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

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#81

Post by Aqueous »

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #75
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…

>If you don't like him, protest him. How about just ignore him.

...or that

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#82

Post by antifasci »

danharaj wrote: post #50

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…

The fact that you cite only a single source should stand as simple enough reason to discredit it.

In response, I offer you a single citation [0].

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#83

Post by jordigh »

flubert wrote: post #70
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?

>Those two are supposed to be the same side. How is it different from how "Progressive" and "Classically Liberal/Libertarian" are pretty much opposites?

I just think that one or both sides is being misrepresented or is being dishonest. If you don't want free speech, do you want censorship? If you don't want social justice, do you want social injustice? It's not like you must have one of censorship or social injustice. There's a false dichotomy going on here.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#84

Post by lukev »

mikeash wrote: post #62
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've followed this saga with much confusion and I wonder if you could explain why you'd avoid a conference with a speaker like this. For me, if I'm evaluating a conference speaker, all I care about is: 1. Is the topic useful or interesting? 2. Is the speaker well informed and the content correct? 3. Does the speaker present the material well? I couldn't care less about them otherwise, and especially not their politic…

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.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#85

Post by stcredzero »

phillmv wrote: post #63
apsec112 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 smashi…

Thought experiment: Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

Thought experiment:

Is there a point at which you can treat a person as "sufficiently abhorrent" to dissuade you from associating with them? Does this point include being a productive member of society and taking part in a democratic civic life?

In terms of having a tolerant and open multicultural society, the only things that shouldn't be tolerated are actions and words that run counter to having a tolerant and open multicultural society. Sexism and racism run counter to a tolerant and open multicultural society. However, the exercise of authority to shun those with opinions you don't like is also intolerance. It's obeying "the letter" of tolerance but runs entirely counter to the spirit of tolerance. If you advocate a society where the government codifies and enacts tolerance, but all the citizens are intolerant in their civic life, then you advocate a society of divided enemy groups with a dead civic life, where opposing camps uneasily coexist, fling epithets over walls, and begin to regard the "others" as less than human.

You can't fight intolerance with intolerance precisely because you can't fight hate with hate. The only real way to fight intolerance is through real communication and convincing people. Venting frustration only plays into "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#86

Post by phillmv »

sparky_z wrote: post #72
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?

As long as they don't act on their views (except to write essays explaining and discussing them), then no. If they were rude to me or to others (in a personal way), then I would not want to associate with them, but that's true of anybody regardless of their views.

You're not OP but I can't dignify an asinine Yudkowsky quote with a reply, so you get one instead.

Why are essays non-actions in your view? Suppose someone had a lengthly career writing $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW essays and promoting them on the internet. Indeed, was famous for it.

Is there no $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW that would cause you to feel awkward about being known to associate with this person?

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#87

Post by skybrian »

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…

There's obviously a continuum here based on community size.

On one end, there are large communities. He has accounts on Twitter and Hacker News. Are you going to stop visiting? Would you avoid a shopping mall if he's there? Avoid sitting in the same movie theater?

On the other end, it's certainly reasonable to decline a dinner invitation if you don't like one of the other guests.

A conference seems like a larger and more impersonal gathering. You don't have to go to the talk, but you could go to other talks.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#88

Post by HCIdivision17 »

st3v3r wrote: post #66
HCIdivision17 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intoleran…

One could say that, by letting a known asshole speak, they are not showing a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery.

In a similar way, letting a known something person speak means they're not intolerant of something. I mean, yeah, you could make that argument, but it sure doesn't seem substantial or useful. That's the point of Xyism at the end: it doesn't have much to do with functional programming , and functional programming is what the conference is explicitly about.

And there is an explicit threat against assholery: perform it and you'll be excluded. Don't and you'll have the same protection any other person has.

It is implicitly not about a very large range of things, namely mostly stuff that isn't functional programming.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#89

Post by stcredzero »

st3v3r wrote: post #66
HCIdivision17 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intoleran…

One could say that, by letting a known asshole speak, they are not showing a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery.

not showing a strong intolerance

So everyone needs to show the proper intolerance towards the prescribed things? I'm glad you are coming out and saying that you are engaging in what you think is righteous intolerance.

However, I think taking such a stance misses the point.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#90

Post by DrJokepu »

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'…

I'm not really familiar with the details of this whole LambdaConf drama, but your argument keeps showing up on my Twitter feed regularly and I never found it very convincing to be honest. I don't see why hosting an event is necessarily a political act and I don't see why when people say "I don't want this to get political" it means that they're happy with the status quo. People keep repeating these arguments online as if they were self-evident truths and never really explain well (or at all) why these statements are true.

In particular, an argument could be made that someone could find being forced to be surrounded by politics boring and tedious even if they agree with these ideas. If you don't believe me, just read the comments in any political HN post (such as this one); I guarantee you that you will find many of the comments obnoxious, even some of the ones you agree with in principle.

Post reply on HN