41–50 of 122 posts
I'm disturbed by the amount of CSS that was used to try to make the page look like it hadn't been styled. Font choice: "propagandaregular". Are we being trolled?
Sorry about that. This note replaced our "call for proposals", which had much more formatting. Also, I'm a shite web developer, so there's that.
I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1] However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology. Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere. It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not l…
Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a time, though never as horrid as his.
I believe you are operating under the same principles of censorship AND punishment for ideas you do not agree with.
I'm sure you you strongly believe his are "obviously bad". But that's how people in the places above think too.
Now, it would have been very different if his political views were a topic of conversation at the conference but to the best of my knowledge aren't. So how do both of them tie up.
I do not know what your religion or denomination is (or if you have one) but I know a lot of people who will not let you work for them (say develop a website) if you do not in private believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and savior.
You are acting alike sir.
PS:
1. Would you act the same if it was a black dude that wrote the same thing/has the same ideas he has?
2. To what extent should he be ostracized? Can he get investment in your VC firm for a photo app? Get a job at your company managing servers? Open a bank account?
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
PPS: What he wrote is very very insulting and reprehensible to me and I'm sure many others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. Is their belief system so fragile, that letting a person speak will destroy it???
I'd say they have enough integrity to not support a parent organization that has made an odious decision. There's a different between "allowing someone to speak (anywhere, at all)" and "providing them a platform." The parent org has decided to provide a platform, which has consequences. You can disagree about the decisions made, but your "belief system so fragile" is a strawman.
And yes, fragility I believe is the right word to describe killing a technical conference because he doesn't like another speaker.
I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1] However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology. Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere. It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not l…
Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a time, though never as horrid as his.
I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1] However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology. Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere. It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not l…
Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a time, though never as horrid as his.
In this case, an individual has opted not to participate in an event that a racist is speaking at; not because he thinks the racist will spout racist things during his talk, but because being involved with racists is repugnant to him. That's his right. Are you going to force people to participate in events against their will to protect the feelings of a racist and proponent of slavery? Who's being overly sensitive now?
Lambda Conf made a choice that they're willing to work with the racist proponent of slavery. That's their choice. It's the choice of everyone else to say, "Nah."
No one is exerting force against anyone else in this story. No one is threatening violence. No one is calling the cops. This is literally a free speech story on all sides. Individuals are making choices about the kind of community they want to be a part of, and a lot of people are voting with their feet that they don't want to be part of a community that welcomes a self-proclaimed racist and proponent of slavery.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
And, for the folks who say, "This was years ago, under a pseudonym!" Did I miss where he has renounced his earlier writings? Did I miss the apologies? Did I miss where he owned up to the incredible amount of bullshit he spouted for years? I'm not saying he has to do those things; he can say and believe any thing he wants. But, time passing does not mean he's changed his mind on these subjects, and given the extremity of his views...I think it requires more than mere silence for me to believe he has changed.
In short: I wouldn't want to participate in a community that tolerates racist proponents of slavery. It doesn't make me "sensitive". It means I choose my friends and peers with care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry about that. This note replaced our "call for proposals", which had much more formatting. Also, I'm a shite web developer, so there's that.
What does prlconf have to do with lambdaconf? How does a speaker at one conference cause the closure of another conference?
It is correct and proper to shun and revile a person who actually advocates slavery. To say, "Well, as long as he is not advocating slavery at the con, that's fine." is ridiculous. Throw the racist evil nasty bum out and let someone else who actually deserves the timeslot talk.
I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1] However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology. Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere. It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not l…
Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a time, though never as horrid as his.
There's a time and a place for that discussion, if you seriously want to spend time making sense of Yarvis' views in the first place. However, evaluating his proposal for a technical conference is not an adequate venue for reviewing and passing judgement on someone's broader world views.
I'm also not comfortable attempting to define exactly what degree of "unacceptable" Yarvis inhabits, or what line(s) exist that justify exclusion from professional conferences, but that's exactly what you're asking us to do.
Furthermore, you're asking us to accept a precedent of excluding those that hold views that the majority finds unsavory, as if there's not significant consistently negative historical precedent demonstrating the volatility and danger of doing exactly that.