The ones that did probably would not care too much about it as most of them are not preoccupied with aggressive radical politics. They'd attend the talk, or not, and go on with their lives.

It's a heckler's vote. Now, the conversation is about Yarvin and his politics. But if these 3-4 radical and deeply political agitators had not made this an issue to begin with, everyone attending the conference would have just known they were attending a presentation on Urbit (if they even chose to check out that session).

In other words, if this is established as a precedent, then a passionate enough fringe group can create the "destruction" they claim to be against to justify covert ideological policing. That this is occurring at a strictly technology event with a reputation for openness to innovative, experimental ideas is particularly chilling.

"Nice conference you got there, shame if this speaker I don't like created a controversy for you"-type manipulation does not seem as bad or obvious when the targeted beliefs are foreign to your own. Stepping back and anticipating the implications reveals a troubling future, and one that is occurring in many industries at once.