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

91–100 of 205 posts

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#91

Post by kafkaesq »

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.

That's the thing -- the kind of persuasive talents Hitler had... can pretty much only be used for the kinds of destructive ends he sought.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#92

Post by e12e »

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…

After some quick speed-reading on Yarvin's blog, I came across this tasteless drivel on terrorism: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.no/2011/07/right-wi...

Even if one takes it to be "just" trolling, I find it in bad taste -- and if one takes it at face value, it's the sort of statements that would make it hard for me to attend an event with him in attendance. I consider myself to have a thick skin, and I generally don't care if nutjobs moan on about violence etc - except for the fact that ABB posted this kind of drivel himself, and based a lot of his mindset around it. So blogs of this kind is part of creating the nutjobs that go out and kill people. Any amount of smug moral relativism isn't going to make me say that I think stuff like this is ok.

All that said, I do support LamdaConf's decision in this case: They set out to do blind submissions, and stayed with that. They've now realized that the idea of a pure meritocracy is indeed a parody, not a real thing -- so they'll end up with a speaker selection process that is "overtly" political (even if they claim the opposite). This is of course inevitable, as no-one gets to "opt out" of politics: the "none statement" is a statement in itself (although not always a statement for the status quo).

I agree that there seems to be areas where "political correctness" has become a form of normative straight-jacket -- the same kind of conservative tendency that fuels bigotry. And I say that as a feminist and a communist/anarchist, and someone that is a strong believer in affirmative action.

Ironically perhaps, I think this is a decision Yarvin would agree on.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#93

Post by d_t_w »

HCIdivision17 wrote: post #48
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 intoleran…

"But the conference wants to have an air of professionalism"

There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any client I can think of, are there professional environments you can think of where his reputation wouldn't cause significant difficulties to participation?

I'm not sure an argument from professionalism is the appropriate one. More if you have a club you can invite whoever you like, and if others are not comfortable with the members they can choose not to attend.

I'm sure John De Goes is earnest, the risk is that his conference may be attended solely by similarly earnest people who look precisely like John De Goes, and for whom emotional assault is unverifiable and incomparable, hypothetical.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#94

Post by phillmv »

stcredzero wrote: post #85
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?

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…

Yes, of course, obviously.

I would not associate myself with, say, someone who in their off time writes long diatribes about how my ethnic group is lazy, incompetent, undeserving of legal rights and fit only to be exterminated or enslaved.

I'd be a fool not to shun this person and encourage others to do the same, however nice and pleasant they may be in person.

For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole.

What you describe is not a new problem. To quote Karl Popper,

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#95

Post by lukev »

HCIdivision17 wrote: post #48
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 intoleran…

Yep. I certainly disagree with that conclusion. There are a wealth of awesome talks by awesome people out there. If Yarvin was excluded, his slot would have been filled by an equally interesting, equally informative talk not by a racist.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#96

Post by mikeash »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #55
tomp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not in conflict with what was said in your quote. Hitler changed the world enormously. It was terrible, but the influence is undeniable. I'm reminded of all the people I've seen making fun of Time for naming Hitler their Man of the Year, without realizing that Man/Person of the Year is purely about the size of impact, not how good it is.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#98

Post by sparky_z »

phillmv wrote: post #86
sparky_z wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I never said essays are non-actions. In fact, I used them as an example of them a type of action: one which would not cause me to disassociate myself from someone else.

I might feel a little awkward about it, mostly because I'm sure there would be several people like you doing their damnedest to make me feel that way. I'm not a robot, and I'm subject to all the same sorts of social pressure as everybody else. But if essay writing was their only "crime", I like to think that I would resist that pressure. I believe strongly in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas (not just in the "constitutional law" sense, but in the "how we should act as individuals in a free liberal society" sense). It's the only antidote to groupthink.

Imagine how much sooner public attitudes to homosexuality might have shifted if people had always felt free to discuss alternatives to the status quo without being ostracized.

Not that I don't think we should hold people to certain standards. I just think those standards should be behavior-based, not opinion-based. In another reply, you mentioned Karl Popper's quote about not tolerating intolerance, which I fully agree with. But intolerance is a behavior, not an opinion. People have called this guy a racist (and maybe he is; I haven't read his writing), but it's the people who refuse to be in the same room as him who are acting intolerantly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy seems happy to share the conference with anyone who wants to attend, regardless of their race. That's tolerance, no matter what he thinks in his secret heart of hearts, or even what he has written about on the internet.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#99

Post by base698 »

fao_ wrote: post #60
base698 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#100

Post by mikeash »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #80
mikeash wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's great for you, but you don't dictate whether people who see things differently have valid views or not. Consider that what is "relevant" in your experience depends heavily on what kind of bullshit society throws your direction on a daily basis. It's easy to not see a problem here if you're not the group Yarvin advocates subjugating. If you are part of that group or empathize with it, things obviously looks a b…

> That's great for you, but you don't dictate whether people who see things differently have valid views or not.

Why do you say this? Did I say something that indicated otherwise?

I'm just here asking why a person thinks the way they do, and giving my own thoughts so they have something to compare with. To come in and act like I'm trying to impose my views, and imply that my views are invalid because I'm not the target of oppression in this instance, is pretty bizarre.

Post reply on HN