Wonderful graphs at the bottom.
I hope that this passes. It was too bad that an article like this had to be written.
Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
31–40 of 205 posts
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#32Of 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 know this isn't the popular opinion in the modern world, but originally free speech was argued to be better than censorship, because even though negative or false ideas are present, these bad ideas can illuminate the truth.
Free speech creates a sort of natural selection of ideas--keeping the herd of ideas stronger.
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#33Of 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.
> I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so.
> But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending nothing is wrong.
Is a conference 'drinking beer and breaking bread,' or is it an appropriate forum to 'discuss or debate ideas'?
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#34Of 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…
> In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity. Isn't this exactly what you're doing?
I think the parent comment is referring to how people have tried to argue that Yarvin will be able to sequester one part of his personality and creative output, and that the rest of us should pretend his Moldbug persona doesn't affect the rest of him.
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
When will people learn that you don't fight a view by attempting to suppress it?
That wasn't the point of protesting his presence at LambdaConf. The point was so that people who want to go to LambdaConf and feel threatened and humiliated by someone's enthusiastic support of racism and slavery don't have to associate with such a person. It is so exasperating that so many people who aren't denigrated and targeted by his hateful politics think this is a matter of abstract principle . Somehow, lettin…
In public life we have to - and should - encounter and tolerate people whose opinions we find abhorrent. I would much prefer a world where I feel emotional discomfort being in the presence of someone I loathe than a world where such a person is prohibited from ever being near me, because of social ostracism. It provides for a much richer marketplace of ideas.
If you don't like him, protest him. Disturb him with your words as much as he disturbs you with his.
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#36Apropos of anything else, the 'lawyer' example is a bad one, and contrived for the purpose of example. If an attorney "knows" that their client is guilty, they are duty-bound as officers of the court to make that knowledge known. Obviously that doesn't happen as much as it should...
The general rule in Common Law (English speaking) legal systems is that if the lawyer knows (as opposed to suspects) that their client is guilty, they cannot let their client plead not guilty. They can still defend the client by pleading for a lesser sentence etc, or they can cease acting for the client. They don't have any obligation to tell the court, just an obligation not to lie to the court. Of course each jurisdiction will have its own rules about this.
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#37Apropos of anything else, the 'lawyer' example is a bad one, and contrived for the purpose of example. If an attorney "knows" that their client is guilty, they are duty-bound as officers of the court to make that knowledge known. Obviously that doesn't happen as much as it should...
Your statement is factually incorrect, at least in the US court system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privil...
I consider myself educated! I believe it is different in the UK and Australian systems, however.
But how do you police it, after all the only thing revealing such lack would be privileged...
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#38Of 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…
> In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity. Isn't this exactly what you're doing?
Not at all! I can disassociate myself from Yarvin, and even "no-platform" him while fully acknowledging that he's a legit functional programmer with interesting technical ideas.
But I can't engage with him as a peer, in community, without denying or ignoring (or accepting) that he's a racist.
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
That wasn't the point of protesting his presence at LambdaConf. The point was so that people who want to go to LambdaConf and feel threatened and humiliated by someone's enthusiastic support of racism and slavery don't have to associate with such a person. It is so exasperating that so many people who aren't denigrated and targeted by his hateful politics think this is a matter of abstract principle . Somehow, lettin…
In public life we have to - and should - encounter and tolerate people whose opinions we find abhorrent. I would much prefer a world where I feel emotional discomfort being in the presence of someone I loathe than a world where such a person is prohibited from ever being near me, because of social ostracism. It provides for a much richer marketplace of ideas. If you don't like him, protest him. Disturb him with your…
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, then its effects must be considered. To do anything less is irrational. The idea that rejecting Yarvin's ideas so emphatically that we would deny him platform would lead to unjust suppression of speech is a fallacy. It is a slippery slope. So many people who strive to be rational individuals and avoid cognitive biases, and yet balk at treating speech for what it is instead of a sacred object that should be worshipped.
By saying Yarvin should be allowed to speak, you are merely saying that protecting his speech is more important than the emotional and professional cost it exacts on the people he targets. And yes, he targets people. Through all his extremely verbose, meandering writings, a clear thread of contempt for certain others' runs.
"The relationship of master and slave is a natural human relationship: that of patron and client." - Curtis Yarvin
You can react to speech the way you want. But you're not taking any moral high ground with your approach when you explicitly deny the impact of speech on others and how they react to it. Association is a form of speech. Petitioning others to stand with you is a form of speech. Protecting Yarvin's speech on the grounds of principle, which is rejecting others' speech out of hand in contradiction of the same principles is inconsistent. All speech has consequences, and there is no neutral advocacy of "free speech" because truly free speech is a realm of conflict and inconsistency.
Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy
#40Of 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. > I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so. > But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending nothing is wrong. Is a conference 'drinking beer and breaking bread,' or is it an appropriate forum to 'discuss or debate ideas'?
That's sort of the question of whether conferences are training and professional development, or thinly veiled junkets...