Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

jonprl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#91

Post by tel »

jonsterling wrote: post #56
tel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without commenting on LambdaConf's statement, PrlConf refers to the JonPrl language but much, much more broadly the general PRL ("Proof Refinement Logic") system of proof languages of which Cornell's NuPRL ( http://nuprl.org/ ) is by far the most advanced example. Unfortunately, NuPRL is engineered such that it is really difficult to get started with it and usually depends upon having access to an instance of a NuPRL…

Great summary, thanks! One clarification—we called it PrlConf intending to talk about proof assistants, but as our program came together, it turned out that most of the talks were about category theory, type theory and denotational semantics. I think these things are even more interesting than proof assistants! I hope that we can find a way to put it back on somehow.

I hope so too! I'd love to attend!

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#92

Post by knucklesandwich »

teacup50 wrote: post #89
knucklesandwich wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had no idea the slope was this slippery. Apparently you can go from choosing to not participate at a conference because an invited speaker harbors racist views to being in support of pogroms and blacklists.

The obvious implication is that the conference was expected to enforce a blacklist. If failing to preemptively blacklist ideologically unacceptable attendees carries with it this degree of negative response, then a preemptive Hollywood-style industry blacklist is exactly what we'll get. It's already the case that defending someone like Moldbug carries with it the risk of being branded as supporting the popular percep…

Curtis Yarvin is a software engineer, so if you want to make the analogy honest, a blacklist would be a large contingent of software companies refusing to hire him under any circumstances. Dalton Trumbo wasn't pressured not to speak at conferences because of his political allegiances, he was barred from working period (and eventually jailed!). This has absolutely nothing to do with a blacklist.

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#93

Post by colin_fraizer »

jonsterling wrote: post #63
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But really, don't you think it's ok to have very "offensive" beliefs? I hope you are aware it was once reprehensible to think the earth revolved around the Sun and you can get killed for "blasphemy" 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 thin…

My belief (which you are free to disagree with!) is that the nature of Yarvin's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I feel that each person is a whole human being, and I do not believe that someone can just leave something like "Blacks are suited to slavery, Europeans to mastery!" at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do a…

"My belief (which you are free to disagree with)". However, you are not free to express such disagreement or even discuss it. Expressing ideas with which the "right people" disagree is grounds for scorched-earth attacks on every aspect of your life until you can be brought to heel.

(I find slavery and support for such reprehensible. Such ideas should be openly confronted and countered directly by expressing superior ideas. For example, the idea that all human beings have inherent value and should not be subject to the use of force inherent in slavery.)

(While I'm criticizing ideas, I'll criticize a couple more: 1. It is deceptive to imply there is was some threat to the safety of attendees. (The linguistic sleight of hand of "physical and emotional safety" is the giveaway. It combines and attempts to equate two unlike things.) 2. The repeated references to "solidarity" are a dressed up form of tribalism, placing loyalty to "us" or "our team" over clear thinking. (It's the left's equivalent to how some on the right use "patriotism".))

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#94

Post by caseysoftware »

SwellJoe wrote: post #82
caseysoftware wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this and the growing list of similar circumstances establishes "she/he/it offended me" as a valid reason to blacklist anyone. Whoever gets to define Bad Think is in a position of incredible unchecked power.

I'm curious how much power you believe a programming language conference can exert on someone? You've called it "incredible unchecked power", but what does that mean here? Power to do what? Ask someone not to speak? Is there some other "power" being wielded that I'm not grasping? You seem to be making a "slippery slope" argument; I guess on the basis that you're afraid any unpopular opinion can get one ostracized. Bu…

I'll describe it a different way:

Either:

- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category. Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action. And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have.

The programming language conference is just the setting.

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#95

Post by knucklesandwich »

jonsterling wrote: post #63
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But really, don't you think it's ok to have very "offensive" beliefs? I hope you are aware it was once reprehensible to think the earth revolved around the Sun and you can get killed for "blasphemy" 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 thin…

My belief (which you are free to disagree with!) is that the nature of Yarvin's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I feel that each person is a whole human being, and I do not believe that someone can just leave something like "Blacks are suited to slavery, Europeans to mastery!" at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do a…

Thanks, you did the right thing.

On HN you're more likely to get told that choosing to make your group more inclusive and accessible to people of color is tantamount to supporting blacklists and suppression, but rest assured that there are a lot of people who appreciate this kind of thing.

We have to get past this notion that there's something virtuous and inclusionary about protecting bigots by giving them the ability to benefit from your platform. This perpetuates the culture of disinclusion we're already saddled with... it shows that more people are willing to speak up for those beliefs than of any person of color who might feel uncomfortable with the presence of a person who thinks they are biologically inferior and entitled to less status as a human being.

And speaking up about that doesn't make you in support of doxing, quote decontextualizing, online harassment, threatening the employment of others, blacklists, criminalization of expression, pogroms, etc. The irony of the slippery slope argument is how often its wielded to make the community less friendly to real diversity.

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#96

Post by [deleted] »

jonsterling wrote: post #63
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But really, don't you think it's ok to have very "offensive" beliefs? I hope you are aware it was once reprehensible to think the earth revolved around the Sun and you can get killed for "blasphemy" 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 thin…

My belief (which you are free to disagree with!) is that the nature of Yarvin's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I feel that each person is a whole human being, and I do not believe that someone can just leave something like "Blacks are suited to slavery, Europeans to mastery!" at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do a…

[deleted]

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#97

Post by teacup50 »

knucklesandwich wrote: post #92
teacup50 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious implication is that the conference was expected to enforce a blacklist. If failing to preemptively blacklist ideologically unacceptable attendees carries with it this degree of negative response, then a preemptive Hollywood-style industry blacklist is exactly what we'll get. It's already the case that defending someone like Moldbug carries with it the risk of being branded as supporting the popular percep…

Curtis Yarvin is a software engineer, so if you want to make the analogy honest, a blacklist would be a large contingent of software companies refusing to hire him under any circumstances. Dalton Trumbo wasn't pressured not to speak at conferences because of his political allegiances, he was barred from working period (and eventually jailed!). This has absolutely nothing to do with a blacklist.

So you're saying that this mob is unhappy with him speaking, but has no issue with his being employed?

Like this?

https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/713222987537756163

"In case you think it's just LambdaConf: Google continues to employ one of Moldbug's most devoted followers."

"Tech employees: it's time to hold your execs accountable for lack of action. My tweets aren't gonna do it alone."

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#98

Post by SwellJoe »

caseysoftware wrote: post #94
SwellJoe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how much power you believe a programming language conference can exert on someone? You've called it "incredible unchecked power", but what does that mean here? Power to do what? Ask someone not to speak? Is there some other "power" being wielded that I'm not grasping? You seem to be making a "slippery slope" argument; I guess on the basis that you're afraid any unpopular opinion can get one ostracized. Bu…

I'll describe it a different way: Either: - It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or - It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or - It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others. It appears that we're in the third category. Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some whil…

"Either:

- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category."

Because someone has said that supporting slavery is deeply, possibly unforgivably, wrong?

Your third category is "religion, race, ethnicity, etc". Where does "believes some people were born to be slaves and others were born to be their masters" fit into that?

Again, you're making a slippery slope argument, in what you call a "different way", but it looks the same to me. Perhaps I'm still not understanding you.

Am I understanding that you believe no groups should ever be denigrated? So, we shouldn't denigrate white supremacists and neo-Nazis? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate mass murderers? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate dictators? How about religious fundamentalists who prevent girls from getting an education because they are girls? Can I denigrate them? They aren't physically hurting anyone, they aren't "violent". But, I think the civilized world should shun them.

There are, in fact, groups that most of us denigrate. I don't think repugnant beliefs should be considered sacred or free from criticism. Who makes those decisions? Well, I do, you do, organizations do, sometimes governments do.

"Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action."

You're begging the question, and not answering mine.

"And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have."

I have not seen that. Has this person lost their job because someone doesn't want to go to a conference with them? Though I would be entirely comfortable with overt racism and support of human slavery being a firing offense at any company.

Again, slippery slope is a fallacy. Supporting slavery is not a religion, a race, an ethnicity, an age, a gender, a sexual preference, or any other protected class.

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#99

Post by mcphage »

carapace wrote: post #88
bcook wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A complex topic. I see your point, and I even agree... but where do we draw the line where someone's words now wholly condemn the person? In your final paragraph, replace the word "slavery" with "gay marriage" or "Trump for president". Can I draw the line at people who support these movements and condemn all of them? Or can I draw the line at anyone who has ever shopped at Wal-Mart, and therefore supports Chinese man…

Draw the line at pain and suffering. Go ahead and draw it right there. -------------------- I used to be really judgemental. I'm less so now. But when this blew up I knew what I wanted to stand for, and I have, in however minor and insignificant a way. (Yay me, look at all my shiny points!) The thing is, lots of people are focusing on him and the admittedly terrible idea that he should be shunned "just for his words"…

> How openly racist does a person have to be before they are no longer welcome in polite society?

Apparently more openly racist than "wrote things under a pen name 17 years ago".

Re: PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

#100

Post by gadscab »

jonsterling wrote: post #63
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But really, don't you think it's ok to have very "offensive" beliefs? I hope you are aware it was once reprehensible to think the earth revolved around the Sun and you can get killed for "blasphemy" 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 thin…

My belief (which you are free to disagree with!) is that the nature of Yarvin's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I feel that each person is a whole human being, and I do not believe that someone can just leave something like "Blacks are suited to slavery, Europeans to mastery!" at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do a…

As a non-hypothetical: consider support for communist brutality.

"My belief is that the nature of Sterling's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I do not believe someone can leave something like: "then you will enjoy hard labor in the North, after we send all the counterrevolutionaries there!" [1] at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do anything for our speakers and attendees who are not comfortable sharing a stage or a room with him. The job of an event organizer is to make sure that conditions are comfortable for the people who have entrusted the organizer with their safety."

The presence at a tech conference of an overt, unrepentant promoter and apologist for the brutality of Communism, is offensive, demeaning, and endangering to:

- Victims, and descendants of the victims, of Stalin's "Great Purge" [2]

- Victims, and descendants of the victims, of Mao's "Cultural Revolution" [3]

- All other victims of the failed experiments in Communism; which is to say: all experiments in Communism.

- All "counterrevolutionaries" who oppose further experiments with this irreparably broken ideology.

[1] http://imgur.com/rlqa73W [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Post reply on HN