Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy • Hacker News Board

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#111

Post by phillmv » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

sparky_z wrote: post #98

phillmv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not OP but I can't dignify an asinine Yudkowsky quote with a reply, so you get one instead. Why are essays non-actions in your view? Suppose someone had a lengthly career writing $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW essays and promoting them on the internet. Indeed, was famous for it. Is there no $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW that would cause you to feel awkward about being known to associate with this person?

I never said essays are non-actions. In fact, I used them as an example of them a type of action: one which would not cause me to disassociate myself from someone else. I might feel a little awkward about it, mostly because I'm sure there would be several people like you doing their damnedest to make me feel that way. I'm not a robot, and I'm subject to all the same sorts of social pressure as everybody else. But if…

I suppose I just don't understand why you'd consider proselytizing abhorrent views to be an insufficient cause or behaviour. They occupy space, and are capable of terrorizing others just all the same.

To extend my other comment, which you've read:

Suppose you and I were friends. Suppose further that I discover that you routinely have over Mr Qux, who has an extensive archive of Medium posts suggesting that society would be better off if my ethnic group were to be exterminated.

Mr Qux doesn't say it needs to happen. He spends a lot of time recommending that people not act on his words. But there it is, essay after essay carefully explaining how all of society's ills would be solved if my ethnic group were to just disappear overnight.

Why, you reply, we only ever discuss software architecture. He's charming and effusive, and exceedingly polite whenever in the presence of others of your ethnic group. His medium posts never come up for discussion!

He's a brilliant software engineer, you go on. In fact, I'm sure he'd be a great hire at my company and have forwarded his resume.

It'd be irrelevant to me how pleasant this person is. He considers me unworthy of breathing the same air. Should he ever be in a position of power over me, how could I possibly trust him to be impartial? How am I supposed to believe that his impressively well articulated views on my inferiority would never impinge on his ability to produce an objective assessment of my abilities?

It'd be hard for me not to interpret your behaviour as implicitly condoning that man's views.

--

Nobody's ever threatened to extinguish my ethnic group, tho there are some negative stereotypes. But it's rather easy for me to empathize with the above scenario.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#112

Post by SolarNet » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 1:49 AM UTC

Aqueous wrote: post #14

ng12 wrote: post #6

How crazy -- I'm vaguely familiar with Curtis' work, and would have never known (or cared) about his political views until the people looking to "no platform" him gave him a platform. Streisand effect, people.

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

Especially with a view like this at a conference like this. By attempting to deny him a platform at an event which is often based on a meritocracy (like so much of hacker culture) they are admitting his position might have merit and hence must be censored rather than simply dismissed by anyone who hears it.

To be clear neither his political or technical views hold merit, his project is an interesting mental exercise, but I doubt many will see any technical merit.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#113

Post by eruditely » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 1:50 AM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #13

I read an FAQ on neo-reactionism and it's totally insane. But I would be fine with the guy lecturing about computers if he knew his stuff. Honestly I find intelligent, rational people who come to radically different conclusions about society to be fascinating. On the other hand, if Hitler himself was alive and gave a speech on art, I wouldn't want to hear it because of his politics and actions. So clearly there is a…

You should read his work and not scotty's f.a.q.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#114

Post by phillmv » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 1:52 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #103

phillmv wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course, obviously. I would not associate myself with, say, someone who in their off time writes long diatribes about how my ethnic group is lazy, incompetent, undeserving of legal rights and fit only to be exterminated or enslaved. I'd be a fool not to shun this person and encourage others to do the same, however nice and pleasant they may be in person. For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effecti…

For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole. What Social Media has generated is a millieu that jumps at the chance to engage in social shaming.…

We're not discussing social media. We're discussing whether to extend the graces of polite society to people with abhorrent views.

It's not clear to me whether you understand the spirit of the Popper quote.

As I interpret it, it can be boiled down to: it's OK to not tolerate those whose unimpeded actions would to destroy your tolerant society.

I'm afraid that in that context I don't understand the rest of your comment about sincere tolerance.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#115

Post by mcphage » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 1:55 AM UTC

lukev wrote: post #16

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 a…

> 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.

That's fine. If they left it at, "I don't want to go to this conference anymore", then fewer people would have an issue here. I certainly wouldn't care enough to get involved either way. It's the next step of, "...and therefore the conference should be killed off" that I have a problem with.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#116

Post by d_t_w » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 2:01 AM UTC

tjic wrote: post #110

d_t_w wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But the conference wants to have an air of professionalism" There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any client I can think of, are there professional environments you can think of where his reputation wouldn't cause significant difficulties to participation? I'm not sure an argument from professionalism is the appropriate one. More if you have a club you can invite whoever you like, an…

> There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any I think this is an intended as an attack on Yarvin, but it makes much more sense to me as an attack on HR departments. If HR departments are filtering out tech ically astute candidates bc of what they do out of the office , they are harming the corporation.

It's a statement of fact, not a judgement.

You're welcome to your opinions of HR departments, and of Yarvin.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#117

Post by mcphage » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 2:02 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #109

stcredzero wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not showing a strong intolerance So everyone needs to show the proper intolerance towards the prescribed things? I'm glad you are coming out and saying that you are engaging in what you think is righteous intolerance. However, I think taking such a stance misses the point.

Well, pretty much, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Well, if he can't tolerate you either, then you'll both be fully tolerant!

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#118

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 2:05 AM UTC

brokentone wrote: post #8

This is really a wonderful post. Too many open source projects, conferences, and the like have turned into witch hunts by, as John mentions, the morality police. Maintainers are bullied into adopting CoCs even if there have been no issues at all in their community, and distancing themselves from valued members of their community for something dumb they may have said or done in entirely different contexts or years ago…

[deleted]

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#119

Post by mcphage » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 2:06 AM UTC

McGlockenshire wrote: post #107

douche wrote: post #9

This is probably the most reasonable response to these sorts of pressures I've ever seen. One can hope that other groups will follow their lead and strive to act like fully-grown, professional, adults. I'm sure they'll get eviscerated for it, though.

The attempt to be a neutral platform is laudable, and the wording used to express the idea seems to be well thought through. The fact remains that even though that insist that they are not endorsing any of the speakers' views, the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience (even if the presentation is entirely topical and non-controversial) acts as an implicit endorsement. Denying this doesn't change the effec…

> the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience acts as an implicit endorsement

Giving a speaker a talk acts an implicit endorsement of all of their views? That doesn't even sound remotely true, yet you state it as if it was tautological.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#120

Post by mcphage » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 2:17 AM UTC

gwright wrote: post #24

From the article: > Someone with progressive political views might feel emotionally threatened in the presence of rabid and well-known Trump supporters who are openly contemptuous of progressives in their personal lives […] Ugh. I’m not sure how I would have selected examples of potentional emotional distress but a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious attitudes wouldn’t have been my first c…

> a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious attitudes

I assume that the bit you quoted was a reference to the recent events at Emory University.