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

141–150 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#141

Post by thescribe »

stcredzero wrote: post #139
thescribe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

>Doing unto others how they would have done to you, had your side not won

This is such an elegant and concise summary.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#142

Post by danharaj »

thescribe wrote: post #135
danharaj wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Am I being unclear here? I don't believe in free speech. It's an inconsistent, dogmatic belief except as a legal principle, and governments purporting to honor that legal principle almost never respect it when they feel threatened by speech. I'm not claiming a moral high ground here. I'm exercising my speech, and I fully accept the consequences of my speech. It is precisely that my speech has consequences that makes it worth exercising.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#143

Post by sclv »

barsonme wrote: post #67
danharaj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is such a pretty principal when you can always foist its costs on other people. You can keep your marketplace. I'm going to be emphatic, because i am emphatic about this position: Free speech is a powerful principle because speech has power. Because speech can hurt people, because speech can change the world. If speech did not matter, free speech would not matter. If speech matters, and speech has power,…

It should be noted 'free speech' is the reason you can have this conversation in the first place. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That is, if you wish to not have your opinions censored you cannot ask for the censorship of other opinions you feel offensive. I wish bigots and other prejudiced people would spare us, but I value my freedom to speak my mind more than I dislike hearing hateful speech.

There's no free speech on hackernews. People get moderated all the time! If hackernews can moderate its comments, then can't a conference moderate its speakers?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#144

Post by antifasci »

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.

And yet, the 'intolerance' that you're so intolerant of goes without citation, without explanation, without discussion. Strikes me as blatant McCarthyism.

Perhaps my account is anonymous because the comment should stand on its own? The discussion surrounding this issue shouldn't require personal reputation. The facts should be sufficient.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#145

Post by stcredzero »

phillmv wrote: post #114
stcredzero wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commen…

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

Extending the graces of polite society is one kind of tolerance. Another lesson of history is that peace and harmony is found through commerce. One of the closes friendships in the house when I was an undergrad was between a gay man and a woman who started out rabidly homophobic. They became best friends because they watched soap operas together. Had he behaved as you advocate and shunned her for what she thought, then she would never have become his best friend and she would never have realized the unfounded errors of her upbringing.

Yes, people who have done bad things should be punished. Going around punishing people for stuff they've said is simply intolerant. A society that enacts a regime like this through social means is not virtuous because it has tolerant and protective laws. It would be no better than a society that has granted racial minorities equal status on paper, but continues to oppress them through other means. (Yes, I am talking about the US.) One of the key messages of Gandhi and MLK is that your moral and philosophical consistency is vital, lest you unwittingly become yet another oppressor.

OK to not tolerate those whose unimpeded actions would to destroy your tolerant society.

Being tolerant in just the letter of the law but highly intolerant "in spirit" will destroy a tolerant society. It is happening right now. As with many things, it is harder to see at the top of the socioeconomic ladder and much easier to see at the bottom.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#146

Post by McGlockenshire »

ankushnarula wrote: post #137
McGlockenshire wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

False equivalence. Google isn't a conference.

That said, you should know as well as I do that some people have indeed decided to stop using Google services based on their political behavior and viewpoints and actions ... or silence and inactions.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#147

Post by Turing_Machine »

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…

You are missing the point.

Yarvin was disinvited because his political beliefs are threatening (and yes, several people used the word "threatened").

Therefore, communists should also be disinvited if anyone feels threatened.

Yes or no?

I mentioned nothing about "the state", by the way. Clearly Lambaconf is a private organization that can invite (or disinvite) anyone it wants.

I am asking why "feeling threatened" by Yarvin (who, as near as I can figure out --- there's no way I'm going to plow through all that turgid prose) is a political party of one, and who (again, as far as I know) has never actually harmed anyone, is a valid reason for disinvitation while feeling threatened by communists (who most assuredly have actually murdered millions of people) is not.

Do you have an answer to that or not?

I strongly suspect that you do not.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#148

Post by Turing_Machine »

danharaj wrote: post #142
thescribe wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Am I being unclear here? I don't believe in free speech . It's an inconsistent, dogmatic belief except as a legal principle, and governments purporting to honor that legal principle almost never respect it when they feel threatened by speech. I'm not claiming a moral high ground here. I'm exercising my speech, and I fully accept the consequences of my speech. It is precisely that my speech has consequences that makes…

Am I being unclear here? I don't believe in free speech.

No, I think you're being perfectly clear.

I, and many others, find your disbelief in free speech threatening (frankly, this attitude scares the hell out of me).

That would make it okay for us to prevent you from speaking in public or holding gainful employment? Yes? No? If not, why not?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#149

Post by Turing_Machine »

McGlockenshire wrote: post #129
mcphage wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The endorsement is implicit, not explicit. Conf: "We're giving person A a presentation slot because they have a compelling presentation on topic W." Possible Attendee: "Are you aware that person A has said things X, Y, and Z, which taken together can make people reluctant to associate with them?" Conf: "We are aware of that but do not wish to make our conference about anything X, Y, or Z. The presentation is topical.…

The endorsement is implicit, not explicit.

This is totally wrong.

To take a trivial example, criminal defendants (even obviously guilty ones) are allowed to speak in court.

You're saying that this is an "implicit endorsement" of their crimes by the court? Are you really claiming that?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#150

Post by tomp »

mintplant wrote: post #44

Quoting from a Lobste.rs post [1] on the other side of this issue: > Here’s a different approach, which explains this quite reasonably: LambdaConf made a lot of effort to contact organisations involving PoC, introducing diversity scholarships etc. to gain some fame. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, they decide to run a person which is clearly incompatible. These organisations cut their ties and oppose the project the…

Using the words "inclusive" and "diverse" to describe a position which encourages banning people who think differently than most is highly problematic and disingenuous.
Post reply on HN