8 ms·

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 do

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".
KirinDave 11y ago
This just in: no one says attendance has to be barred. This is about speaking roles. It's about tacit endorsement of someone with vile dehumanizing viewpoints then being put in front of large audiences as an authority figure. That's VERY easy to make editorial decisions on. The entire purpose of the conference staff is to editorialize.
- striking 11y ago
  No one's endorsing him by letting him speak to an interested group. Is Hacker News endorsing you by letting you comment here? And I'd be concerned too if this conference let him talk about his viewpoints, but that's not what he's on the stage for. If someone looked into your history deep enough, wouldn't they be able to find something distasteful too? Imagine not being able to talk about your software development career just because something thinks something you did (even if entirely unrelated!) was distasteful. Do you think anyone seriously looks at Moldbug as an authority figure? Come on, you're blowing this way out of proportion. I think someone should be allowed to have their fringe views and be a member of the wonderful programming community. I don't agree with his views, but I'll defend his right to have them. If you think it's easy to make editorial decisions on, I think you're missing some part of this.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    > No one's endorsing him by letting him speak to an interested group. If that is true, then it's also true that no one is censoring him by declining to let him speak at a conference. > Is Hacker News endorsing you by letting you comment here? No, but Hacker News has and will continue to make editorial decisions about who is allowed to post here. Race baiting trolls have been called "race baiting trolls" and kicked out of Hacker News right before my eyes. > And I'd be concerned too if this conference let him talk about his viewpoints, but that's not what he's on the stage for. If someone looked into your history deep enough, wouldn't they be able to find something distasteful too? Of course! I was a hyper-right self-denying religious racist as a child. I've been very open about the environment I was raised into, and done my best to work through those issues. I no longer endorse those views, and I've paid a heavy price for them. But you seem to pretend that just because the subject of his talk is some technological function, that this means that he will not be interacting socially or simply being present. Isn't the best part of conferences the "hallway tract?" Do you think his presence will not influence that? Have you read what this person has wrote? "Racism" is not "distasteful." Racism is a vile dehumanizing view of our peers. > Imagine not being able to talk about your software development career just because something thinks something you did (even if entirely unrelated!) was distasteful. Racist viewpoints, no matter their origin or justification, are not politics. They're a fundamental denial of other people's humanity. These views were once common, but now are frowned upon. People who vocally and publicly espouse them can and should face societal consequences. It is not like tech conferences are some special place where humans was away the stink of the outside world and emerge as beings of pure thought. > I think someone should be allowed to have their fringe views and be a member of the wonderful programming community. I don't agree with his views, but I'll defend his right to have them. No one is mad because of a fringe view. They're mad because he vociferously promotes a view of the world that fundamentally denies the humanity of many people who are members of the tech community. These targeted members are part of a community that faces systemic violence and discrimination in many parts of the United States. We've seen this lame tactic before; people claim that any mention of feminism and the inherent biases of the programming community is "politics" and that should "stay out of tech." "Tech is neutral on this issue! All we care about is making something." But when you take a neutral stance on someone clearly calling for oppressive action to be enacted against an entire category of humans, you are not being neutral. You're inherently supporting them, because inaction on human rights issues means not protecting human rights. > If you think it's easy to make editorial decisions on, I think you're missing some part of this. How is saying, "We don't support racism" even remotely difficult in 2016? Quite the opposite. With the way that sponsors are dropping off of LambdaConf, they've chosen the expensive road. The major sponsors are pulling out, and I have backchannel info that another one will on Monday.

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".

KirinDave 11y ago

This just in: no one says attendance has to be barred. This is about speaking roles. It's about tacit endorsement of someone with vile dehumanizing viewpoints then being put in front of large audiences as an authority figure. That's VERY easy to make editorial decisions on. The entire purpose of the conference staff is to editorialize.

striking 11y ago
No one's endorsing him by letting him speak to an interested group. Is Hacker News endorsing you by letting you comment here? And I'd be concerned too if this conference let him talk about his viewpoints, but that's not what he's on the stage for. If someone looked into your history deep enough, wouldn't they be able to find something distasteful too? Imagine not being able to talk about your software development career just because something thinks something you did (even if entirely unrelated!) was distasteful. Do you think anyone seriously looks at Moldbug as an authority figure? Come on, you're blowing this way out of proportion. I think someone should be allowed to have their fringe views and be a member of the wonderful programming community. I don't agree with his views, but I'll defend his right to have them. If you think it's easy to make editorial decisions on, I think you're missing some part of this.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  > No one's endorsing him by letting him speak to an interested group. If that is true, then it's also true that no one is censoring him by declining to let him speak at a conference. > Is Hacker News endorsing you by letting you comment here? No, but Hacker News has and will continue to make editorial decisions about who is allowed to post here. Race baiting trolls have been called "race baiting trolls" and kicked out of Hacker News right before my eyes. > And I'd be concerned too if this conference let him talk about his viewpoints, but that's not what he's on the stage for. If someone looked into your history deep enough, wouldn't they be able to find something distasteful too? Of course! I was a hyper-right self-denying religious racist as a child. I've been very open about the environment I was raised into, and done my best to work through those issues. I no longer endorse those views, and I've paid a heavy price for them. But you seem to pretend that just because the subject of his talk is some technological function, that this means that he will not be interacting socially or simply being present. Isn't the best part of conferences the "hallway tract?" Do you think his presence will not influence that? Have you read what this person has wrote? "Racism" is not "distasteful." Racism is a vile dehumanizing view of our peers. > Imagine not being able to talk about your software development career just because something thinks something you did (even if entirely unrelated!) was distasteful. Racist viewpoints, no matter their origin or justification, are not politics. They're a fundamental denial of other people's humanity. These views were once common, but now are frowned upon. People who vocally and publicly espouse them can and should face societal consequences. It is not like tech conferences are some special place where humans was away the stink of the outside world and emerge as beings of pure thought. > I think someone should be allowed to have their fringe views and be a member of the wonderful programming community. I don't agree with his views, but I'll defend his right to have them. No one is mad because of a fringe view. They're mad because he vociferously promotes a view of the world that fundamentally denies the humanity of many people who are members of the tech community. These targeted members are part of a community that faces systemic violence and discrimination in many parts of the United States. We've seen this lame tactic before; people claim that any mention of feminism and the inherent biases of the programming community is "politics" and that should "stay out of tech." "Tech is neutral on this issue! All we care about is making something." But when you take a neutral stance on someone clearly calling for oppressive action to be enacted against an entire category of humans, you are not being neutral. You're inherently supporting them, because inaction on human rights issues means not protecting human rights. > If you think it's easy to make editorial decisions on, I think you're missing some part of this. How is saying, "We don't support racism" even remotely difficult in 2016? Quite the opposite. With the way that sponsors are dropping off of LambdaConf, they've chosen the expensive road. The major sponsors are pulling out, and I have backchannel info that another one will on Monday.