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

171–180 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#171

Post by ankushnarula »

McGlockenshire wrote: post #146
ankushnarula wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not at all. Blogger (where Moldbug's posts are alive and well) is a _platform_ - and it's owned and operated by Google. Using your logic, Google is "endorsing" this type of speech. Oh yeah - so is AWS, Azure, Akamai, CloudFlare, etc. when they take a neutral view of content.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#172

Post by shkkmo »

phillmv wrote: post #94
stcredzero wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought experiment: Is there a point at which you can treat a person as "sufficiently abhorrent" to dissuade you from associating with them? Does this point include being a productive member of society and taking part in a democratic civic life? In terms of having a tolerant and open multicultural society, the only things that shouldn't be tolerated are actions and words that run counter to having a tolerant and open…

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…

Social shaming can only work when the person being shamed is being included in the society doing the shaming. If you shame and exclude someone, you are going to end up alienating and possibly radicalizing them.

Social shaming should be used carefully, sparingly and among close knit communities.

Social shaming that works: "You are welcome, but the things you are saying make me and the people around me feel bad."

Social shaming that doesn't work: "You are a bad person and are not welcome here."

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#173

Post by st3v3r »

HCIdivision17 wrote: post #88
st3v3r wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could say that, by letting a known asshole speak, they are not showing a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery.

In a similar way, letting a known something person speak means they're not intolerant of something . I mean, yeah, you could make that argument, but it sure doesn't seem substantial or useful. That's the point of Xyism at the end: it doesn't have much to do with functional programming , and functional programming is what the conference is explicitly about. And there is an explicit threat against assholery: perform it…

"And there is an explicit threat against assholery: perform it and you'll be excluded"

Yet, this guy has performed it. And he's not being excluded.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#174

Post by st3v3r »

stcredzero wrote: post #89
st3v3r wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could say that, by letting a known asshole speak, they are not showing a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery.

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.

Why should I be tolerant of people who clearly are not tolerant of others? I mean, we're not talking about some benign disagreement, like whether you like PHP or Ruby. We're talking about someone who has flat out said that slavery should return, and certain classes of people are not deserving of basic human dignity.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong with not being tolerant of those views. Tolerating them sends the message that they are acceptable views that have merit.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#175

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

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

Apparently, the answer is: No.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#176

Post by wcummings »

This is the blog in question: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/

Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of it. There's some racist lingo, but more than anything this guy seems unhinged, like the kind of person I wouldn't want to be in a room with, let alone have a conversation with.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#177

Post by bad_user »

I do not understand the prevailing opinions in this thread and I must confess that, even though I disagree respectfully with LambdaConf's choices (respectfully as in, hey, it's their conference and I can even understand their reasoning), seeing the uncertainty and the doubt and the bullying and the lack of empathy for the less fortunate, this is the first time I'm ashamed of being a software developer.

For those with doubts, here's one of his posts that is racist by definition: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carl...

And given his now infamous Medium post, given that it can be hard to parse English, here's a review of the book that he's recommending in support of his racist views: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...

I personally don't understand how anybody can claim that his views aren't racist in the most profound hate-inducing ways, and for every such assertion it feels like a spit in the face at least of those that have had grandfathers surviving WWII, let alone the minorities amongst us that fear not for their job, but for their personal safety.

But keep thinking that hate speech is just political opinion that needs to be protected. And keep demeaning and silencing those that ring alarms, as if "SJWs" are amongst your biggest problems. Yeah, that worked out well in the past.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#178

Post by davidgerard »

An attempt to derive a concept of “inclusivity” from first principles, complete with made-up jargon words and diagrams.

DeGoes wants to be thought of as “inclusive” but doesn’t understand that the purpose of inclusivity is to hear from marginalised voices you might be systemically excluding. He thinks “ah, we’ll achieve ‘inclusivity’ by including everyone, even the odious!” Thus achieving literally the opposite. But that’s okay, he can show his working.

His new reactionary fandom (~ 0 of whom give two hoots about functional programming) are fully onside. Everyone else has left them to it; it’s unclear if DeGoes understands in any way that this is what has happened.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#179

Post by zardgiv »

mikeash wrote: post #101
lukev wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not vet the politics of all my co-speakers. That said, if my black friends are dropping out of a conference because they feel deeply uncomfortable even being near someone, that's as clear a signal as I'm likely to get that something isn't right.

Why not? For all you know, you might be attending talks from raging Nazis or hardcore Stalinists or people who think government-mandated key escrow is a decent idea. Is it only a problem if you know about it?

For me, pretty much. If those shitty ideas are important enough to the speaker that they've bubbled into my direct knowledge, then I'm forced to make a decision. Like, every talk I've been to could have been a speaker that thinks that I personally am the next Hitler and they're seething with hatred for me the whole time, but until I'm aware of it it's not really a problem.

This was not as clever a question as you thought you were posing.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#180

Post by zardgiv »

apsec112 wrote: post #71
phillmv wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought experiment: Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

"Cooperation is unstable, in both game theory and evolutionary biology, without some kind of punishment for defection. So it's one thing to subtract points off someone's reputation for mistakes they make themselves, directly. But if you also look askance at someone for refusing to castigate a person or idea, then that is punishment of non-punishers, a far more dangerous idiom that can lock an equilibrium in place eve…

Quoting a big old paragraph from someone else without providing any of your own content is just lazy.
Post reply on HN