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

41–50 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#41

Post by apsec112 »

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…

"But consider the following: I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china.

Please try not to be insufficiently surprised by this. Every time a Republican and a Democrat break bread together with good will, it is a miracle. It is an equilibrium as beneficial as civilization or liberalism, which developed in the total absence of any central enforcing authority." - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#42

Post by AnimalMuppet »

FireBeyond wrote: post #20

Apropos 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...

IANAL, but I don't think they are allowed to make it known if they learned it as part of an attorney-client privileged conversation.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#43

Post by forrestthewoods »

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…

Listening to a technical talk at a technical conference qualifies as drinking beer and breaking bread? I dunno about that.

I've always felt that professional adults should be able to work with people who think different things that them. If you work in an office with 50+ people I guarantee you have coworkers who think horrible terrible things that you passionately disagree with. But that's ok. Because we're all professionals and those naughty thoughts aren't relevant and aren't brought up.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#44

Post by mintplant »

Quoting from a Lobste.rs post [1] on the other side of this issue:

> Here’s a different approach, which explains this quite reasonably: LambdaConf made a lot of effort to contact organisations involving PoC, introducing diversity scholarships etc. to gain some fame. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, they decide to run a person which is clearly incompatible. These organisations cut their ties and oppose the project they supported. It’s all very unsurprising. You can’t shout “everyone is equal, please spread!” and then invite someone on the speakers list who wrote hundreds of thousands of words how he thinks people are fundamentally unequal by disposition and some should be slaves.

> I’d be far less aggravated if LambdaConf had just been a run-of-the-mill conference, but it tried to be the diverse conference in FP. Now it shows that they actually meant “libertarian”. Appropriating terms like “inclusive” or “diverse” for that is just a recipe for disaster...

> LambdaConf chose to be a temporary, short space where anything goes unless it’s not physically violent. What they communicated was something different though. And that difference is biting them now, making sponsors jump off and people protest.

In sum: people are upset because they feel used - that LambdaConf made one set of promises and advertised in a specific way to gain fame, then flipped on those values afterward.

[1] https://lobste.rs/s/dibl7y/why_we_re_sponsoring_lambdaconf_2...

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#45

Post by jordigh »

> Free speech advocates have gathered on one side, advocates for social justice on the other

wtf

Those two are supposed to be the same side. There's some really perverse twisting of words here to put social justice in opposition to free speech. How has the debate come to this?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#46

Post by platz »

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'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them

Degoes is not making an argument that you are obligated to attend.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#47

Post by powera »

russellallen wrote: post #36
FireBeyond wrote: post #20

Apropos 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 juris…

Except you don't enter a plea for an action, you enter a plea for a criminal charge. A murderer can confess a crime to his lawyer (under privilege), and still honestly plead not-guilty to first-degree murder (for example, it could be considered manslaughter).

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#48

Post by HCIdivision17 »

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 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 intolerance of the practice of assholery. So should anyone overstep, it sure seems like retribution will be swift. So if people behave, then there should be no worry: people are expected to behave. And if anyone bullies - in any way - expect moderation with extreme predjudice (that is a great phrase in English).

There may be many closet assholes out there, but we don't bar them, since we expect people to behave by default. Expect the best of people and prepare to be temporarily impressed or disappointed.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#49

Post by Kalium »

jordigh wrote: post #45

> Free speech advocates have gathered on one side, advocates for social justice on the other wtf Those two are supposed to be the same side. There's some really perverse twisting of words here to put social justice in opposition to free speech. How has the debate come to this?

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.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#50

Post by danharaj »

This is an open letter of people protesting LambdaConf's decision: https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/

I invite anyone to peruse that list and tell me these aren't some of the brightest professionals and integral community members in functional programming (subtracting me of course). I welcome anyone to make the claim that these individuals haven't come to their positions through reason and deep consideration for the ramifications of how this issue is resolved.

Post reply on HN