3 ms·

Everyone advocating for suppressing others always believes they hold the ethical high ground. Sometimes they do. The problem is when they don't, those tools of

Everyone advocating for suppressing others always believes they hold the ethical high ground. Sometimes they do. The problem is when they don't, those tools of suppression work just as well. USSR: "[We call for] painless but full liquidation of the monasteries, as chief centers of the influence of the churchmen, as nurseries of parasitism, as powerful screws in the exploiting machine of the old ruling classes." USA: "We will not knowingly employ a Communist ... In pursuing this policy, we are not going to be swayed by hysteria or intimidation from any source. We are frank to recognize that such a policy involves danger and risks. There is the danger of hurting innocent people. There is the risk of creating an atmosphere of fear. Creative work at its best cannot be carried on in an atmosphere of fear. We will guard against this danger, this risk, this fear." "... We request Congress to enact legislation to assist American industry to rid itself of subversive, disloyal elements." China: "Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds, and stage a comeback." "[Our]  objective  is  to  struggle  against  and  crush  those  persons  in  authority  who are  taking  the  capitalist  road,  to  criticize  and  repudiate  the  reactionary  bourgeois  academic  “authorities”  and  the  ideology  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  all  other exploiting  classes"

knucklesandwich 11y ago
Had no idea the slope was this slippery. Apparently you can go from choosing to not participate at a conference because an invited speaker harbors racist views to being in support of pogroms and blacklists.
- teacup50 11y ago
  The obvious implication is that the conference was expected to enforce a blacklist. If failing to preemptively blacklist ideologically unacceptable attendees carries with it this degree of negative response, then a preemptive Hollywood-style industry blacklist is exactly what we'll get. It's already the case that defending someone like Moldbug carries with it the risk of being branded as supporting the popular perception of his views, which in turn means you too can be on the receiving end of mob wisdom.
  - knucklesandwich 11y ago
    Curtis Yarvin is a software engineer, so if you want to make the analogy honest, a blacklist would be a large contingent of software companies refusing to hire him under any circumstances. Dalton Trumbo wasn't pressured not to speak at conferences because of his political allegiances, he was barred from working period (and eventually jailed!). This has absolutely nothing to do with a blacklist.
    - teacup50 11y ago
      So you're saying that this mob is unhappy with him speaking, but has no issue with his being employed? Like this? https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/713222987537756163 https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/713222987537756163 "In case you think it's just LambdaConf: Google continues to employ one of Moldbug's most devoted followers." "Tech employees: it's time to hold your execs accountable for lack of action. My tweets aren't gonna do it alone."
      - knucklesandwich 11y ago
        Some tweets and a Sam Biddle provocation piece about Google keeping this person employed (from 2 years ago) != a blacklist. Even if this amounted to action on Google's part, an employer has the right to fire an employee for actions deemed hostile to other employees (and its plausible to say its hostile for an employee to write blog posts about how certain races are genetically inferior). This is implicit in the concept of "at-will employment". I've been on the receiving end of this taken to a ridiculous extent when I was fired from a job for not going to a Christmas party. I found the reason I was fired to be pretty objectionable, but it wasn't anything remotely like being blacklisted. There's a lot of hypothetical rabbit holes to go down with this, but ultimately this is a distraction from what's being discussed, which is a person choosing to withdraw their workshop group from a conference because of the opinions of a speaker. Boycotting, protests, or simply declining to not participate are fundamental methods of democratic action. It's laughable to me that anyone would equate what's being talked about here with a suppressive measure.

knucklesandwich 11y ago

Had no idea the slope was this slippery. Apparently you can go from choosing to not participate at a conference because an invited speaker harbors racist views to being in support of pogroms and blacklists.

teacup50 11y ago
The obvious implication is that the conference was expected to enforce a blacklist. If failing to preemptively blacklist ideologically unacceptable attendees carries with it this degree of negative response, then a preemptive Hollywood-style industry blacklist is exactly what we'll get. It's already the case that defending someone like Moldbug carries with it the risk of being branded as supporting the popular perception of his views, which in turn means you too can be on the receiving end of mob wisdom.
- knucklesandwich 11y ago
  Curtis Yarvin is a software engineer, so if you want to make the analogy honest, a blacklist would be a large contingent of software companies refusing to hire him under any circumstances. Dalton Trumbo wasn't pressured not to speak at conferences because of his political allegiances, he was barred from working period (and eventually jailed!). This has absolutely nothing to do with a blacklist.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    So you're saying that this mob is unhappy with him speaking, but has no issue with his being employed? Like this? https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/713222987537756163 https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/713222987537756163 "In case you think it's just LambdaConf: Google continues to employ one of Moldbug's most devoted followers." "Tech employees: it's time to hold your execs accountable for lack of action. My tweets aren't gonna do it alone."
    - knucklesandwich 11y ago
      Some tweets and a Sam Biddle provocation piece about Google keeping this person employed (from 2 years ago) != a blacklist. Even if this amounted to action on Google's part, an employer has the right to fire an employee for actions deemed hostile to other employees (and its plausible to say its hostile for an employee to write blog posts about how certain races are genetically inferior). This is implicit in the concept of "at-will employment". I've been on the receiving end of this taken to a ridiculous extent when I was fired from a job for not going to a Christmas party. I found the reason I was fired to be pretty objectionable, but it wasn't anything remotely like being blacklisted. There's a lot of hypothetical rabbit holes to go down with this, but ultimately this is a distraction from what's being discussed, which is a person choosing to withdraw their workshop group from a conference because of the opinions of a speaker. Boycotting, protests, or simply declining to not participate are fundamental methods of democratic action. It's laughable to me that anyone would equate what's being talked about here with a suppressive measure.