4 ms·

"We're going to take our ball and go home; we don't want to play with you!" What a bunch of children. They don't agree with a person's personal views, which ar

"We're going to take our ball and go home; we don't want to play with you!" What a bunch of children. They don't agree with a person's personal views, which are totally tangental to the subject of the conference, so they pick up their ball and go home? Since when did everyone become such cowarda towards people with different ideas? Why not show up with a diverse group of kick ass programmers, and show him he's not so great? No, we'll run and cry, and make blog posts about it. Stay strong. /s

lemmsjid 11y ago
While I am not one to shy away from a political argument, it's pretty easy to put myself into TypeLevel's shoes. As they say in their blog post, due to the notoriety of the speaker it's almost inevitable that an event about programming would become an event about political argument. If they aren't in the mood to preside over such an event, it's reasonable not to have it at all. They are not obligated to be in the business of public debate, and the results of such debates could easily harm their reputation. It's important in life to pick your battles. Having read about the speaker in question, it's pretty much impossible that TypeLevel employees would be able to magically argue him out of his existing position, and it's probably equally inevitable that he would be unable to argue them into his position. None of the above seems childish to me. Most people I know, with few exceptions, make such decisions all of the time. Are you going to have a good Thanksgiving, or are you going to get into it with your reactionary relative for the thousandth time?
- analognoise 11y ago
  You still invite that reactionary relative because that's what the event is about - family. In this case it's about programming. Being so gun-shy about different (unrelated) opinions people would cancel events isn't absurd? Any gathering over 10 people is likely to have at least one asshole in the bunch. I get the feeling actual programmers aren't pushing this PC crap, but hangers-on who want to dictate everyone else's thoughts - and they're scoring victories, which seems even crazier to me.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  But that's simply victim-blaming. This is a professional conference about a particular apolitical topic. If the speaker, no matter how controversial or unpopular his unrelated personal views might be, is going to stay on the topic and not bring up politics, then anyone who tries to bring politics into it is being the disruptive force, not the speaker, and that is the person who is creating an unsafe atmosphere and needs to be ejected from the conference. > it's pretty much impossible that TypeLevel employees would be able to magically argue him out of his existing position, and it's probably equally inevitable that he would be unable to argue them into his position. Why is it necessary for either of them to argue the other into their position? > Are you going to have a good Thanksgiving, or are you going to get into it with your reactionary relative for the thousandth time? I'll tell you what I wouldn't do: I certainly wouldn't demand that my reactionary relative not be permitted to attend, and if she's gracious enough to not start a fight at the dinner table I won't start one myself. If she can be polite, I can be polite.
  - nrinaudo 11y ago
    But typelevel has not cancelled lambdaconf, nor asked for it to be cancelled or even change its speakers lineup. They decided not to hold another event that was affiliated with lambdaconf. If we're going to keep running with this thanksgiving comparison, they're not asking for the relative not be invited. They're having a party the day after, a party to which the crazy relative was never invited, and decided to cancel that.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      > They decided not to hold another event that was affiliated with lambdaconf. You make it sound like they randomly woke up one day and decided, for no particular reason whatsoever, to not hold an event they had already put enormous effort into planning and scheduling. They are cancelling their event in an attempt to pressure LambdaConf into bowing to their political demands. > If we're going to keep running with this thanksgiving comparison, they're not asking for the relative not be invited. They're having a party the day after, a party to which the crazy relative was never invited, and decided to cancel that. How would that behavior make any sense, though, if you're a person who doesn't want to disrupt the Thanksgiving dinner? They already didn't invite the crazy relative to their own party; what more do they want?
nrinaudo 11y ago
What are you going on about? typelevel had another conference organised outside of lambdaconf. It's affiliated with it, but doesn't happen at the same time - the idea being that you could come for lambdaconf, but take the opportunity to see what these typelevel folks are all about. The fact that they cancelled the typelevel conference changes nothing for lambdaconf. They decided to cancel it because they feel that being associated with an advocate of white supremacy over the lesser races hurt their image, or were offended by said views. It's their prerogative, just as it's lambdaconf's prerogative to invite that man. They're not asking people to boycott lambdaconf, they're not even blaming lambdaconf for doing this - they explicitly state that they respect their right to do so. I read an implicit "just as you should respect our right to associate, or not, with whoever we want" there. How is standing up for what you believe in cowardly? they find these ideas disgusting and protest them in a peaceful yet visible way. What would you rather have them do? ignore the issue and compromise their ethics because, well, it's easier (read: be cowards)? or make a more confrontational stand, such as trying to get lambdaconf speakers to cancel? The issue is not whether moldbug is great or not - it's whether typelevel wants to be associated in any way, shape or form with ideas that they find abhorrent. They decided they didn't want to, and I can't really fault them for that.
- dudul 11y ago
  So typelevel had another conference, outside of lambdaconf, not related to lambdaconf. But still, they decide to cancel because they don't want to be associated with one speaker of lambdaconf. Sounds like it was somehow linked to lambdaconf, at least implicitly.
  - nrinaudo 11y ago
    I did say affiliated, third word of the third sentence.

lemmsjid 11y ago

While I am not one to shy away from a political argument, it's pretty easy to put myself into TypeLevel's shoes. As they say in their blog post, due to the notoriety of the speaker it's almost inevitable that an event about programming would become an event about political argument. If they aren't in the mood to preside over such an event, it's reasonable not to have it at all. They are not obligated to be in the business of public debate, and the results of such debates could easily harm their reputation. It's important in life to pick your battles. Having read about the speaker in question, it's pretty much impossible that TypeLevel employees would be able to magically argue him out of his existing position, and it's probably equally inevitable that he would be unable to argue them into his position. None of the above seems childish to me. Most people I know, with few exceptions, make such decisions all of the time. Are you going to have a good Thanksgiving, or are you going to get into it with your reactionary relative for the thousandth time?

analognoise 11y ago
You still invite that reactionary relative because that's what the event is about - family. In this case it's about programming. Being so gun-shy about different (unrelated) opinions people would cancel events isn't absurd? Any gathering over 10 people is likely to have at least one asshole in the bunch. I get the feeling actual programmers aren't pushing this PC crap, but hangers-on who want to dictate everyone else's thoughts - and they're scoring victories, which seems even crazier to me.
13thLetter 11y ago
But that's simply victim-blaming. This is a professional conference about a particular apolitical topic. If the speaker, no matter how controversial or unpopular his unrelated personal views might be, is going to stay on the topic and not bring up politics, then anyone who tries to bring politics into it is being the disruptive force, not the speaker, and that is the person who is creating an unsafe atmosphere and needs to be ejected from the conference. > it's pretty much impossible that TypeLevel employees would be able to magically argue him out of his existing position, and it's probably equally inevitable that he would be unable to argue them into his position. Why is it necessary for either of them to argue the other into their position? > Are you going to have a good Thanksgiving, or are you going to get into it with your reactionary relative for the thousandth time? I'll tell you what I wouldn't do: I certainly wouldn't demand that my reactionary relative not be permitted to attend, and if she's gracious enough to not start a fight at the dinner table I won't start one myself. If she can be polite, I can be polite.
- nrinaudo 11y ago
  But typelevel has not cancelled lambdaconf, nor asked for it to be cancelled or even change its speakers lineup. They decided not to hold another event that was affiliated with lambdaconf. If we're going to keep running with this thanksgiving comparison, they're not asking for the relative not be invited. They're having a party the day after, a party to which the crazy relative was never invited, and decided to cancel that.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > They decided not to hold another event that was affiliated with lambdaconf. You make it sound like they randomly woke up one day and decided, for no particular reason whatsoever, to not hold an event they had already put enormous effort into planning and scheduling. They are cancelling their event in an attempt to pressure LambdaConf into bowing to their political demands. > If we're going to keep running with this thanksgiving comparison, they're not asking for the relative not be invited. They're having a party the day after, a party to which the crazy relative was never invited, and decided to cancel that. How would that behavior make any sense, though, if you're a person who doesn't want to disrupt the Thanksgiving dinner? They already didn't invite the crazy relative to their own party; what more do they want?

nrinaudo 11y ago

What are you going on about? typelevel had another conference organised outside of lambdaconf. It's affiliated with it, but doesn't happen at the same time - the idea being that you could come for lambdaconf, but take the opportunity to see what these typelevel folks are all about. The fact that they cancelled the typelevel conference changes nothing for lambdaconf. They decided to cancel it because they feel that being associated with an advocate of white supremacy over the lesser races hurt their image, or were offended by said views. It's their prerogative, just as it's lambdaconf's prerogative to invite that man. They're not asking people to boycott lambdaconf, they're not even blaming lambdaconf for doing this - they explicitly state that they respect their right to do so. I read an implicit "just as you should respect our right to associate, or not, with whoever we want" there. How is standing up for what you believe in cowardly? they find these ideas disgusting and protest them in a peaceful yet visible way. What would you rather have them do? ignore the issue and compromise their ethics because, well, it's easier (read: be cowards)? or make a more confrontational stand, such as trying to get lambdaconf speakers to cancel? The issue is not whether moldbug is great or not - it's whether typelevel wants to be associated in any way, shape or form with ideas that they find abhorrent. They decided they didn't want to, and I can't really fault them for that.

dudul 11y ago
So typelevel had another conference, outside of lambdaconf, not related to lambdaconf. But still, they decide to cancel because they don't want to be associated with one speaker of lambdaconf. Sounds like it was somehow linked to lambdaconf, at least implicitly.
- nrinaudo 11y ago
  I did say affiliated, third word of the third sentence.