181–190 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fascist You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why is this not gray? I thought hacker news was above memes.
Why is it important to you that it be gray? Why are you implying that the status of Hacker News is affected by this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I also don't understand what definition of fascism you are using(and another person call you out on it earlier...). Defining it as "the one I've built up in my mind" pretty much means it's noise to me, since it does not carry any information(I have no idea what kind of definition you've built up in your mind).
It is not possible for anyone to understand what definition of any word anyone is using. Regardless of dictionaries human concepts are organic and subjective and very difficult to communicate. The entirety of human art is based on this concept. If you can see only noise there perhaps you have subsisted on a barren rule-based if-then existence a little too long.
So instead of attempting to clarify what you mean by 'fascism' to further discussion, you effectively declare that the words you use only have meaning to you, making further discussion impossible. I hope then it's acceptable to use the word 'gay' to designate 'lame' (especially among my gay friends), unless you're also stuck in that barren rule based wasteland too.
Words only point to a reality. And while we cannot know the entirety of that reality, it can certainly be made much clearer in this case. Words are useless unless they're communal property and their meanings (sufficiently) shared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly put there by their fellow-revolutionaries.
Well, it's a high-stakes game. As Benjamin Franklin said, you hang together or your hang separately. But far more put there by the state, make no mistake. It's not like there haven't been plenty of purges and organized campaigns of systematic repression from the state to the left. But you like ignoring that when we talk about fascist programmers not being able to present their widgets, don't you?
See: The Holocaust The Great Purge The Reign of Terror etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 This is something I'd love see SJW's here react to. How do you feel about the fact that you have created a climate of fear amongst people who disagree with you? Would you prefer convincing them of the correctness of your position, but willing to accept that at least by making th…
Responding under a throwaway. I've been involved in anti-racist/anti-fascist work, either directly or on the periphery, for about ten years at this point. This takes many forms, from street confrontations with fascists, protests at book readings and other events, and also disrupting fascist conferences and similar. Anti-Racist Action is the organization that has developed the most tactical and strategic influence in…
Communist here. Fuck you: of course we care about free speech.
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…
Nobody on the Left talks like that. I'm guessing you're actually one of Yarvin's own bunch masquerading as an antifascist to discredit the cause.
This whole concept of paying attention to fellow techies' political views is weird to me. The concept of caring about them to this degree is even weirder. Politics is a common topic here, of course. I've participated in my share of such discussions. But I couldn't tell you who took what position. I'd definitely never look at a prospective conference speaker and say, oh, that's the guy who believes X, where X is any p…
Is this a real thing? This conversation feels like a window into an alternate universe. I'm with you there. I've helped organize a couple of small regional meetings, and I have literally zero idea what the political leanings of the speakers or attendees were. Nor did I care. If someone were into radical politics in his free time, that would be his own business. If any of the speakers had veered off into unrelated vio…
But if you are informed of their political leanings, and then don't take 'appropriate' action, then that says something about YOU, like how you endorse and advocate such politics.
See how it works ;)
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.
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.
That's not fair at all. You make a value judgment by referring to (but not defining) 'real-world achievements' and follow it up with an ad hominem, instead of deconstructing the actual ideas involved.
It also makes perfect sense that following any political view radically different from the mainstream will lead to less 'real-world' success, as not only does compromising your politics for success potentially alienate you from your allies, but mainstream society will be actively and deliberately trying to prevent you from achieving that success (and apparently speaking at technical conferences).
For example, I would not have been successful in the Roman Empire, Communist Russia, or Nazi Germany unless I was willing to compromise my politics. I'm not exactly successful now because my politics don't precisely line up with the 'mainstream'. But that still says nothing about how ethical or tenable my political stance is.
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.
>though my political ideology is pretty obviously very far from the ones you've listed
That is very arguable and not obvious at all.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/sl-notes/yarvin.txt
So on the word of a few individuals he doesn't name, with information he doesn't bother to validate for himself, Alex decides to remove Curtis from the lineup because he might be 'distracting', not because of what he'd say, but just because he'd be present. This implies an environment where we're powerless against unnamed accusers, an authority who is unwilling to evaluate the merits of a case, and a group of people who are so unable to separate technical matters from politics that the mere presence of someone they disagree with makes it impossible to focus.
And you know what? I've seen exactly this sort of behavior from other corporations and both the 'left' and 'right'. It's something all groups naturally default to, and active measures need to be taken in order to avoid it. And while I get why people want to remain anonymous, I also know you cannot have the free flow of ideas when anonymous accusers can cost you your position, by making accusations they never need to verify, over things you never intend to address at a venue.
We need to challenge ideas, not bury them, especially at a conference like Strangeloop. And if the Urbit presentation was deemed good enough to hear before these facts came to light, then it's still good enough to be challenged on that basis.
P.S. By excising Curtis Yarvin in an attempt to avoid "overshadowing the talk and acting as a distraction for launching the conference as a whole", Alex Miller has done just that. And if I were to put on my tinfoil hat and give a bad faith reading of all this, considering the internet savvy are well aware of the Streisand Effect, I'd say this was exactly their intent.