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

Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

degoes.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#131

Post by thescribe »

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

This is exactly why tolerance as called for in this thread is not a virtue.

The only people I see being tolerant in any of these threads are the ones saying "I find his views disgusting but I think he should speak".

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#133

Post by mmmnop »

antifasci wrote: post #82
danharaj wrote: post #50

This is an open letter of people protesting LambdaConf's decision: https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ I invite anyone to peruse that list and tell me these aren't some of the brightest professionals and integral community members in functional programming (subtracting me of course). I welcome anyone to make the claim that these individuals haven't come to their positions through reason and deep consideration…

The fact that you cite only a single source should stand as simple enough reason to discredit it. In response, I offer you a single citation [0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

The fact that you created a new anonymous account to do nothing more than name call stands as a simple enough way you discredited...you.

McCarthyism was intolerance, not an intolerance of intolerance. It's ironic to have to explain simple type theory here.

Or maybe not.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#134

Post by [deleted] »

thescribe wrote: post #130
calibraxis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moldbug's political views aren't the issue, it's his political action . He has a record of going to conferences and advocating racism: working to exclude. And one of Lambdaconf's sponsors is a racist political blog, which sounds unprecedented. (Evidence in my comment history.) (The context is a country which kills and incarcerates blacks, post-slavery. Racism is political action which directly impacts the lives of co…

Can you provide an example of any action he has taken that is not merely expressing a view?

[deleted]

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#135

Post by thescribe »

danharaj wrote: post #128
Turing_Machine wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about someone who grew up in a communist state, with friends and relatives being hauled off by the secret police on a regular basis? Those people might feel threatened by communist speakers. Do they then have the right to "no platform" those speakers?

Rights apply to government interactions with its subjects. Lambdaconf isn't a government, none of us are. And really? Being disinvited is the same as secret police renditions? But let's take your absurd comparison in good faith: I don't care whether they have the "right" or not, I would oppose retaliation by a state on the merits of the situation . Again I will repeat my exasperation at the idea that one must have a…

Free speech that doesn't protect what you find loathsome is ineffective to the point of being worthless.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#136

Post by thescribe »

jordigh wrote: post #45

> Free speech advocates have gathered on one side, advocates for social justice on the other wtf Those two are supposed to be the same side. There's some really perverse twisting of words here to put social justice in opposition to free speech. How has the debate come to this?

I have not seen or experienced everything, but from my perspective, social justice seems to be the philosophical opposite to natural rights.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#137

Post by ankushnarula »

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…

Funny how, using your own logic, Google didn't take down Moldbug's posts. BTW, have you stopped using Google products since they endorse this kind of speech on the platform?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#138

Post by thescribe »

mmmnop wrote: post #133
antifasci wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you cite only a single source should stand as simple enough reason to discredit it. In response, I offer you a single citation [0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

The fact that you created a new anonymous account to do nothing more than name call stands as a simple enough way you discredited...you. McCarthyism was intolerance, not an intolerance of intolerance. It's ironic to have to explain simple type theory here. Or maybe not.

Perhaps the grandparent rationally fears retaliation?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#139

Post by stcredzero »

thescribe wrote: post #131
Frondo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is exactly why tolerance as called for in this thread is not a virtue. The only people I see being tolerant in any of these threads are the ones saying "I find his views disgusting but I think he should speak".

Doing unto others how they would have done to you, had your side not won -- how is that a virtue? That's like taking prisoners and violating the Geneva Convention, because they would have behaved that way to you. Unfortunately, this is the kind of nation the United States has become. (Really, nations, plural, because we've forgotten how to be a loyal opposition and hang together.)

Everyone thinks their side is just. The lesson of history is that one can recognize the truly just and enlightened through their magnanimity. Those who did wrong should be punished. Sure, but going around bullying those who thought wrong? There's something really shortsighted and twisted about that. How isn't that simply McCarthyism through legal socially-enforced means?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#140

Post by [deleted] »

thescribe wrote: post #130
calibraxis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moldbug's political views aren't the issue, it's his political action . He has a record of going to conferences and advocating racism: working to exclude. And one of Lambdaconf's sponsors is a racist political blog, which sounds unprecedented. (Evidence in my comment history.) (The context is a country which kills and incarcerates blacks, post-slavery. Racism is political action which directly impacts the lives of co…

Can you provide an example of any action he has taken that is not merely expressing a view?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN