Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy • Hacker News Board

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#181

Post by tatterdemalion » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 12:40 AM UTC

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?

There is a big difference between someone who secretly or privately holds an offensive belief, and someone who publicly advocates an offensive belief. This is not about Yarvin's "beliefs," this is about what Yarvin has done and is doing, including using this controversy as an opportunity to again expound offensive and fallacious claims about race. This post goes into a lot of detail:

https://medium.com/@codepaintsleep/lambdaconf-2016-controver...

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#182

Post by zardgiv » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 12:43 AM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #172

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…

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." Socia…

I don't think we need to worry about radicalizing the guy talking about how some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#183

Post by tatterdemalion » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 12:44 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #122

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?

How about communism? Communists have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people in the last century. If some guy with idiosyncratic political views and a blog qualifies, surely communists must?

This factually false. Preventable deaths as the result of government policy are atrocious, but they are not murder. "Capitalists" would not come out looking good either if the deaths that resulted from government policy in capitalist countries were called "capitalist murders."

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying the gulags weren't murder, or that the Holodomor wasn't murder. I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#184

Post by shkkmo » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 1:52 AM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #182

shkkmo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." Socia…

I don't think we need to worry about radicalizing the guy talking about how some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? To the best of my knowledge, he was not advocating for the enslavement of anyone. However, I don't care to argue about or defend his writings.

My issue is with the belief that by alienating someone from your 'polite society' you will somehow shame them into changing their views.

Social shaming works only when it is done by people within the shame-ee's social group. By excluding a person, you are directly decreasing the effectiveness of that shaming.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#185

Post by zardgiv » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:57 AM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #184

zardgiv wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need to worry about radicalizing the guy talking about how some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? To the best of my knowledge, he was not advocating for the enslavement of anyone. However, I don't care to argue about or defend his writings. My issue is with the belief that by alienating someone from your 'polite society' you will somehow shame them into changing their views. Social shaming works only when it is done by people within the shame-ee's social gr…

I appreciate you not challenging the fact that he espouses the belief that some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

However, you must be really confused (or just not thinking very hard) if you think that people are trying to change Moldbug's mind.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#186

Post by rmsrmsrms » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:16 AM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #185

shkkmo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? To the best of my knowledge, he was not advocating for the enslavement of anyone. However, I don't care to argue about or defend his writings. My issue is with the belief that by alienating someone from your 'polite society' you will somehow shame them into changing their views. Social shaming works only when it is done by people within the shame-ee's social gr…

I appreciate you not challenging the fact that he espouses the belief that some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves. However, you must be really confused (or just not thinking very hard) if you think that people are trying to change Moldbug's mind.

I think the argument he makes consists of several claims:

1) black people are an ethnic group or race // exact terminology and semantics is debatable

2) being black means you have a lower IQ (on average) // true in the US

3) IQ is in part genetically determined // true

4) the lower IQ of blacks is due to genetics // pure speculation, not possible to verify due to poor environment

5) having a lower IQ makes you a better slave // speculation

6) being black makes you a genetically better slave // follows from 4 and 5

It's possible that Moldbug reconsidered claim 4 due to all the attention it got. He reads HN.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#187

Post by zardgiv » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:21 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #169

calibraxis wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be great if you have evidence that Moldbug is an ex-con who underwent rehab for his racism! If not, would you really invite someone with a record of stabbing people at conferences? Who writes literature advocating murder, etc? (In the real world, Moldbug leverages society's obvious violence against African-Americans. He's therefore complicit in that systematic violence. That's why Lambdaconf's racist supporters…

> It'd be great if you have evidence that Moldbug is an ex-con who underwent rehab for his racism! Unlike violent crime, racist speech isn't immediately dangerous. But in any case, if you believe he's a criminal, rally to have him arrested; him being a free man means that he has nothing to go in rehab for. > society's obvious violence against African-Americans You mean, African-American's obvious violence against Afr…

When arguing in favor of a racist speaker on the grounds of free speech, it's probably not the best idea to go off on a tangent quoting a "race realist" publication whose founder said:

"Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears"

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#188

Post by Turing_Machine » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:27 AM UTC

tatterdemalion wrote: post #183

Turing_Machine wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about communism? Communists have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people in the last century. If some guy with idiosyncratic political views and a blog qualifies, surely communists must?

This factually false. Preventable deaths as the result of government policy are atrocious, but they are not murder. "Capitalists" would not come out looking good either if the deaths that resulted from government policy in capitalist countries were called "capitalist murders." EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying the gulags weren't murder, or that the Holodomor wasn't murder. I'm saying the only way you get to canards l…

I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.

If you lock someone in a room, prevent him from leaving, and don't give him food, he will die, and you will be (correctly) charged with murder.

Can you name the capitalist countries that have murdered millions of their own citizens for us? Or even one such country? Nazi Germany was an authoritarian socialist regime, so don't even try going there.

Thanks.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#189

Post by zardgiv » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:36 AM UTC

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #186

zardgiv wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you not challenging the fact that he espouses the belief that some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves. However, you must be really confused (or just not thinking very hard) if you think that people are trying to change Moldbug's mind.

I think the argument he makes consists of several claims: 1) black people are an ethnic group or race // exact terminology and semantics is debatable 2) being black means you have a lower IQ (on average) // true in the US 3) IQ is in part genetically determined // true 4) the lower IQ of blacks is due to genetics // pure speculation, not possible to verify due to poor environment 5) having a lower IQ makes you a bett…

If you wish hard enough, anything is possible!

Unfortunately, we're left to examine the evidence. He could easily defuse all of these situations that have led to him being disinvited in the past. In fact, he made an article specifically for this shitstorm, and nowhere did he disavow these writings.

Tying yourself in knots to come up with a way he's OK just makes you look silly, at best.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#190

Post by dmix » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:36 AM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #177

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…

Left authoritarianism and right wing authoritarianism are two sides of the same coin [1]. I couldn't accept one without the other as they operate on the same principles. Which is why I am willing to go to a tech conference as long as the subject matter is entirely about technology. If it included political discourse by said people it would be a different story and I wouldn't attend. Attendance is voluntary. And as far as I'm concerned people are free to attend whatever political conference they please. The only time I would support forcing a speaker not to be able to attend is if he planned to give a speech specifically involving inciting violence, coercion, or other blatant criminal acts at that specific venue - and specifically a venue residing within my local community/country. The internet is a different story.

[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-29/emergence-orwellian...