Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

popehat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

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

#171

Post by nkurz »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #164
nkurz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference How does one distinguish a "fascist talk" from a "technical talk presented by one accused of being a fascist"? Is the difference relevant? I think Moldbug views himself as anti-fascist, and argues that Fascism and Communism are alternative undesirable endgames for democracy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyle... And I'm…

>How does one distinguish a "fascist talk" from a "technical talk presented by one accused of being a fascist"? Well, pragmatically, the difference is immaterial, because to maximize the memetic intensity of anti-fascism, we have to attack all fascists everywhere all the time. Within the fold, there is very little opposition, because once one valid point has been made, going against it is nearly impossible. This is t…

Do you think Moldbug is intended as a fiction?

No, I think they are essays where in the author is testing out ideas to see how they hold together when criticized by the world. Some of these ideas are deep beliefs, where the question is simply how the outside will react to hearing about them. Some of them are fragments of arguments he's trying to piece together, in the hope that the process of writing will clear things up in his own mind. Others are probably there simply because he was drawn in the cadence of the language.

But I do think that Moldbug is consciously a persona, and not identical to Yarvin. And I don't think either is a fascist by any reasonable definition. Racist? Yes, the writing is racist by the current way the word is used to label practically any belief in racial differences. But I'd prefer to judge the author (Yarvin) by how he treats others in the world, not how he writes about the world in the abstract.

I fully enjoy the fact that people are now afraid to be racist, sexist, etc., at tech conferences.

If this was the only outcome, I'd might agree with the tactics. But what if their pragmatic reaction is to simply avoid situations where they can be accused of these things? Don't hire women, because they might accuse you of sexism. Don't hire minorities, because you might lose your job if accused of racial prejudice?

In such an environment, silence is likely the best strategy. But along with the silence is likely the belief that everyone else shares the same opinion, but similarly doesn't speak about it. I believe more in sunlight as a disinfectant: get the ideas out in the open. I think it's good for people to hear more points of view they disagree with.

I'm one person and pretty idiosyncratic in my ideology and praxis.

Yes, but that ideology is so different from mine that I learn just by the knowledge that such a viewpoint exists.

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

#172

Post by amcastillo »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #163
amcastillo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anti-racist and anti-fascist organizing happens under the mantle of a thousand different groups all over the world. And yet we are asked to believe that an obscure blogger flirting with monarchist political thought would introduce a dangerous authoritarian element if allowed to present on a technical topic. Thanks for putting this into context.

I would not call Moldbug obscure; neo-reactionaryism is growing especially in tech circles and legitimizing its source is a dangerous act, not because he will seize power given the platform, but because it communicates a lack of concern with the threat "neo-reactionaryism" or fascism represents.

> neo-reactionaryism is growing especially in tech circles

This will be great news to the neoreactionaries. How do you figure?

> because it communicates a lack of concern with the threat "neo-reactionaryism" or fascism represents.

And what is the threat, if not that they will seize power?

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

#173

Post by jart »

davidgerard wrote: post #37
Kelly2 wrote: post #29

To play devil's advocate, a conference is not only about the speeches, but also about the people you can meet there. Inviting Moldbug bring not only his own person but also his followers. It's understandable if your goal is to foster a diverse crowd to not invite a group of people who constantly argue against any kind of modern society.

To be fair, neoreactionaries are mostly notable for their startling lack of real-world achievements. Yarvin is exceptional in this regard. (Tunney has disclaimed "neoreaction" of late.) They tend to have extensive blogging credentials, however. (And are a dab hand with an occasional cheese dip.) edit: if there are others with notable real-world achievements, I will eagerly accept correction.

Tunney here. I'm not a neoreactionary. I never was.

- 2014/05/27: @ReactionaryTree I don’t identify as a neoreactionary. Although I talk to a lot of people who do. https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/471281445013843968

- 2014/05/30: @tesseractiv I don't identify as a neoreactionary. I already had my movement. I don't want to join any others. https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/472425936692854784

- 2014/06/28: @nullvoid9 I'm not a neoreactionary :'( I'm also friendly and will treat you with the same respect you give me. https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/482757375854522368

- 2014/08/04: Who said I was a neoreactionary? I keep telling people I'm not, but no one believes me. http://ask.fm/JustineTunney/answer/116475763475

- 2015/01/15: @DurrutiOvercloc Well, most of the things. Like, I’m not pro-slavery. I’ve also never called myself a neoreactionary. https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/555603973286400000

- 2015/03/11: @jhamby @justkelly_ok I'm not a neoreactionary. I've never been one. Also Shanley is a huge racist. https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/575829516079263744

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

#174

Post by jart »

lrc wrote: post #64

Thought experiment: is there any extremity of leftist (or progressive if you prefer) thinking (say, on a personal blog) that could conceivably get one disinvited to speak on a technical topic at a conference of this sort?

The more left-wing you are, the more society will reward you. For example, I was never really able to get a good job until after I had spent a bunch of time doing radical left-wing activism. Around age 27, I helped organize thousands of people to stage protests in Manhattan. I ran subversive media campaigns. I openly called for an anarchist-communist revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Regime (which is ironic if you consider that America is already a communist country.)

All these experiences helped me get socially connected with a lot of powerful and important people. They all loved me. I even put the fact that I engaged in this sort of troublemaking on my resume. I'm not kidding. I even talked about it at job interviews. Stuff like this impresses people. There's no doubt in my mind that it led to my current level of success, writing code for a living.

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

#175

Post by Cowen »

Sacho wrote: post #170
Cowen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concepts are understood in contexts. Everyone involved in this context is American, so it's natural for slavery here to be viewed through an American context. In that context, slavery is inherently racist. After all, it's not like Moldbug's writing shies away from this idea. > Not all humans are born the same, of course, and the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery. For oth…

You're unintentionally perpetuating the stereotype that US citizens do not know or care about history. Those people involved may be American, but surely some of them can look beyond their own noses to realize that a person speaking in broad, abstract strokes isn't talking about them in particular .

Nonsense. I'm saying that people live in the real world with real contexts, not in Context-Free-Abstraction-Land.

Real contexts, where abstract concepts have been concrete realities, put natural and rational limits on the ability to treat those concepts as abstract ideas to be debated solely on their hypothesized merits rather than their hard realities. There is a very rational difference between arguing in favor of communism on an American college campus, where communism is a lovely abstract ideal, and arguing in favor of it in Romania or Ukraine where communism was a brutal reality.

Moldbug is an American, being read by Americans, writing about his support for the institution of slavery, and explicitly saying that some races are genetically better suited for slavery than others. It is far more rational to treat that as racist than to bend over backwards and pretend that it is not in the name of free debate.

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

#176

Post by lrc »

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #128
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he is so foundational. And somewhat discredited at this point? I don't care to write up a bunch, but his ideas about universal grammar built on genetic properties have not fared well over the years. I know he's done other stuff, but that seems his main claim to fame, excluding the political stuff.

I'm not a linguist but he seems to get a large amount of credit in that area.

It is absolutely unimaginable that Chomsky might be uninvited from any conference for anything he has ever said (one piquant example: defense of the Khmer Rouge).

Let's face it: the window of conference political acceptability covers the point -infinity. We know the upper bound is finite, and shrinking.

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

#177

Post by lrc »

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #104
lrc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that if being part of a bombing campaign isn't an impediment to becoming a Distinguished Professor at UIC, then being part of a bombing campaign isn't enough to get him disinvited from StrangeLoop either, however many astonished tweets might have greeted his appearance on the program: becuase, in that case, it would have been easy for the organizers to separate his political thought from his educational t…

Just playing devils advocate, he had renounced violence by the time he joined academia hadn't he? He wasn't Carlos the Jackal. Honestly, I can't remember the whole weathermen story. This whole episode does make you wonder where the line would be drawn in the future.

+1 for reminding me of Carlos: I love spy fiction

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

#178

Post by TheCartographer »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #137
TheCartographer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You might be unsurprised to find out that free speech is not valued on the left or among "SJW" groups. I suggest you research this further, because I can't communicate to you in a single hacker news comment why this is, or what theoretical basis it has. Who needs theory? Practicality tells all. Extreme ideologies don't value free speech, because free speech allows the unwashed masses to communicate to each other jus…

I'm sure you've studied these political ideologies extensively (though my political ideology is pretty obviously very far from the ones you've listed). But it doesn't seem like you've ever questioned the sacred cow that is free speech to you. I would give you some discussion questions, but I'm sure you'll never, ever move past this roadblock, so I won't feed the trolls.

No trolling here. I'm a staunch believer in free speech, no matter how distasteful.

Not because it is a sacred cow, but because I believe the benefits to free speech far outweigh any drawbacks. (For largely the same reasons, I support open data in government to an much further extent than I think most people would.)

Out of curiostity, Mr Throwaway, what -ism do you use to identity your personal ideology?

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

#179

Post by sudioStudio64 »

almaIV wrote: post #150
sudioStudio64 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And mental trauma from torture or combat that leads to suicide?

It doesn't lead to suicide. It predisposes one to suicide, but the trauma isn't insurmountable. What causally leads to suicide is the choice to take some kind of weapon and use it on yourself.

You seem really invested in this idea. I think that we are at odds on the idea that mental damage can be insurmountable. I could speculate as to why, but in the end I think we should just call it good.

Cheers.

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

#180

Post by anon_adderlan »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #163
amcastillo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anti-racist and anti-fascist organizing happens under the mantle of a thousand different groups all over the world. And yet we are asked to believe that an obscure blogger flirting with monarchist political thought would introduce a dangerous authoritarian element if allowed to present on a technical topic. Thanks for putting this into context.

I would not call Moldbug obscure; neo-reactionaryism is growing especially in tech circles and legitimizing its source is a dangerous act, not because he will seize power given the platform, but because it communicates a lack of concern with the threat "neo-reactionaryism" or fascism represents.

> and legitimizing its source is a dangerous act

This thinking, right here, is a problem.

Discussing an individual's technical contributions does not legitimize their political views, let alone their technical ones.

And the big threat today is not neo-reactionaryism, but zealotry in all its forms. Radicals from any group are more dangerous than moderates from a single distasteful group, and they all use exactly the same tactics to win. And if we're going to win by burying bad ideas through threats and intimidation instead of openly dismantling them through rational and ethical thought, then I'm not sure the battle is even worth winning.

Post reply on HN