4 ms·

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]

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]