20 ms·

Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

• fiatmoney 11y ago
  You'd think that someone could just come out and say exactly which of his views are so terrible, instead of pointing at his entire multiple-book-length blog and "wow just wow"ing.
  • 5ilv3r 11y ago
    That would not help solve the issue at hand. In fact that would make it worse.
    • fiatmoney 11y ago
      I'm not saying the organizers should. As far as I can tell his detractors are reluctant to do anything but point and sputter nonspecifically.
  • crispyambulance 11y ago
    Here's it in a nutshell... http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/
  • vitno 11y ago
    The character of Moldbug (which I don't even know if it is actually what the author truly believes, it was always designed as a pen name) is a neo-reactionary. Ex: He is definitely a racist, with the belief of genetic differences in attitude that contributed to slavery. [1] Now, I don't like those beliefs at all. I do think that LC made the right decision though. Inclusiveness is a good policy, and no matter how certain more authoritarianly inclined progressives are spinning this, that's what this is. Assuming no one is threatened, and he isn't promoting his politics, he should have a chance of going through the (anonymized!) entry process and talking about the really weird and awesome Urbit. [1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carl... edit: One of my main philosophical issues with Moldbug (besides the repugnancy), is that he is internally inconsistent. He might refute that later on. I dunno, he's spewed out literally tens of thousands of pages of text.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    • cespare 11y ago
      > I do think that SL made the right decision though. I assume you mean LambdaConf, not StrongLoop.
    • zenogais 11y ago
      As a note the original article for this thread is about LambdaConf. StrangeLoop is the conference that chose to ban this particular speaker. I assume by SL you mean LC?
      • vitno 11y ago
        ahh. Now I see where the confusion is. Yes. I do mean LC.
    • someguydave 11y ago
      It's likely that many on Hacker News join you in your condemnation of 'right-thinking' persons who happened to have lived in the past. An unsolicited word of advice to this audience: challenge yourself by considering the worldview of your forefathers before summarily condemning them.
  • lhnz 11y ago
    This is a good primer on "neoreaction" [0]. To tell you the truth, what makes it a good primer is that it doesn't begin to describe the so-called solutions to democracy (this is where it gets weird/awful, as you see people recommending aristocracy, autocracy and monarchy, etc). [0] http://status451.com/2016/02/25/what-is-neoreaction/ http://status451.com/2016/02/25/what-is-neoreaction/
    • pkinsky 11y ago
      Thanks for the link. Neoreaction seems superficially similar to Marxism, in that it makes some interesting criticisms but would probably lead to millions of deaths if actually implemented.
      • crispyambulance 11y ago
        There is nothing even remotely similar to Marxism about it (and it wasn't "the implementation" of Marxism that lead to millions of deaths). Neoreaction is just another form of asshole-ism in the blogosphere. People have strong reactions to it and thus its proponents should not be surprised when their belief colors other peoples' judgement of them when they want to talk about something unrelated at a conference.
• striking 11y ago
  This just in: preventing people to come to your conferences because of their beliefs is actually inadvisable and really, really difficult to make good on. I don't agree with the guy's views either, but I wouldn't disinvite him just because he thinks that way. Good on LambdaConf for letting him come anyway. Many of the quotes from this piece were shockingly powerful. I'm happy I took the time to read it.
  • greenrd 11y ago
    And if you hate the guy a lot (I do) you can always go to the conference and boycott his particular talk.
    • kazinator 11y ago
      Note that not simply not attending isn't a boycott; a boycott implies some sort of protest: not attending and inducing others not to attend. And that would probably not be appropriate at the conference.
      • striking 11y ago
        > Boycott, trans. verb: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions[1] Your definition isn't necessarily correct. I don't think the commenter you're replying to meant any harm, just that he'd rather not participate in listening to that particular talk. Which is a shame, really. It's a shame that people feel the need to ignore entire people and all of their ideas just because of one idea that the person had. As the quote goes, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." [+] But that's that person's right, to abstain from interacting from a person. I don't think it was meant maliciously. I think it's just a sort of misguided kind of thinking. 1: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boycott http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boycott (emphasis mine) +: I mean no offense to the person you're responding to either; I believe Eleanor Roosevelt should have exchanged the word "small" with "closed".
  • 11y ago
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• tragic 11y ago
  So uh, who was this person?
  • passing-through 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
    • kps 11y ago
      And out of curiosity, who is the firing-squad person?
      • erics32 11y ago
        Mostly likely referring to Steve Klabnik https://archive.is/BtDaA https://archive.is/BtDaA
        • mcantelon 11y ago
          Klabnik himself being influenced by Marxism and committed to overthrowing the democratic state, presumably through armed revolution: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/514125493663436800 https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/514125493663436800 Communism has killed millions and millions of people yet its advocates don't get blacklisted for wrongthink. And despite Klabnik's efforts to police the ideas of tech speakers, his chosen software licenses don't prohibit use of his software by repressive regimes: https://github.com/steveklabnik/request_store/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/steveklabnik/request_store/blob/master/LI...
          • calibraxis 11y ago
            He's an anarchist of some sort, just like many. Anarchists generally want to replace the violent top down nation-state with bottom-up democratic forms. Real democracy, not fake doublespeak democracy where no one feels like their voice matters. Your post is horrifically misleading.
• passing-through 11y ago
  For context, the project in question is https://github.com/urbit/urbit https://github.com/urbit/urbit and the speaker is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin.
  • specialist 11y ago
    TIL: neoreactionary, anti-democratic blah blah blah aka libertarian fruitopia
    • mcantelon 11y ago
      Pretty much the opposite of libertarian, IIRC.
      • greenrd 11y ago
        There's this weird thing where libertarians go so far right they become neoreactionaries, and vice versa. It's sort of the horseshoe theory for the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum I guess. I don't really understand it.
        • mcantelon 11y ago
          Frustration, I'd guess. They look long and hard at one ultimate solution to the problem of human governance, finally realize it won't work, then swing to the opposite conclusion to examine it.
• analognoise 11y ago
  All this childish feelings based barbage has got to stop. No, really. People have different opinions, and are allowed to have them, even if they hurt your feelings or you disagree. Since when did this thought crime bullshit take over? Orwell would never have thought that self policing, not Big Brother and his armed henchmen, were what would do in individual thought.
  • TabAtkins 11y ago
    Saying "People have different opinions" about nazi bullshit is kindergarten-level analysis. Nazis are bad. Racists are bad. Claiming these "opinions" are equivalent to any other is childish and immature. Grow up and realize you live in a society with other people, and the positions you advocate for (and encourage others to advocate for) have real consequences.
    • adnzzzzZ 11y ago
      Grow up and argue with people's ideas instead of banning them from conferences unrelated to said ideas. You stop bad ideas from proliferating by showing how they're wrong, not by acting like children and banning what you don't like.
    • analognoise 11y ago
      Something is "bad" as you've decided, and you're going to actively take it upon yourself to enforce consequences for those who believe in the "bad" thing. Think about that for a minute - then remember that interracial marriages used to be banned, and a person with your operating principles would have actively made it worse for those people to enforce the norm. But this is different! You say - missing entirely the point.
  • ignu 11y ago
    "i have no idea why minorities have a problem with someone telling them they're inferior being elevated and celebrated by the conference they're paying money for."
• outside1234 11y ago
  What a well reasoned and thought through approach to making this decision and setting a precedent and standard - nice work.
• davidrupp 11y ago
  Well done, John & Co. StrangeLoop caved to the threats of a vocal minority and, to my lights, made the wrong decision. Not only the wrong decision, but for the wrong reasons. Good for you for taking this principled -- and responsible -- stance.
  • ignu 11y ago
    so who who cares if minorities are offended? that's, uh, kind of the point.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• SEMW 11y ago
  > we read or skimmed nearly everything the speaker has written online (which is no small task) Ouch. Must've been an almost sisyphean task in Moldbug's case. Dude's the most prolix blogger I've ever come across.
• Animats 11y ago
  From the article: "Well, I believe in free-market capitalism. A well-known and popular programmer has tweeted, repeatedly, that he supports violence (real violence, e.g., the firing squad) for people who believe that." Well, that's a political position with sizable historical backing. The people behind the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and China's revolution would all have agreed. "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!" - Marx.
  • kazagistar 11y ago
    The KKK is a political position with sizable historical backing. I don't see how this is relevant to either side of the argument here.
    • EdHominem 11y ago
      No, you do. And you failed your godwin. The relevance is that this guy isn't the only one who believes it, just the only one we're currently talking about for being honest on social media. His speech is no more actionable (and thus no more worrying) towards any individual than "Just bomb Iraq" was in late 2001. Cough. In lieu of threats you don't get safer for banning him because 1) bans don't actually work against criminals (not that he is, but if he was) and 2) if you're really at risk there are billions more who feel the same way he does. Better to avoid a false sense of security and just be on your toes.
• f0code 11y ago
  "That I shall not talk or act in ways that could make minority groups feel bullied, harassed, intimidated, stalked, stereotyped, or belittled; examples of minority groups include women, people of color, lesbians, gays, and people who are disabled, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, intersex, transgender, and gender-variant;" So as a member of the majority, I'm expressly the only person bound by these rules of behavior in this pledge. My allowed attendance would be contingent on remaining silent the entire time on premises.
  • sthatipamala 11y ago
    No, one member of such a group is also bound to conduct themselves relative to members of another such group. One way that one could attend is to not say offensive things. Yes, anything could be offensive and you have no way of knowing a priori. But a reasonable person should be able to sort things out.
    • f0code 11y ago
      A reasonable person doesn't need to be told to be respectful.
    • protomyth 11y ago
      "But a reasonable person should be able to sort things out." We have two articles on the front page condemning a two second soundbite at a keynote which was vetted by one of the most image conscious companies on the planet. I don't think your statement is true. If a code of conduct does not treat everyone as equals then it sets up a dynamic that will cause some group of people to shutdown and not participate.
  • groby_b 11y ago
    You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle. It's contingent on actual behavior. Which was kind of the point of the whole article.
    • f0code 11y ago
• mcherm 11y ago
  That was very well done. If I ever organize a conference (unlikely) I will return here and adopt LambdaConf's policy along with a link to this very open and thoughtful consideration as justification.
• EdHominem 11y ago
  > In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems. And that wasn't the starting point? What a joke! > We would never allow a violent criminal to attend LambdaConf. Yes, you would. You'd be sued if you didn't. They did their time and (presumably) got out or the question would be moot. If they (or anyone else) threatened someone, see the next point. > There is always a line. There must be one. The question is, where do we draw that line? I've run conferences for years where the only policy of that sort is that we won't hesitate to call the police. It's worked perfectly because if someone follows someone else to harass them that's illegal despite the subject matter. Harassing someone for liking the wrong pokemon is just as actionable as harassing them because they're the wrong gender. If the person isn't harassing anyone they're free to their opinion no matter how odious. The police are very helpful in explaining "a disturbance" and how someone is creating one! And here's the answer to threats, violence, etc. They get arrested. Not expelled. Not shamed. Arrested. Treat it like you'd treat random street crime and have them arrested.
  • st3v3r 11y ago
    Ok, but that's not everything. What about talks with sexist content? Remember the "Perform like a porn star" talk (http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2009/04/25/why-rails-is-still-a-ghetto/ http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2009/04/25/why-rails-is-still-a...)? The person giving the talk might not be actively harassing someone, but they're clearly making the conference a place where women do not feel welcome.
    • EdHominem 11y ago
      That's the content they choose to sponsor (with a soapbox), and which they should curate.
      • greenrd 11y ago
        You need a code of conduct to prevent that if you are not to pre-vet all slides, which is excessively bureaucratic and creates an implicit code of conduct anyway.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• frontsideair 11y ago
  If you don't care about political views of presenters, there's no need to bring inclusion to the table; just consider their technical talents and call it a day. If you actually care about inclusion, you need to think about how including backwards-views that oppose inclusion itself could affect your effort. Banning only physically violent behavior is behind the times, it's obvious there are many ways of harming someone without lifting a finger. If you're supporting inclusion for inclusions's sake, including everyone may make sense. But if you really care about people who depend on you including them, it's obvious some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented.
  • kazagistar 11y ago
    They didn't say hate speech was not bannable. They simply confirmed that the potential of hate speech is not sufficient to preemptively ban an individual without significant evidence. That seems about as much protection as you can provide without just permanently banning people who have ever expressed non-inclusive world views.
  • white-flame 11y ago
    > some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented. Then it comes down to defining what "safe" means. To most people, that does mean basic physical safety, meaning you won't be physically assaulted or have your stuff damaged/stolen. However, once you get into subjectivity of a listener's interpretation of others' words or social actions (like disinterest in their topics or cultural mismatch), calling any difference from their beliefs or expectations "unsafe", all procedural sanity flies out the window. The only types of meetings that can be rationally and formally capable of running under such specific clauses would be particularly exclusionary meetings of only certain beliefs. Inclusivity means exposure to difference, and if exposure to difference means "unsafe" to someone, then inclusivity itself is unsafe to them. There are those who also simply equate "socially uncomfortable" with "unsafe", and social discomfort can come from literally anything. (Edit: I would strongly prefer responses from the downvoters. Defining some specific, actionable policy capturing subjective interpretation by attendees without becoming exclusionary is something I'd be interested in actually seeing. I'm not talking about subjective application of policy, but actual full capture within policy.)
• moldbugisvile 11y ago
  It would be trivial to find hundreds of twitter posts from prominent conference speakers who blatantly support Planned Parenthood, a racist, eugenicist organization that routinely causes literal death and has done far more damage to human beings of all colors than the demented windbag Moldbug will ever do. Fact: Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Planned Parenthood was founded to advance eugenics, in particular against black and other non-white children. Fact: Abortion kills 2/3 of black babies in this country. And yet. All of the hypocrites rioting about LambdaConf's decision on twitter would never dream of boycotting a conference based on a speaker's past support for Planned Parenthood, a racist, eugenicist organization. Think about that.
• AKrumbach 11y ago
  If your conference will dis-invite / "de-platform" people based on their opinion about topic {foo}, you are in fact hosting a conference about {foo}, regardless of what your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say. Kudos to LambdaConf for actually keeping on focus in the face of dissent.
  • hythloday 11y ago
    Well, this works the other way around too, right? If you invite, or accept applications from, someone who is primarily noted for {bar}, then whatever your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say, you are now hosting a conference tolerant or supportive of {bar}. You seem to be making a declaration that acts are inherently political, and I'm all for that. It's just that the standard works both ways.
    • EdHominem 11y ago
      The participants were picked in a blinded process, and the participant in question agreed to leave their personal politics at the door as they would at work. So not in this case.
  • EdHominem 11y ago
    Kudos are actually due to all the normal people, outside the echo-chamber. Who not only declined to participate in fear or politics but in many cases wrote movingly about the value of open access.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • TabAtkins 11y ago
    I mean, okay, maybe, but that just means that they'd be hosting a conference about "nazis suck" and hey, I'm okay with that. That's a message I can get behind.
    • ubertaco 11y ago
      So what you're saying is, you're cool with discrimination, so long as it's not against you. So when someone decides to hold a dev conference but chooses to disallow any gay/lesbian developers, is that also totally okay?
• saryant 11y ago
  Good for John and LambdaConf. I attended last year and I'll be hosting a workshop about Shapeless this year and I still firmly intend to go.
• jamesdutc 11y ago
  This is an odd perspective on inclusivity, but I understand where it comes from. I would think it would be well within the mandate of the conference organisers to pick talks that reflect the material they want to see presented and the conversation they want attendees to be able to participate in. The conference is a curated collection of talks, and will necessarily reflect an active political position held by the organising committee and a passive political position shaped by systemic issues. For almost all tech conferences, even the very large ones, the politics expressed are so bland and so unfocused that no one really cares about them. Almost no tech conference has the capability to seriously address systemic issues of inclusivity. I imagine LambdaConf's view resonantes with the audience on HackerNews, because it addresses primarily the former politics. The latter politics aren't a danger to most of the commentators here. The inclusivity of attendance seems to be much more defensible. Even under great pressure, I can see an event being reluctant to bar attendance. I don't know that any tech conferences ask unpopular people to simply stay away (even if they promise to be on best behaviour.)
  • someguydave 11y ago
    "Almost no tech conference has the capability to seriously address systemic issues of inclusivity." Out of curiousity can you describe how one could " address systematic issues of inclusivity"?
  • erikpukinskis 11y ago
    They stated that they accepted the talk on the merits during the anonymous review phase.
    • DrPizza 11y ago
      How anonymous can the reviews be if the subject of the talk betrays the identity of the presenter?
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
• calibraxis 11y ago
  From one of Moldbug's many vocal supporters at a "Founders Fund-sponsored retreat": "It was really quite lovely. Later that day, in the jeep to the ranch house where everyone was staying, he started up with the casual racism, and everyone ignored him." (https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/606799534983770112 https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/606799534983770112) The status quo: highly funded white people in a ranch house, obsessive dreams of white supremacy floating into the night... (Unfortunately in the real world, very few "technologists" have any sort of progressive future vision. Most just chase money and perks, building bureaucratic tech. Politically regressive.) > we wrote the speaker and asked for a public statement clearly stating the speaker’s views on violence. What does "violence" mean here? We're talking about Moldbug's acts of spreading white supremacy whenever he gets a platform. Including tech conferences and good ol' boy networking. > Social media has muddled this issue so much "Social media"... as in this blogpost? Twitter & HN? Techies sound suspiciously like oppressive governments, blaming "social media" when it threatens actual disruptive change. > Last year, StrangeLoop rescinded an invitation to a speaker because of the controversy that erupted (nay, exploded) when his talk was announced. People pointed out the error, and StrangeLoop promptly fixed it. This is in keeping with previous actions, like implementing dozens of tips from a highly respected diversity consultant. There's a reason StrangeLoop is considered way ahead of the curve. Other confs aren't willing to do what it takes to be excellent. (And anyway, StrangeLoop is more than just about a single style of programming, unlike LambdaConf.) > Would this be the end of LambdaConf??? How many tech conferences ended so far because they give high-profile white supremacists a platform? Just look at the racially-skewed audiences. > Feedback Highlights: Below are a few quotes from some of the amazing feedback we received: 7 in favor of giving Moldbug a platform. 1 unclear. That's all he decided to list.
  • maradydd 11y ago
    Hi. That's me you're quoting. > The status quo: highly funded white people in a ranch house, obsessive dreams of white supremacy floating into the night... Were you there? If not, then you're projecting. As it happens, the participants were at best plurality white. And no, the PoC weren't all Asians either. Also, because Twitter requires short statements, there are multiple readings of "ignored" there. I see you're taking the least charitable one, i.e., "everyone let it slide." That interpretation is incorrect. People stopped talking to him. Isn't shunning what you progs want?
• spriggan3 11y ago
  Well today in "tech", if you openly support a republican candidate, good luck being invited at tech events or conferences as a speaker. That's wrong of course and I say that as a non republican. The Tech industry has become so politicized positions that used to be seen as extreme are considered "normal". I mean how can an article such as this one can be deemed acceptable on a tech blog ? : https://archive.is/elvvc https://archive.is/elvvc Replace white people by black people and racism, defined as broad generalizations based on the color of skin, becomes obvious. Yes the article linked is racist period.
  • xmj 11y ago
    > Well today in "tech", if you openly support a republican candidate, good luck being invited at tech events or conferences as a speaker. Don't worry. Tech is currently undergoing yet another tectonic shift, with the difference that this time it goes into the right direction.
    • tomp 11y ago
      Which tectonic shift? From my point of view, it seems like the previous (pro-feminist, pro-censhorship) tectonic shift still lasts (Brendan Eich, Gamergate, "Shirtgate", "discrimination" in tech), and IMO it's definitely going in the wrong direction (towards lies and censhorship).
• lhnz 11y ago
  I think "conduct vs beliefs" is the right metaphor by which to make these sorts of decisions. After all, we talk about a 'Code of Conduct' and not a 'Code of Belief' (the latter, in my opinion, would edge too close towards totalitarianism.) As long as Curtis stays professional and speaks only on Urbit [0] he is doing the right thing and should be allowed to speak. [0] http://urbit.org/ http://urbit.org/
  • zorpner 11y ago
    At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of violence become problematic? Or are we obligated to welcome these people into our conferences (workplaces? homes?) so long as they confine their exhortations to speech and only work to encourage others to perform the actual violence? The idea of a "Code of Belief" is a strawman -- the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech without consequences (which inevitably requires that the freedom of speech of others be quashed).
    • peteretep 11y ago
      > At what point does someone's routine vocal > endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of > violence become problematic? The Americans have a whole load of case law around First Amendment rights, it would be worth familiarizing yourself with that for a few hundred years worth of considered thought. > Or are we obligated to welcome these people into > our conferences Well in this case, their conferences - he's there under his own technical merit, isn't he? Do you really get to exclude him because you don't like his views, even though he may well be more qualified than you to claim a right to be there? > (workplaces? Conveniently there's case law in employment too. > homes?) Weird strawman. > the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of > thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech > without consequences I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence. "We're free speech in this country, except you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing".
      • 11y ago
• atom-morgan 11y ago
  It's a code of conduct. Not a code of thought.
  • spriggan3 11y ago
    > It's a code of conduct. Not a code of thought. Given how most codes of conduct are written there is virtually no difference between the two. If a code of conduct in a community applies everywhere its members might be on the internet or in the real world, then they are not free to say what they want publicly anymore. If one can be excluded from an opensoure community because of a totally unrelated comment on some obscure forum as stated by codes like the "contributor covenant", it's pretty clear that this kind of code of conduct is a code of thought.
    • st3v3r 11y ago
      No, this is just not true. You're arguing for speech without consequences, which is just a fancy way of saying that some people should have the right to speech, but others should not have that same right in return.
    • xmj 11y ago
      Right on.
    • atom-morgan 11y ago
      Oh absolutely. I was referring to what it should be :)
    • greenrd 11y ago
      Please cite specific examples, so that everyone can know where they stand.
• vidarh 11y ago
  One thing that belonging to a political fringe has taught me, is that either you decide to live your life in constant conflict, or you learn to ignore the politics of a person when it has no direct impact on a given situation, even when it to you is utterly distasteful. The latter leads to a far happier life. And often you'll find even people who hold views you find offensive can be perfectly nice people most of the time.
  • mcantelon 11y ago
    Exactly. Orgs that don't accept "diversity of tactics" lose a lot of time to infighting.
    • seivan 11y ago
      Also know as eating your own. Just wait, there's always someone slipping on narrative.
  • kevinburke 11y ago
    Hypothesis: It's hard to ignore someone's politics, even if they have no "direct impact", when the policies they advocate led to people that look like your grandparents getting lynched, and led to people that look like your great-great-grandparents being forced to work in horrible conditions against their will for no pay.
• theorique 11y ago
  Good job LambdaConf. Disregarding irrelevant political views and focusing on the technical content is what every conference should do. It's too bad that this is less common than it should be.
• jmspring 11y ago
  The choice quote is here -- "In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems." What you believe in, in everyday society, shouldn't matter either. It is how you treat others and if you do so with politeness and respect, you should expect the same in return.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • kevinburke 11y ago
    Curtis Yarvin is a professed fascist who has written about his belief that some races are more suited to slavery than others. That _does_ matter; it makes large swaths of the potential talk audience (and other attendees) feel unwelcome. How can you engage in polite, respectful discussion with someone who believes that you're more suited to be a slave than a free man?
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      Yarvin's political tracts seem to specifically reject fascism, Communism, and modern liberal democracy; you may not like his politics, and may find them analogous to fascism in key and dangerous ways, but it seems factually inaccurate to call.him a "professed fascist".
    • xmj 11y ago
      > Curtis Yarvin is a professed fascist who has written about his belief that some races are more suited to slavery than others. Having read a good deal of his unqualified reservations, I wonder if you can source this quote for me please?
      • kevinburke 11y ago
        Search Google, Twitter, or send me an email. I'm not going to link to hate speech here.
• mcantelon 11y ago
  Great to see a conference making the adult choice, rather than accommodating zealots who feel entitled to limit people's careers for their beliefs.
• crb002 11y ago
  Embryonic CRISPR is here and humanity is not only hereditary. It's the genetics debate that needs to happen. Moldbug's racist viewpoint is now irrelevant. How much should the State intervene? Wrath of Kahn and GATTACA were both dystopian. Roe v Wade will reopen soon on CRISPR grounds.
  • mcantelon 11y ago
    Genetics are powerful. Twins that grow up apart in different environments often share traits/tastes to an unnerving degree.
  • greenrd 11y ago
    Will be irrelevant in a few hundred years, you mean.
• jellismymind 11y ago
  "Include all! White supremacists, non-white... If a few people (say non-white) feel uncomfortable and don't want to come, we're OK with that 100%! Everyone should feel included! Racists, homophobes... Respect the beliefs of everyone, like believing there is a god, or that white people are superior, or believing you are being discriminated, or believing people will insult you or assault you at a whim for who you are, or believing you belong in a community full of racist assholes. It's OK 100%, all beliefs are equal, so we shouldn't discriminate people based on that! That would be even worse than racism if you think about it." I'm sad and disgusted.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • mcantelon 11y ago
    Given Yarvin's Jewish, my guess is he's not a white supremacist.
    • jellismymind 11y ago
      Who is Yarvin? How is that relevant? I am not talking about a specific person, I am talking about the argument being made for accepting everyone no matter their "belief".
      • mcantelon 11y ago
        Sorry, misread. Curtis Yarvin's the conference speaker.
    • calibraxis 11y ago
      "White" is a social construct that changes with politics. Hilariously, the Irish weren't considered "white" in the US, and had to achieve whiteness. Moldbug is surrounded with white privilege in a country where blacks are regularly murdered by the state in broad daylight.
      • 11y ago
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• jellismymind 11y ago
  White racists accept to mingle with non-white despite their beliefs, surely non-white can return the same curtesy?
  • xmj 11y ago
    Go to a Trump rally and tell this to a "Black Lives Matter" supporter, I dare you.
    • jellismymind 11y ago
      I'm sorry, did you take that at face value? I thought it was so over the top and ridiculous that people would get that it was sarcasm, but I guess I still have a lot to learn. My bad, sometimes someone's satire is just someone else's actual thoughts...
      • xmj 11y ago
        This form of "sarcasm" is best countered with following it through to its logical conclusion.
• xmj 11y ago
  How many "problematic" views will you "no-platform" until your "safe space" is a personal hugbox with n=1? Get over yourself a little and you'll see that the above is the ultimate consequence of your choices to exclude people.
• seivan 11y ago
  Nothing rattles the "diversity" warriors cages than acceptance of diverse thoughts. From my experience, all notions of acceptance and diversity goes out the window when you disagree or have a different political opinion with said warriors. It's a good way to dehumanize us for having the wrong thought. "It's okay, you can kick him, he thinks X, Y, Z so he's practically Hitler"
• zahmahkibo 11y ago
  Not all views are equal. Some views are so horrendous it is our moral duty to ostracize their believers.
  • erics32 11y ago
    How right you are! Let's ostracize and noplatform all the wrongthinkers. How about we start by banning those horrendous muslims whose beliefs are homophobic, sexist, calls for the death of apostates and atheists etc. Or maybe those sexist homophobic christians?
    • zahmahkibo 11y ago
      Again, not all views are equal. Stop trying to pretend they are.
    • zahmahkibo 11y ago
      Again, this presupposes that all thoughts are equal. They are not. This should be a trivial distinction for a hacker to make. It is also particularly interesting you are talking about groups of people, when this discussion was about Moldbug. That Moldbug holds sociopathic opinions is at this point simply a matter of public record. Anyone with an internet connection can confirm this.
  • 13thLetter 11y ago
    For example, the view that people should be prevented from earning a living if they have the wrong political opinions.
    • zahmahkibo 11y ago
      No one is obligated to like you or associate with you, doubly so if you have political beliefs that would likely result in their slavery. Community sanctions are part of what it means to be human.
      • 13thLetter 11y ago
• zahmahkibo 11y ago
  There is an extremely simple test for such arguments: would anyone make this argument if the person in question was Osama bin Laden? Suppose old Osama was a Haskell wizard. Would anyone argue he should still be at the talk? No. But Nazis? Who make bin Laden's terrorism look like a rounding error? They're A-OK! And people wonder about why there's a diversity problem in tech.
  • moldbugisvile 11y ago
    But Marxists, they're cool right? Edgy even! If you want to hold these standards and exclude someone like Moldbug, fine by me. But if you do that there, do it consistently. Newsflash: Che Guevera executed blacks, gays, nuns, and more in cold blood; his face is now considered a bland apparel decoration. Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and Mengistu and many others killed and caused the deaths of 10s of millions of human beings, far more than Nazis could hope for. Marxism has never gone out of fashion on the left, and prominent tech speakers display their Marxist colors proudly. Who will boycott them and stand for the memory of the millions killed in Marxist suppression, genocide, and famine?
    • zahmahkibo 11y ago
      I gotta say, this is some next-level red baiting.
      • 13thLetter 11y ago
        What was incorrect about his statement?
        • zahmahkibo 11y ago
          It is two thousand and sixteen in the year of our Lord. Redbaiting doesn't work any more; McCarthy is death. Screaming "BUT WILL SOMEONE JUST THINK ABOUT THE VILE, VILE COMMUNISTS?" at every turn to suppress dissent no longer works. It is an evasionist tactic.
• norea-armozel 11y ago
  Personally I believe there's a place for CoCs in any large organization or group but I think the content of CoCs should never include any political ideological opinions. If professionalism, respect, and separation of one's political and/or religious beliefs from a project/event is impossible for some then they shouldn't be part of it. Honestly, I wouldn't know or care if one programmer was a devout Mormon that donated to Prop 8 if all my interactions with said person (obviously mentioning Brenden Eich here) were purely within the confines of a project or convention regarding programming of some sort. Nor would that person ever have to know that I'm a Christian Gnostic, Georgist, bisexual, trans woman (the last part would probably be obvious but immaterial still) in the same context. We're two programmers coming together in common cause to produce something cool (I hope). Yet it seems there are those on the left (and to some extent on the right) that demand ideological purity in all things. "You must be the right kind of [ideological stance/trait], lest you offend someone..." Seriously, I've seen flaps over Laura Jane Grace's book being titled Tranny (she's trans) over the last week. It's just as bad when you look at how fellow libertarians go at each other (see Jeffrey Tucker's essay on Libertarian Brutalism and the resulting fallout). It's absurd how bad things have gotten in this regard and I honestly am concerned we'll see ideological puritanism infect various F/LOSS projects and events. Just keep the CoC to the absolute essentials (don't be a perv/jerk/stalker/etc and don't have sensitive topics in conversations...).
  • KirinDave 11y ago
    > Personally I believe there's a place for CoCs in any large organization or group but I think the content of CoCs should never include any political ideological opinions. Which has no bearing on the conversation, as you cannot deny that the person in question is anything but a vehement and devout racist. We're not mad he's a christian. I'm not even mad he thinks trans sexuality and non-binarism is an illness. At least there is some idea I am human there. He genuinely thinks non-white people are a sub-species. Please, please, please don't try and equate this to a "political" view. There is no political view worth entertaining that denies people's essential humanity.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
• programminggeek 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure secret societies and private groups will start forming as a result of people being pushed out of their right to speak openly about what they believe for fear it will offend others and ruin their careers. It's probably already happening.
• mvid 11y ago
  Is there a good summary somewhere of this entire situation? Starting with strange loop?