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

51–60 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#51

Post by jblow »

lbarrow wrote: post #15

There's no such thing as "not becoming political". Hosting an event is a political act; so is selling tickets to the event or paying people to help you run it. These acts might be _normal_ but they're still _political_. When someone says, "I don't want this to get political", what they're really saying is "I'm comfortable with the politics of the status quo and I want things to stay the way they are". Sometimes that'…

[q]In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery.[/q]

This is possibly disingenuous, and at least overly rhetorical.

They are not "giving him a voice" to talk about anything related to anything racist, and I'm sure if he used his slot to talk about anything racist, he would get perma-banned from the conference.

It is hard to say more than this without just repeating things said in the conference's statement. The idea is that a professional society ought to be able to cohere even when the members of that society disagree on matters outside the subject at hand. It seems like a good idea.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#52

Post by Aqueous »

danharaj wrote: post #39
Aqueous wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. Just like everyone else in the world, people have said things that have hurt me, too. But I can recognize that the temporary emotional injury I experience is not a good reason to overturn the entire foundation of liberal society. Free speech is a pretty principle because if, god forbid, the tables were ever turned, I would enjoy its protections as much as Curtis Yarvin does now. It has nothing to do with whether he is wrong and I am right, or whether the things he believes have any special power to injure me.

Inclusivity, egalitarianism, and protecting the views of the minority are in direct contradiction to Curtis Yarvin's thought. So ironically, Curtis Yarvin's mere presence at such a conference would be a direct contradiction of his views. In other words, they're arguing against him by inviting him.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#54

Post by Moshe_Silnorin »

lbarrow wrote: post #15

There's no such thing as "not becoming political". Hosting an event is a political act; so is selling tickets to the event or paying people to help you run it. These acts might be _normal_ but they're still _political_. When someone says, "I don't want this to get political", what they're really saying is "I'm comfortable with the politics of the status quo and I want things to stay the way they are". Sometimes that'…

>There's no such thing as "not becoming political".

I'm always suspicious of this statement. It's always made by those with the skills and disposition to achieve power in political situations.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#55

Post by eli_gottlieb »

tomp wrote: post #17
seibelj wrote: post #13

I read an FAQ on neo-reactionism and it's totally insane. But I would be fine with the guy lecturing about computers if he knew his stuff. Honestly I find intelligent, rational people who come to radically different conclusions about society to be fascinating. On the other hand, if Hitler himself was alive and gave a speech on art, I wouldn't want to hear it because of his politics and actions. So clearly there is a…

I would love to hear a speech by Hitler. Regardless of his actions, he was a master persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade more than most people couldn't in 1000 years! We could all learn a lot from him - which of course doesn't mean that we would have to use the skills for the same means he did.

>he was a master persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade more than most people couldn't in 1000 years

No. He accomplished what most people wouldn't and oughtn't in a thousand years.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#56

Post by josinalvo »

douche wrote: post #9

This is probably the most reasonable response to these sorts of pressures I've ever seen. One can hope that other groups will follow their lead and strive to act like fully-grown, professional, adults. I'm sure they'll get eviscerated for it, though.

I'm not quite so sure...

I think they will get some social media messages, and perhaps some lost sponsors. Nothing they can't weather.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#57

Post by PhasmaFelis »

danharaj wrote: post #30
tomp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery. The alternative is to give voice to an almost-militant group of bullies bent on oppressing opinions of people whe don't think like them. Only one of these positions is logically internally consistent.

What does "almost-militant" mean?

It sounds like it means "I feel threatened by these people's views even though they've shown no interest in physically acting on them." Which is kind of ironic, given the context.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#58

Post by xirdstl »

This is a divisive issue, and originally I found myself agreeing with this post, because, in general, I expect a conference to about mature professionals focusing on the craft.

That said, LambdaConf advertises itself as a "magical place" with a "passionate and friendly community of like-minded souls."

Given that, I understand why people are upset. They are trying to have it both ways.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#59

Post by jessaustin »

danharaj wrote: post #39
Aqueous wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You can keep your marketplace.

May we assume you'll be moving somewhere without such, rather than trying to tear ours down?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#60

Post by fao_ »

base698 wrote: post #32
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 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.

But in no case was the right of speech lost, merely the right of audience, or rather, of publicity.
Post reply on HN