8 ms·

PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

55 points by mrstorm 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago
From the linked site within the linked site: >The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the political views (repeating that: political views, not actions) ..of someone else who was supposed to be at a parent conference. Continuing on from the OP link: >we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and fascist views... Unless the person in question was expressing those views at a technical conference, this is a shockingly disingenuous and dishonest statement. >..over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers. And the appeal to "safety" is the cherry on top. Words are, by themselves, harmful to this person? What the FUCK is "emotional safety"? These kinds of knee jerk reactions are more harmful to the free exchange of ideas than ten thousand /pol/'s.
- EdwardDiego 11y ago
  Literal thought policing...
  - pmalynin 11y ago
    Yup. Is their belief system so fragile, that letting a person speak will destroy it???
    - llamataboot 11y ago
      Nope, not about fragility at all. It's about creating spaces where a large chunk of people aren't being literally attacked (and told they are better suited to being slaves) by a speaker. What's the problem? Free speech can also mean no speech. I have no problem with people pulling out if they disagree so strongly with the social views of another participant. This isn't the government smashing someone's printing press, this is people voluntarily deciding not to share the stage with someone whose views they abhor.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        people aren't being literally attacked (and told they are better suited to being slaves) by a speaker. Was that actually the content of his talk? If so.. okay, this makes perfect sense. If not, it's crap.
        llamataboot 11y ago
        Nope, talk content doesn't matter. If I know you believe that "rape doesn't exist" and you regularly publish about it, but you are giving a talk on 'advanced garbage collection in Ruby", I can still feel totally ostracized from the conference knowing what you've said in other spaces is literally an attack on my safety.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        A speaker's personal views are not and cannot be an attack on your safety.
      - llamataboot 11y ago
        and here comes the onslaught on downvotes by the anti-PC police. Why do I have a suspicion that EVERY downvote is coming from a white cis male?
        llamataboot 11y ago
        I don't know what part of "free speech also means no speech" and "voluntarily not speaking has nothing to do with censorship" is a hard argument, even for the most staunch Libertarian.
    - xsmasher 11y ago
      I'd say they have enough integrity to not support a parent organization that has made an odious decision. There's a different between "allowing someone to speak (anywhere, at all)" and "providing them a platform." The parent org has decided to provide a platform, which has consequences. You can disagree about the decisions made, but your "belief system so fragile" is a strawman.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        The author has chosen to make a public statement with arguments X Y and Z, everyone else is free to critically evaluate those statements. And yes, fragility I believe is the right word to describe killing a technical conference because he doesn't like another speaker.
        xsmasher 11y ago
        A is free to make or not make controversial statements, B is free to provide or not provide a platform for A, C is free to support or not support B. No ones rights have been abridged, and everyone's freedoms have been preserved.
        thescribe 11y ago
        It reminds me of this quote, which I believe is attributed to GRRM. “When you cut out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - mbrock 11y ago
    It's not thought policing. It's an individual's withdrawal from an event because of a disagreement. Basically, it's Jon Sterling saying "I don't want to organize a workshop alongside someone who advocates racial slavery." Thought policing is bad because it violates the rights of individuals. Jon Sterling withdrawing from a conference does not violate the rights of any individuals. You are very wrong to call it "thought policing."
- spicyj 11y ago
  Just so everyone's on the same page, some of the thoughts in question: https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129 https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129
  - MattRogish 11y ago
    Also, he's no garden variety racist. He's the creator of the "Neoreactionary Movement" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement Regardless of whether or not you think a racist should or should not present (be paid to speak? Edit: they are not paid to speak at this conf although some expenses are covered) the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing.
    - saryant 11y ago
      FWIW, LambdaConf speakers are not paid.
      - jonsterling 11y ago
        Correct; we are typically given funding to attend though. (Travel & hotel expenses, free ticket to the conference.)
        saryant 11y ago
        True, I forgot about the travel expenses as I'm a local speaker.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing. Unless he is speaking about pro slavery and pro fascism, I have absolutely no reason to care. Can we please learn to separate technical concerns from nontechnical concerns? And before anyone starts replying with "they're one in the same!" - only under certain circumstances. If the subject of the talk is garbage collection in a programming language, what the speaker believes about anything other than garbage collection in a programming language is IRRELEVANT.
- jblow 11y ago
  Yeah ... I don't know what PrlConf is (and the link does nothing to explain) but LambdaCon's policy and statement about it seem totally well-reasoned and fine. So cancelling whatever Prl is seems like yet more internet outrage culture that we would be better off with less of.
  - tel 11y ago
    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/ 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 server running at a major institution. This prevents the spread of the ideas of PRL and both JonPrl and PrlConf are, most likely, attempts to reverse that. Generally, PRL is a mechanism for proofs which varies slightly but significantly from the "proof calculus"-oriented provers like Coq/Agda by including at its very core an unbounded notion of untyped computation. This allows more interesting, exotic things to be expressed in PRL even if the proofs about them must ultimately be finite.
    - jonsterling 11y ago
      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.
      - tel 11y ago
        I hope so too! I'd love to attend!
- tel 11y ago
  Without commenting on whether or not LamdbaConf is actually doing those things, the perception that it is is both (a) out of the control of LambdaConf and (b) completely up to the interpretation of, e.g., the PrlConf organizers. In some sense, speaking at a conference or even a subconference is an act which builds the platform of that conference. If one wishes to not give energy to a platform which supports people who one believes should not have a large platform... then I can't really see what's wrong with canceling PrlConf.
DanielDent 11y ago
I'm disturbed by the amount of CSS that was used to try to make the page look like it hadn't been styled. Font choice: "propagandaregular". Are we being trolled?
- jonsterling 11y ago
  Sorry about that. This note replaced our "call for proposals", which had much more formatting. Also, I'm a shite web developer, so there's that.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    What does prlconf have to do with lambdaconf? How does a speaker at one conference cause the closure of another conference?
    - masklinn 11y ago
      It was collocated with lambdaconf and essentially happening within lambdaconf: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1We6DAJ:www.jonprl.org/prlconf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1W...
      - DanielDent 11y ago
        [Wikipedia] In programming languages, closures (also lexical closures or function closures) are a technique for implementing lexically scoped name binding in languages with first-class functions. Operationally, a closure is a record storing a function[a] together with an environment:[1] a mapping associating each free variable of the function (variables that are used locally, but defined in an enclosing scope) with the value or storage location to which the name was bound when the closure was created.[b] A closure—unlike a plain function—allows the function to access those captured variables through the closure's reference to them, even when the function is invoked outside their scope.
    - jonsterling 11y ago
madsushi 11y ago
The invitee in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
akhilcacharya 11y ago
If urbit were any good I might be inclined to disagree, but not even the technology holds up. I invite anyone to try to read the source - it looks intentionally obfuscated.
OoTheNigerian 11y ago
I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1] However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology. Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere. It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not longer think the thoughts. This is the height of intolerance I have ever seen. Left to this guy, thinking absurd stuff today about various issues (not even acting on it) should banish on from society when it is discovered in 2 decades. I unreservedly condemn such intolerance and declare it far more dangerous than folks who think Africans are a lower species. One is an uneducated thought the other a dangerous totalitarian action. [1]https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129 https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129
- jonsterling 11y ago
  Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a time, though never as horrid as his.
  - OoTheNigerian 11y ago
    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 think too. Now, it would have been very different if his political views were a topic of conversation at the conference but to the best of my knowledge aren't. So how do both of them tie up. I do not know what your religion or denomination is (or if you have one) but I know a lot of people who will not let you work for them (say develop a website) if you do not in private believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and savior. You are acting alike sir. PS: 1. Would you act the same if it was a black dude that wrote the same thing/has the same ideas he has? 2. To what extent should he be ostracized? Can he get investment in your VC firm for a photo app? Get a job at your company managing servers? Open a bank account? Thanks for taking the time to respond. PPS: What he wrote is very very insulting and reprehensible to me and I'm sure many others.
lhnz 11y ago
It all comes down to this argument [0] in which he attempts to defend the offending opinion that has been linked to everywhere ("Why Carlyle Matters" [1]). I agree with the commenter that he does seem to be trying to deflect as he avoided using the word 'intelligence' or 'character' and carefully used an anecdote hiding behind a third-party in response. His own response suggests that he lost respect for the Native Americans for not making good slaves -- I wonder if he really means that, I honestly rolled my eyes at it. I think the paragraph that people are angry about is just stupid. Even if you believe that the brain/character/intelligence can be affected by our genes, it doesn't immediately follow that 'slavery' is therefore due to character or intelligence. When I read that paragraph a few thoughts ran through my head like "this person needs to think about people's feelings before writing his thoughts down" and "are you sure well-adaptedness is the right frame to use when looking at slavery?" and "why does slavery have to be such a slippery concept to you? could it be that you're trying to build a motte-and-bailey in advance." That said, I still do not think that the wrong beliefs warrant no-platforming. This is a tech conference and not a political one, and even if he was to speak politically informally it is better that reprehensible political views are said out in the open where they can be deconstructed and quashed. Of course left-leaning people have every right to remove themselves from the room if they do not want to be near him; as are libertarians allowed to bow out from events like Strange Loop. Either way the Streisand Effect [2] is at full force here. It's surely great for Urbit and Curtis Yarvin's weird politics. Maybe next time we can avoid giving him free publicity? Edit: It looks like he responded to that comment, and his response is actually pretty decent. He thinks of talents as distributed and none of them carry special mystical significance to him (even intelligence.) [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/d1dh7u7 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv... [1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
carapace 11y ago
It is correct and proper to shun and revile a person who actually advocates slavery. To say, "Well, as long as he is not advocating slavery at the con, that's fine." is ridiculous. Throw the racist evil nasty bum out and let someone else who actually deserves the timeslot talk.
- thescribe 11y ago
  Where is the line though? Should radically conservative parts of the south bar anyone who has advocated for gay marriage from speaking at tech conferences?
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    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.
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      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. But, slippery slope is generally considered a fallacy, and this is a great example of why. The conference organizers themselves have gone to great lengths to talk about all of the various and wildly differing beliefs held by participants that no one considers controversial and worthy of mention; right, left, religious, atheist, gay, straight, black, white, brown, all of these things are OK with everybody (by some reasonable definition of "everybody"). No one is suggesting Republicans/Libertarians/Democrats/Socialists shouldn't be allowed to speak or participate. We can all agree to disagree on those concepts and have civil conversations about other subjects without it being a big deal. Civil people can disagree without suggesting some people are genetically predisposed to being slaves and that others (conveniently, the person making the suggestion among them) are naturally predisposed to be their masters. And, there's where the problem lies. One can't reasonably "agree to disagree" with someone who considers an entire race to be subhuman; at least, I can't. That's, frankly, a person I want to be as far away from as possible. I certainly don't want to be a participant in a community that welcomes that person.
setra 11y ago
Note the red star at the bottom of the page
etjossem 11y ago
The post by Curtis Yarvin cited as cause for PrlCnf to withdraw from LambdaConf (since no one has mentioned it yet): http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carl... I personally feel that LambdaConf could have reached out to the many brilliant minds in the functional programming community and chosen a speaker more reflective of their values. Yarvin's assured us all he's going to give a technical talk, not chat about the merits of entering into a contract of slavery. But LambdaConf has taken a risk by giving him a pulpit to speak from, and it's up to each attendee to decide whether that sits well with them. It still wouldn't sit well with me, nor were the PrlCnf organizers willing to tolerate it. They're making a conscious choice to answer Yarvin's invitation with a boycott - another form of free expression. Other LambdaConf attendees may do the same, if they feel Yarvin is sufficiently extreme in his views. And that's freedom of speech in action.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jimrandomh 11y ago
If you're going to start a massive drama based on accusing someone of saying something bad, please quote the bad thing directly. When you call someone an "advocate for slavery", I check your accusation for links and verifiable quotes. If there aren't any, then I reflexively assume this is someone who ran over your dog, stole your girlfriend, and said nothing of the sort. Thank you. EDIT: I have been informed that Jon Sterling may have read an out-of-context quote in which Yarvin may have been summarizing 19th-century philosopher Thomas Carlyle, whom Wikipedia describes as a "satirical writer", and not had his dog run over after all. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159) But also he might really believe it, and I'll only have to read about 1.5*10^5 words to be sure.
- masklinn 11y ago
  The individual in question is Curtis Yarvin aka "Mencius Moldbug". Quote: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg Source: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-carl... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
  - teacup50 11y ago
    That quote is out-of-context. In context, he's apparently attempting to explain Thomas Carlyle's views. I forced myself to read that entire article, and by the end of it, I still had no idea whether Moldbug held the views he ascribes to Carlyle.
  - rwmj 11y ago
    He certainly is a wind-bag. I always suspect that these looney philosophers are deliberately obscure and long winded because their arguments wouldn't stand up if they were written in plain english.
  - jimrandomh 11y ago
    Thank you for the links. I really feel like they needed to be part of the original post. Yarvin's writing is... rather too voluminous for me to feel confident that I know what he believes, in so little time, but I did see a few things in that seven-year-old post which made me question the interpretation given: > "Lifetime employment and slavery are, of course, practically synonyms, and indeed the same phenomena of reciprocal loyalty and dependency were said - repeatedly, in my memory, in the '90s on NPR - to emerge." > ... > "Carlyle is in fact ready to be as indignant as anyone over these abuses. He reasons: since slavery is a natural human relationship, this bond will exist regardless of whether you abolish the word. And it does - if only in broken and surreptitious forms." This leads me to think that he's using words in a non-standard way. An unwise way, given the response it's gotten him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him to speak anywhere if I thought he was going to say things like that. But I'm really not okay with seeing someone attacked for beliefs I'm not sure they actually hold, in domains unrelated to those beliefs, by people who don't appear to be trying to be charitable.
zeveb 11y ago
> The program committee feel that we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and fascist views over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers. Ummm, none of those views are to be expressed at LambdaConf. There is no threat to anyone's physical safety, and the only threat to anyone's emotional safety is solely self-originated. Under the circumstances, I cannot have anything to do with Jon Sterling, because I can't trust that he will behave like an adult in a pluralistic society.
SwellJoe 11y ago
It's always fun to see how "free speech" is used to defend troglodytes' right to proclaim their superiority by virtue of their race and sex, but the people who have anything to say against those opinions are told they're being too sensitive, participating in "outrage culture", infringing on someone's rights, etc. The right to be an asshole and the right to call out their assholery is the same right. In this case, an individual has opted not to participate in an event that a racist is speaking at; not because he thinks the racist will spout racist things during his talk, but because being involved with racists is repugnant to him. That's his right. Are you going to force people to participate in events against their will to protect the feelings of a racist and proponent of slavery? Who's being overly sensitive now? Lambda Conf made a choice that they're willing to work with the racist proponent of slavery. That's their choice. It's the choice of everyone else to say, "Nah." No one is exerting force against anyone else in this story. No one is threatening violence. No one is calling the cops. This is literally a free speech story on all sides. Individuals are making choices about the kind of community they want to be a part of, and a lot of people are voting with their feet that they don't want to be part of a community that welcomes a self-proclaimed racist and proponent of slavery. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. And, for the folks who say, "This was years ago, under a pseudonym!" Did I miss where he has renounced his earlier writings? Did I miss the apologies? Did I miss where he owned up to the incredible amount of bullshit he spouted for years? I'm not saying he has to do those things; he can say and believe any thing he wants. But, time passing does not mean he's changed his mind on these subjects, and given the extremity of his views...I think it requires more than mere silence for me to believe he has changed. In short: I wouldn't want to participate in a community that tolerates racist proponents of slavery. It doesn't make me "sensitive". It means I choose my friends and peers with care.
- dpkendal 11y ago
  > Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. “Sorry, you wrote this and we don’t like it, therefore you’re not invited to this conference on an irrelevant topic” or “… therefore we’re not going to a conference to which you were invited” is not valid criticism of an idea.
  - 11y ago
caseysoftware 11y ago
Will we see a similar reaction when anti-white or anti-male speakers are invited to speak at conferences? Or are there groups that it's acceptable to insult and denigrate?
- etjossem 11y ago
  Give me an example of a tech conference speaker who professes the belief that white guys lend themselves well to being enslaved. I certainly can't think of one off the top of my head. Is it possible this isn't a real problem faced by the software community?
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    If you're going to respond, please stick to what I said instead of what you imagined. Thanks!
    - calibraxis 11y ago
      No, they had an entirely correct response. The context is a country which notoriously acts with unusual violence against its Black population, since its "founding fathers", up to basically being a police state as far as many Black communities are concerned.
KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
The announcement is written on behalf of the program committee but signed only by its chair. The cached version of the page doesn't say anything about a program committee either. Who is on the program committee other than Mr. Sterling?
erichocean 11y ago
Summary: PrlConf 2016 is being cancelled because Curtis Yarvin[0] is speaking at another conference, LambdaConf, and has written (elsewhere, under a pen name) about political viewpoints that are not mainstream, progressive political viewpoints. The LambdaConf people are aware of Yarvin's political writings, do not agree with them, but decided to let Yarvin speak anyway if he agreed to their terms, which he did (these are Yarvin's own words to LambdaConf[1] on the subject): > One: I’m a writer, not an activist. I’m neither a leader nor a member of any kind of organization. I promote only one kind of action: reading old books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent or otherwise. Instead I promote passive unresistance, or “passivism.” Frankly, any “follower” who needs me to explain this is a dangerous fool and hasn’t read enough old books. > Two: Politics of any sort is out of scope at a functional programming conference. I pledge to treat other LambdaConf guests as if they were colleagues at a large company or fellow students at a university, and neither utter nor show any content that’s out of scope or otherwise disturbing. My pen name has been “doxed,” but professionally I behave as if it was a secret. > Three: violence is unacceptable and frankly preposterous at a functional programming conference, even over an issue as charged as strict versus lazy evaluation. The strongest possible pledge is to not respond with verbal or physical violence even if assaulted myself. I have no hesitation in making this pledge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin [1] http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion
fiatmoney 11y ago
The red star signature is a nice touch. I wonder if Mencius qualifies as a kulak? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star
dominotw 11y ago
I a brown person. I am curious what will not allowing him speak achieve. Will it teach him a lesson? Would he change his views at a deep fundamental level?
gravypod 11y ago
If you really want someone's ideas to be discredited, let them express them and then refute them in a debate like format. Let them get exposure and if their ideas are wrong or bad it will be evident to anyone who is listening. Silencing people because "I don't like what they say" is wrong.

55 points by mrstorm 11y ago

From the linked site within the linked site: >The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior. Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the political views (repeating that: political views, not actions) ..of someone else who was supposed to be at a parent conference. Continuing on from the OP link: >we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and fascist views... Unless the person in question was expressing those views at a technical conference, this is a shockingly disingenuous and dishonest statement. >..over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers. And the appeal to "safety" is the cherry on top. Words are, by themselves, harmful to this person? What the FUCK is "emotional safety"? These kinds of knee jerk reactions are more harmful to the free exchange of ideas than ten thousand /pol/'s.

EdwardDiego 11y ago
Literal thought policing...
- pmalynin 11y ago
  Yup. Is their belief system so fragile, that letting a person speak will destroy it???
  - llamataboot 11y ago
    Nope, not about fragility at all. It's about creating spaces where a large chunk of people aren't being literally attacked (and told they are better suited to being slaves) by a speaker. What's the problem? Free speech can also mean no speech. I have no problem with people pulling out if they disagree so strongly with the social views of another participant. This isn't the government smashing someone's printing press, this is people voluntarily deciding not to share the stage with someone whose views they abhor.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      people aren't being literally attacked (and told they are better suited to being slaves) by a speaker. Was that actually the content of his talk? If so.. okay, this makes perfect sense. If not, it's crap.
      - llamataboot 11y ago
        Nope, talk content doesn't matter. If I know you believe that "rape doesn't exist" and you regularly publish about it, but you are giving a talk on 'advanced garbage collection in Ruby", I can still feel totally ostracized from the conference knowing what you've said in other spaces is literally an attack on my safety.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        A speaker's personal views are not and cannot be an attack on your safety.
    - llamataboot 11y ago
      and here comes the onslaught on downvotes by the anti-PC police. Why do I have a suspicion that EVERY downvote is coming from a white cis male?
      - llamataboot 11y ago
        I don't know what part of "free speech also means no speech" and "voluntarily not speaking has nothing to do with censorship" is a hard argument, even for the most staunch Libertarian.
  - xsmasher 11y ago
    I'd say they have enough integrity to not support a parent organization that has made an odious decision. There's a different between "allowing someone to speak (anywhere, at all)" and "providing them a platform." The parent org has decided to provide a platform, which has consequences. You can disagree about the decisions made, but your "belief system so fragile" is a strawman.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      The author has chosen to make a public statement with arguments X Y and Z, everyone else is free to critically evaluate those statements. And yes, fragility I believe is the right word to describe killing a technical conference because he doesn't like another speaker.
      - xsmasher 11y ago
        A is free to make or not make controversial statements, B is free to provide or not provide a platform for A, C is free to support or not support B. No ones rights have been abridged, and everyone's freedoms have been preserved.
      - thescribe 11y ago
        It reminds me of this quote, which I believe is attributed to GRRM. “When you cut out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- mbrock 11y ago
  It's not thought policing. It's an individual's withdrawal from an event because of a disagreement. Basically, it's Jon Sterling saying "I don't want to organize a workshop alongside someone who advocates racial slavery." Thought policing is bad because it violates the rights of individuals. Jon Sterling withdrawing from a conference does not violate the rights of any individuals. You are very wrong to call it "thought policing."
spicyj 11y ago
Just so everyone's on the same page, some of the thoughts in question: https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129 https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129
- MattRogish 11y ago
  Also, he's no garden variety racist. He's the creator of the "Neoreactionary Movement" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement Regardless of whether or not you think a racist should or should not present (be paid to speak? Edit: they are not paid to speak at this conf although some expenses are covered) the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing.
  - saryant 11y ago
    FWIW, LambdaConf speakers are not paid.
    - jonsterling 11y ago
      Correct; we are typically given funding to attend though. (Travel & hotel expenses, free ticket to the conference.)
      - saryant 11y ago
        True, I forgot about the travel expenses as I'm a local speaker.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing. Unless he is speaking about pro slavery and pro fascism, I have absolutely no reason to care. Can we please learn to separate technical concerns from nontechnical concerns? And before anyone starts replying with "they're one in the same!" - only under certain circumstances. If the subject of the talk is garbage collection in a programming language, what the speaker believes about anything other than garbage collection in a programming language is IRRELEVANT.
jblow 11y ago
Yeah ... I don't know what PrlConf is (and the link does nothing to explain) but LambdaCon's policy and statement about it seem totally well-reasoned and fine. So cancelling whatever Prl is seems like yet more internet outrage culture that we would be better off with less of.
- tel 11y ago
  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/ 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 server running at a major institution. This prevents the spread of the ideas of PRL and both JonPrl and PrlConf are, most likely, attempts to reverse that. Generally, PRL is a mechanism for proofs which varies slightly but significantly from the "proof calculus"-oriented provers like Coq/Agda by including at its very core an unbounded notion of untyped computation. This allows more interesting, exotic things to be expressed in PRL even if the proofs about them must ultimately be finite.
  - jonsterling 11y ago
    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.
    - tel 11y ago
      I hope so too! I'd love to attend!
tel 11y ago
Without commenting on whether or not LamdbaConf is actually doing those things, the perception that it is is both (a) out of the control of LambdaConf and (b) completely up to the interpretation of, e.g., the PrlConf organizers. In some sense, speaking at a conference or even a subconference is an act which builds the platform of that conference. If one wishes to not give energy to a platform which supports people who one believes should not have a large platform... then I can't really see what's wrong with canceling PrlConf.

DanielDent 11y ago

I'm disturbed by the amount of CSS that was used to try to make the page look like it hadn't been styled. Font choice: "propagandaregular". Are we being trolled?

jonsterling 11y ago
Sorry about that. This note replaced our "call for proposals", which had much more formatting. Also, I'm a shite web developer, so there's that.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  What does prlconf have to do with lambdaconf? How does a speaker at one conference cause the closure of another conference?
  - masklinn 11y ago
    It was collocated with lambdaconf and essentially happening within lambdaconf: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1We6DAJ:www.jonprl.org/prlconf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1W...
    - DanielDent 11y ago
      [Wikipedia] In programming languages, closures (also lexical closures or function closures) are a technique for implementing lexically scoped name binding in languages with first-class functions. Operationally, a closure is a record storing a function[a] together with an environment:[1] a mapping associating each free variable of the function (variables that are used locally, but defined in an enclosing scope) with the value or storage location to which the name was bound when the closure was created.[b] A closure—unlike a plain function—allows the function to access those captured variables through the closure's reference to them, even when the function is invoked outside their scope.
  - jonsterling 11y ago

madsushi 11y ago

The invitee in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

akhilcacharya 11y ago

If urbit were any good I might be inclined to disagree, but not even the technology holds up. I invite anyone to try to read the source - it looks intentionally obfuscated.

OoTheNigerian 11y ago

I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1] However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology. Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere. It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not longer think the thoughts. This is the height of intolerance I have ever seen. Left to this guy, thinking absurd stuff today about various issues (not even acting on it) should banish on from society when it is discovered in 2 decades. I unreservedly condemn such intolerance and declare it far more dangerous than folks who think Africans are a lower species. One is an uneducated thought the other a dangerous totalitarian action. [1]https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129 https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129

jonsterling 11y ago
Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a time, though never as horrid as his.
- OoTheNigerian 11y ago
  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 think too. Now, it would have been very different if his political views were a topic of conversation at the conference but to the best of my knowledge aren't. So how do both of them tie up. I do not know what your religion or denomination is (or if you have one) but I know a lot of people who will not let you work for them (say develop a website) if you do not in private believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and savior. You are acting alike sir. PS: 1. Would you act the same if it was a black dude that wrote the same thing/has the same ideas he has? 2. To what extent should he be ostracized? Can he get investment in your VC firm for a photo app? Get a job at your company managing servers? Open a bank account? Thanks for taking the time to respond. PPS: What he wrote is very very insulting and reprehensible to me and I'm sure many others.

lhnz 11y ago

It all comes down to this argument [0] in which he attempts to defend the offending opinion that has been linked to everywhere ("Why Carlyle Matters" [1]). I agree with the commenter that he does seem to be trying to deflect as he avoided using the word 'intelligence' or 'character' and carefully used an anecdote hiding behind a third-party in response. His own response suggests that he lost respect for the Native Americans for not making good slaves -- I wonder if he really means that, I honestly rolled my eyes at it. I think the paragraph that people are angry about is just stupid. Even if you believe that the brain/character/intelligence can be affected by our genes, it doesn't immediately follow that 'slavery' is therefore due to character or intelligence. When I read that paragraph a few thoughts ran through my head like "this person needs to think about people's feelings before writing his thoughts down" and "are you sure well-adaptedness is the right frame to use when looking at slavery?" and "why does slavery have to be such a slippery concept to you? could it be that you're trying to build a motte-and-bailey in advance." That said, I still do not think that the wrong beliefs warrant no-platforming. This is a tech conference and not a political one, and even if he was to speak politically informally it is better that reprehensible political views are said out in the open where they can be deconstructed and quashed. Of course left-leaning people have every right to remove themselves from the room if they do not want to be near him; as are libertarians allowed to bow out from events like Strange Loop. Either way the Streisand Effect [2] is at full force here. It's surely great for Urbit and Curtis Yarvin's weird politics. Maybe next time we can avoid giving him free publicity? Edit: It looks like he responded to that comment, and his response is actually pretty decent. He thinks of talents as distributed and none of them carry special mystical significance to him (even intelligence.) [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/d1dh7u7 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv... [1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

carapace 11y ago

It is correct and proper to shun and revile a person who actually advocates slavery. To say, "Well, as long as he is not advocating slavery at the con, that's fine." is ridiculous. Throw the racist evil nasty bum out and let someone else who actually deserves the timeslot talk.

thescribe 11y ago
Where is the line though? Should radically conservative parts of the south bar anyone who has advocated for gay marriage from speaking at tech conferences?
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  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.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    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. But, slippery slope is generally considered a fallacy, and this is a great example of why. The conference organizers themselves have gone to great lengths to talk about all of the various and wildly differing beliefs held by participants that no one considers controversial and worthy of mention; right, left, religious, atheist, gay, straight, black, white, brown, all of these things are OK with everybody (by some reasonable definition of "everybody"). No one is suggesting Republicans/Libertarians/Democrats/Socialists shouldn't be allowed to speak or participate. We can all agree to disagree on those concepts and have civil conversations about other subjects without it being a big deal. Civil people can disagree without suggesting some people are genetically predisposed to being slaves and that others (conveniently, the person making the suggestion among them) are naturally predisposed to be their masters. And, there's where the problem lies. One can't reasonably "agree to disagree" with someone who considers an entire race to be subhuman; at least, I can't. That's, frankly, a person I want to be as far away from as possible. I certainly don't want to be a participant in a community that welcomes that person.

setra 11y ago

Note the red star at the bottom of the page

etjossem 11y ago

The post by Curtis Yarvin cited as cause for PrlCnf to withdraw from LambdaConf (since no one has mentioned it yet): http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carl... I personally feel that LambdaConf could have reached out to the many brilliant minds in the functional programming community and chosen a speaker more reflective of their values. Yarvin's assured us all he's going to give a technical talk, not chat about the merits of entering into a contract of slavery. But LambdaConf has taken a risk by giving him a pulpit to speak from, and it's up to each attendee to decide whether that sits well with them. It still wouldn't sit well with me, nor were the PrlCnf organizers willing to tolerate it. They're making a conscious choice to answer Yarvin's invitation with a boycott - another form of free expression. Other LambdaConf attendees may do the same, if they feel Yarvin is sufficiently extreme in his views. And that's freedom of speech in action.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jimrandomh 11y ago

If you're going to start a massive drama based on accusing someone of saying something bad, please quote the bad thing directly. When you call someone an "advocate for slavery", I check your accusation for links and verifiable quotes. If there aren't any, then I reflexively assume this is someone who ran over your dog, stole your girlfriend, and said nothing of the sort. Thank you. EDIT: I have been informed that Jon Sterling may have read an out-of-context quote in which Yarvin may have been summarizing 19th-century philosopher Thomas Carlyle, whom Wikipedia describes as a "satirical writer", and not had his dog run over after all. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159) But also he might really believe it, and I'll only have to read about 1.5*10^5 words to be sure.

masklinn 11y ago
The individual in question is Curtis Yarvin aka "Mencius Moldbug". Quote: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg Source: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-carl... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
- teacup50 11y ago
  That quote is out-of-context. In context, he's apparently attempting to explain Thomas Carlyle's views. I forced myself to read that entire article, and by the end of it, I still had no idea whether Moldbug held the views he ascribes to Carlyle.
- rwmj 11y ago
  He certainly is a wind-bag. I always suspect that these looney philosophers are deliberately obscure and long winded because their arguments wouldn't stand up if they were written in plain english.
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  Thank you for the links. I really feel like they needed to be part of the original post. Yarvin's writing is... rather too voluminous for me to feel confident that I know what he believes, in so little time, but I did see a few things in that seven-year-old post which made me question the interpretation given: > "Lifetime employment and slavery are, of course, practically synonyms, and indeed the same phenomena of reciprocal loyalty and dependency were said - repeatedly, in my memory, in the '90s on NPR - to emerge." > ... > "Carlyle is in fact ready to be as indignant as anyone over these abuses. He reasons: since slavery is a natural human relationship, this bond will exist regardless of whether you abolish the word. And it does - if only in broken and surreptitious forms." This leads me to think that he's using words in a non-standard way. An unwise way, given the response it's gotten him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him to speak anywhere if I thought he was going to say things like that. But I'm really not okay with seeing someone attacked for beliefs I'm not sure they actually hold, in domains unrelated to those beliefs, by people who don't appear to be trying to be charitable.

zeveb 11y ago

> The program committee feel that we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and fascist views over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers. Ummm, none of those views are to be expressed at LambdaConf. There is no threat to anyone's physical safety, and the only threat to anyone's emotional safety is solely self-originated. Under the circumstances, I cannot have anything to do with Jon Sterling, because I can't trust that he will behave like an adult in a pluralistic society.

SwellJoe 11y ago

It's always fun to see how "free speech" is used to defend troglodytes' right to proclaim their superiority by virtue of their race and sex, but the people who have anything to say against those opinions are told they're being too sensitive, participating in "outrage culture", infringing on someone's rights, etc. The right to be an asshole and the right to call out their assholery is the same right. In this case, an individual has opted not to participate in an event that a racist is speaking at; not because he thinks the racist will spout racist things during his talk, but because being involved with racists is repugnant to him. That's his right. Are you going to force people to participate in events against their will to protect the feelings of a racist and proponent of slavery? Who's being overly sensitive now? Lambda Conf made a choice that they're willing to work with the racist proponent of slavery. That's their choice. It's the choice of everyone else to say, "Nah." No one is exerting force against anyone else in this story. No one is threatening violence. No one is calling the cops. This is literally a free speech story on all sides. Individuals are making choices about the kind of community they want to be a part of, and a lot of people are voting with their feet that they don't want to be part of a community that welcomes a self-proclaimed racist and proponent of slavery. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. And, for the folks who say, "This was years ago, under a pseudonym!" Did I miss where he has renounced his earlier writings? Did I miss the apologies? Did I miss where he owned up to the incredible amount of bullshit he spouted for years? I'm not saying he has to do those things; he can say and believe any thing he wants. But, time passing does not mean he's changed his mind on these subjects, and given the extremity of his views...I think it requires more than mere silence for me to believe he has changed. In short: I wouldn't want to participate in a community that tolerates racist proponents of slavery. It doesn't make me "sensitive". It means I choose my friends and peers with care.

dpkendal 11y ago
> Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. “Sorry, you wrote this and we don’t like it, therefore you’re not invited to this conference on an irrelevant topic” or “… therefore we’re not going to a conference to which you were invited” is not valid criticism of an idea.
- 11y ago

caseysoftware 11y ago

Will we see a similar reaction when anti-white or anti-male speakers are invited to speak at conferences? Or are there groups that it's acceptable to insult and denigrate?

etjossem 11y ago
Give me an example of a tech conference speaker who professes the belief that white guys lend themselves well to being enslaved. I certainly can't think of one off the top of my head. Is it possible this isn't a real problem faced by the software community?
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  If you're going to respond, please stick to what I said instead of what you imagined. Thanks!
  - calibraxis 11y ago
    No, they had an entirely correct response. The context is a country which notoriously acts with unusual violence against its Black population, since its "founding fathers", up to basically being a police state as far as many Black communities are concerned.

KKKKkkkk1 11y ago

The announcement is written on behalf of the program committee but signed only by its chair. The cached version of the page doesn't say anything about a program committee either. Who is on the program committee other than Mr. Sterling?

erichocean 11y ago

Summary: PrlConf 2016 is being cancelled because Curtis Yarvin[0] is speaking at another conference, LambdaConf, and has written (elsewhere, under a pen name) about political viewpoints that are not mainstream, progressive political viewpoints. The LambdaConf people are aware of Yarvin's political writings, do not agree with them, but decided to let Yarvin speak anyway if he agreed to their terms, which he did (these are Yarvin's own words to LambdaConf[1] on the subject): > One: I’m a writer, not an activist. I’m neither a leader nor a member of any kind of organization. I promote only one kind of action: reading old books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent or otherwise. Instead I promote passive unresistance, or “passivism.” Frankly, any “follower” who needs me to explain this is a dangerous fool and hasn’t read enough old books. > Two: Politics of any sort is out of scope at a functional programming conference. I pledge to treat other LambdaConf guests as if they were colleagues at a large company or fellow students at a university, and neither utter nor show any content that’s out of scope or otherwise disturbing. My pen name has been “doxed,” but professionally I behave as if it was a secret. > Three: violence is unacceptable and frankly preposterous at a functional programming conference, even over an issue as charged as strict versus lazy evaluation. The strongest possible pledge is to not respond with verbal or physical violence even if assaulted myself. I have no hesitation in making this pledge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin [1] http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion

fiatmoney 11y ago

The red star signature is a nice touch. I wonder if Mencius qualifies as a kulak? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star

dominotw 11y ago

I a brown person. I am curious what will not allowing him speak achieve. Will it teach him a lesson? Would he change his views at a deep fundamental level?

gravypod 11y ago

If you really want someone's ideas to be discredited, let them express them and then refute them in a debate like format. Let them get exposure and if their ideas are wrong or bad it will be evident to anyone who is listening. Silencing people because "I don't like what they say" is wrong.