PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
jonprl.org
PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
1–10 of 122 posts
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#2From the linked site within the linked site:
>The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior.
Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the political views (repeating that: political views, not actions)
..of someone else who was supposed to be at a parent conference.
Continuing on from the OP link:
>we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and fascist views...
Unless the person in question was expressing those views at a technical conference, this is a shockingly disingenuous and dishonest statement.
>..over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers.
And the appeal to "safety" is the cherry on top. Words are, by themselves, harmful to this person? What the FUCK is "emotional safety"?
These kinds of knee jerk reactions are more harmful to the free exchange of ideas than ten thousand /pol/'s.
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#3From the linked site within the linked site: > The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the…
Literal thought policing...
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#4From the linked site within the linked site: > The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the…
Literal thought policing...
Yup.
Is their belief system so fragile, that letting a person speak will destroy it???
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#5From the linked site within the linked site: > The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the…
Just so everyone's on the same page, some of the thoughts in question:
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#6From the linked site within the linked site: > The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the…
Yeah ... I don't know what PrlConf is (and the link does nothing to explain) but LambdaCon's policy and statement about it seem totally well-reasoned and fine.
So cancelling whatever Prl is seems like yet more internet outrage culture that we would be better off with less of.
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#7From the linked site within the linked site: > The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the…
Without commenting on whether or not LamdbaConf is actually doing those things, the perception that it is is both (a) out of the control of LambdaConf and (b) completely up to the interpretation of, e.g., the PrlConf organizers.
In some sense, speaking at a conference or even a subconference is an act which builds the platform of that conference. If one wishes to not give energy to a platform which supports people who one believes should not have a large platform... then I can't really see what's wrong with canceling PrlConf.
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#8I'm disturbed by the amount of CSS that was used to try to make the page look like it hadn't been styled.
Font choice: "propagandaregular". Are we being trolled?
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literal thought policing...
Yup. Is their belief system so fragile, that letting a person speak will destroy it???
Nope, not about fragility at all. It's about creating spaces where a large chunk of people aren't being literally attacked (and told they are better suited to being slaves) by a speaker. What's the problem? Free speech can also mean no speech. I have no problem with people pulling out if they disagree so strongly with the social views of another participant. This isn't the government smashing someone's printing press, this is people voluntarily deciding not to share the stage with someone whose views they abhor.
Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
#10From the linked site within the linked site: > The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the…
Literal thought policing...
It's not thought policing. It's an individual's withdrawal from an event because of a disagreement. Basically, it's Jon Sterling saying "I don't want to organize a workshop alongside someone who advocates racial slavery."
Thought policing is bad because it violates the rights of individuals. Jon Sterling withdrawing from a conference does not violate the rights of any individuals. You are very wrong to call it "thought policing."