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

151–160 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#151

Post by barsonme »

sclv wrote: post #143
barsonme wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Big distinction -- people are moderated for their content on Hacker News, not off.

If this speaker makes a racial slur he'll likely be removed from the conference. Inside the conference (much like HN) they're free to limit his speech. However, as was mentioned in the article, the conference does not and will not judge speech outside the conference, much like HN does not (to my knowledge) ban users for offensive speech outside HN.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#152

Post by stcredzero »

thescribe wrote: post #141
stcredzero wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Otherwise known as an eye for an eye, making the whole world blind.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#153

Post by [deleted] »

st3v3r wrote: post #79
Kalium wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A speaker-blind selection process selected a talk by someone who is considered by some to be offensive for reasons not directly relevant to the content of the talk.

Yet definitely relevant to the people who would choose to attend the conference. It's definitely going to make some people feel uncomfortable attending, knowing that they invited someone who believes that you are not deserving of human rights and dignity to speak.

[deleted]

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#154

Post by Kalium »

phillmv wrote: post #111
sparky_z wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

Preface: people have tried to extinguish my ethnic group. They've even made a good go at it in living memory.

I am uncomfortable with the notion that a person should be shunned professionally because of their views. That's one thing those people did to members of my ethnic group and those who were not in favor of genocide.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#155

Post by calibraxis »

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?

Do you want evidence of him... shivving someone?

(But then again, how is stabbing someone with a knife relevant to a talk's quality?)

(But then again, how is a talk's quality relevant to free expression of views?)

Professional conferences "censor" speakers who don't provide what their audiences want. And have codes of conduct censoring harassing speech. You too: does everyone get to deliver speeches in your home? Visit your workplace and undermine you?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#156

Post by anaphor »

About the chart on "moral reasoning", consequentialism, the idea that only the outcome is what matters, is an ethical system that one can base their morals off of. I'm not sure where they got the idea that they're two separate things.

Also the whole "xyism" thing seems to be their own made-up terminology for the idea of an illusory correlation in social psychology. Why not just say stereotyping groups is a bad idea instead of the weird references to logic and set theory?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#157

Post by tomp »

danharaj wrote: post #30
tomp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery. The alternative is to give voice to an almost-militant group of bullies bent on oppressing opinions of people whe don't think like them. Only one of these positions is logically internally consistent.

What does "almost-militant" mean?

It means that, if I believed in the concept of "verbal assault" or "verbal violence", they would be equivalent to a militant terrorist group, planning and executing organized attacks.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#158

Post by tomp »

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…

> I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk.

They didn't deliberately include him. They just didn't exclude him. They actually deserve the adjective "inclusive".

Personally, I too would encourage as many people as possible to exclude themselves, in particular due to their intolerance.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#159

Post by tomp »

calibraxis wrote: post #155
thescribe wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you want evidence of him... shivving someone? (But then again, how is stabbing someone with a knife relevant to a talk's quality?) (But then again, how is a talk's quality relevant to free expression of views?) Professional conferences "censor" speakers who don't provide what their audiences want. And have codes of conduct censoring harassing speech. You too: does everyone get to deliver speeches in your home? Vis…

> But then again, how is stabbing someone with a knife relevant to a talk's quality?

It's not. I find no reason to exclude an ex-convict that has been charged and served his jail-time. Including them back into the society is the only way we can at least hope to combat recidivism.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#160

Post by tomp »

d_t_w wrote: post #93
HCIdivision17 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully note that their conclusion is the opposite: that you can separate the person from the talk. That an informative talk well spoken by an asshole is still informative. And, well, the speaker may still be a jerk. But the conference wants to have an air of professionalism, and therefore you should go to be informed, not as a vote in a popularity contest of any kind. They also seem to have a strong intoleran…

"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 client I can think of

I really don't understand how personal opinions aren't protected in the same way as religion (i.e. that they can't be a reason not to hire someone). Religion is just as much a choice as any other personal belief/opinion, and it has caused at least as much, if not much more, harm as e.g. racism and sexism. In addition, it's a signal that the person is fundamentally irrational or immature (cf. an adult that believes Santa or unicorns exist).

Post reply on HN