7 ms·

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

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.
- striking 11y ago
  > [...] censoring him [...] I don't recall saying anything about censorship. I said it was "actually inadvisable". Because I think that his views have nothing to do with the presentation he's going to give. No one even realized that he was going to give this talk because the speaker names were anonymized to the editorial crew, probably as a way to prevent marginalized groups from being excluded. > [...] Hacker News has and will continue to make editorial decisions about who is allowed to post here. And those decisions are made judging by the person's interactions on HN and only HN, as far as I know. > [...] you seem to pretend [...] Am I being accused of something? > [...] just because the subject of his talk is some technological function, that this means he will not be interacting socially or simply being present. Firstly, there's a very well-written pledge that all LambdaConf attendees (speakers or otherwise) have to follow. What you are describing in his social interactions will be contained within those rules. He will be thrown out if he does something stupid. Secondly, is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation? I know he's dehumanized people in his writing and I think that's a horrible thing. At the same time, what do his purposely self-anonymized writings have to do with his code? > [...] can and should face societal consequences. Witchhunting? ...I hope I'm misunderstanding you. Can you please elaborate on this point? > [...] 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." I said none of that, and I don't agree that feminism or bias are politics. They're intertwined with society, which touches everything we do. I agree with many of the ideals at play here, and you're not wrong about systemic violence and discrimination. At the same time, I wouldn't prevent him from talking to a group of people because of what he believes in a different context. It's not in scope. We shouldn't be seeing side-effects here. If I or anyone else made a conference for feminist issues or the like, then I'd have to reevaluate whether people are interested in hearing what he has to say. But that's not even in scope in this instance. > [...] someone clearly calling for oppressive action to be enacted against an entire category of humans [...] Citation needed on his call to action. A quote from him: >> I promote only one kind of action: reading old books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent or otherwise. > But when you take a neutral stance [above quote] you are not being neutral. You're inherently supporting them, because inaction on human rights issues means not protecting human rights. False dichotomy > 2016? I know what year it is > even remotely difficult You're boiling down a complex concept to "supporting racism" > they've chosen the expensive road Being inclusive and open-minded is priceless to me > I have backchannel info Is it just me or do you seem to revel in this? Realize that this kind of stuff is penalizing people not even remotely close to this argument or whatever's happening.

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.

striking 11y ago
> [...] censoring him [...] I don't recall saying anything about censorship. I said it was "actually inadvisable". Because I think that his views have nothing to do with the presentation he's going to give. No one even realized that he was going to give this talk because the speaker names were anonymized to the editorial crew, probably as a way to prevent marginalized groups from being excluded. > [...] Hacker News has and will continue to make editorial decisions about who is allowed to post here. And those decisions are made judging by the person's interactions on HN and only HN, as far as I know. > [...] you seem to pretend [...] Am I being accused of something? > [...] just because the subject of his talk is some technological function, that this means he will not be interacting socially or simply being present. Firstly, there's a very well-written pledge that all LambdaConf attendees (speakers or otherwise) have to follow. What you are describing in his social interactions will be contained within those rules. He will be thrown out if he does something stupid. Secondly, is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation? I know he's dehumanized people in his writing and I think that's a horrible thing. At the same time, what do his purposely self-anonymized writings have to do with his code? > [...] can and should face societal consequences. Witchhunting? ...I hope I'm misunderstanding you. Can you please elaborate on this point? > [...] 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." I said none of that, and I don't agree that feminism or bias are politics. They're intertwined with society, which touches everything we do. I agree with many of the ideals at play here, and you're not wrong about systemic violence and discrimination. At the same time, I wouldn't prevent him from talking to a group of people because of what he believes in a different context. It's not in scope. We shouldn't be seeing side-effects here. If I or anyone else made a conference for feminist issues or the like, then I'd have to reevaluate whether people are interested in hearing what he has to say. But that's not even in scope in this instance. > [...] someone clearly calling for oppressive action to be enacted against an entire category of humans [...] Citation needed on his call to action. A quote from him: >> I promote only one kind of action: reading old books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent or otherwise. > But when you take a neutral stance [above quote] you are not being neutral. You're inherently supporting them, because inaction on human rights issues means not protecting human rights. False dichotomy > 2016? I know what year it is > even remotely difficult You're boiling down a complex concept to "supporting racism" > they've chosen the expensive road Being inclusive and open-minded is priceless to me > I have backchannel info Is it just me or do you seem to revel in this? Realize that this kind of stuff is penalizing people not even remotely close to this argument or whatever's happening.