Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

TL;DR LambdaConf invited a controversial speaker and people got very upset.

The whole story:

LambdaConf accepted a talk by Curtis Yarvin [0] for his work on Urbit [1][2] through a blind selection process. Before announcing the speaker list they realized this could be controversial and wrote about their decision to invite him anyway [3].

There was enormous push back on social media [4, 5], causing a number of sponsors to withdraw. An IndieGogo was set up to raise money for the conference [6] and was funded within 24 hours [7]. Soon after, a number of people co-signed a statement opposing LambdaConf's decision [8].

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin

1 - https://github.com/urbit/urbit

2 - http://urbit.org/

3 - http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion

4 - https://twitter.com/seldo/status/714258138325626880

5 - https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=lambd...

6 - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-lambdaconf-and-an-op...

7 - https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/716242082696921088

8 - https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/

(edit: formatting)

When will people learn that you don't fight a view by attempting to suppress it?

Of course, LambdaConf has every right to define its community in the way it sees fit.

While their explanation does have a lot of logical appeal (see: https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-dive...), it's important to remember that prospective attendees and speakers also have the right of free association.

The fact is, I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk. I would encourage others to make the same decision. I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so. They are human beings and deserve all the rights and privileges thereof.

But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending nothing is wrong.

This isn't a free speech issue, this is a "who do you want in your community" issue. In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity.

I hope people give me the same treatment. I am more than the content of my technical talks, and so is Yarvin.

If Hitler were alive and giving a speech about art, I would either expect he were giving a speech within the confines of a prison, or else I would try and tip off the Mossad as to when and where he was speaking. I think the operative difference here is that Hitler actually conspired to kill a few million people, whereas a neoreactionary blogger just spouts kooky stuff on the Internet.

Apropos of anything else, the 'lawyer' example is a bad one, and contrived for the purpose of example.

If an attorney "knows" that their client is guilty, they are duty-bound as officers of the court to make that knowledge known.

Obviously that doesn't happen as much as it should...