3 ms·

> Why exactly is it that a short written statement can somehow absolve someone of the social responsibility of a multi-year career of hate speech? It doesn't.

> Why exactly is it that a short written statement can somehow absolve someone of the social responsibility of a multi-year career of hate speech? It doesn't. I agree that what he said was unacceptable. But just because what he said was unacceptable, does that mean we shouldn't accept him and everything he does? > No one has said he can't attend. Why would yous suggest this? Right, sorry. He can attend for sure. I meant that he should be able to speak, since he'll be following all the rules and has an interest in tech. > It's his authority figure as a speaker while being an outspoken member of the pro-racism community. He doesn't identify himself by his racist beliefs. He keeps them separate from his technology. It has nothing to do with his tech. If he walked up to someone from a minority group and talked about his views at the conference, or if he said any of them from his podium, I wouldn't care as to what happened to him. But it looks like he'll make every effort to follow the rules. > How is this unreasonable. "We will not support your conference if you give the podium to a famous and vocal racist who calls for the enslavement of black people." It's not far from being reasonable, except you seem to be forgetting that he's never made a call to action. And the fact that his views on race, in the way that he holds them, have nothing to do with tech. Actually, it is kind of far from being reasonable. > And the amount of pressure brought to the sponsors is minimal. Look, I don't really care about pressure to the sponsors. The possible damage here to them is minimal. What I do care about is how this affects LambdaConf. It's really sad that there is damage done to LambdaConf just because of this. You even said that they're "taking the expensive road." You realize how much this one issue is hurting them. > Don't these communities have a right and a duty to control their attendance as they see fit? Who is "these communities"? On my post with the text "This just in", I have more than 30 upvotes. Your posts are going gray. You are trying to control the attendance of the community as you see fit. And there are people in the community that disagree with you. > Why should an intolerant bigot be included in any community? If you exclude bigots, they will be bigots forever. Imagine if someone hadn't included you into their community when you were, as you described yourself, "a hyper-right self-denying religious racist as a child." If you were shunned by the community, wouldn't you still be that way today? I believe in including bigots because I believe that people can change. I believe in including racists because I believe in working with people to achieve something great, regardless of who those people are. You're not just intolerant of racism (which is an understandable thing), you're being intolerant of an entire person. And you're taking action on it. You yourself are acting in an intolerant manner. And that's a shame, because you're a well-reasoned person, you're clearly intelligent, and I'm enjoying this discussion with you.

KirinDave 11y ago
I'm intolerant of people who's world-view denies the personhood of an entire category of people. Differentiated just by how they look. He can choose to rectify his behavior and outlook and I will welcome him back into society. I believe people can change. And I will thank you for not assuming you know the hows or the whys of my past. It was not faux-tolerant people like you who would ever lead to that change. My past is full of enablers who spoke just like you did, conflating religious and ideolgocal freedom with bigotry and racism. Intolerance of intolerance is a precondition to an actual open society. Suggesting I allow people to divide themselves in half in a way we'd never do in any other portion of society (imagine this person being appointed as a teacher at a university then promising his beliefs won't affect his communications with his students). It's ludicrous. It's absurd. Let him actually demonstrate the behavior he's pledging and then we can talk, but there is no rational reason to believe he won't bring conflict, strife, and bigotry with him wherever he goes. Even if you cannot see it because you don't seem to be the subject of his ire. Mendacious Moldbug has brought this rejection upon himself in one of the few ways we universally recognize as a way to earn that rejection: by passing the identical fate upon a whole category of people just because of the circumstances of their birth. Far better to reject one toxic person than make every non-white person walk on eggshells throughout the conference. And you need not look far to find a number of people in the community who would feel that way, and already face substantial marginalization that no amount of behavior changing can ameliorate. I'm fine being intolerant of intolerance. Any rational person should realize the implications of not speaking out against intolerance wherever we find it. And part of that speech is making proponents of intolerance feel unwelcome. We shouldn't invite Eric S Raymond or David Duke to speak at these events either.
- striking 11y ago
  > He can choose to rectify his behavior and outlook and I will welcome him back into society. It's not particularly related to the rest of the discussion, but I'm curious as to what passes as rectifying his behavior. What would he have to do? > It was not faux-tolerant people like you who would ever lead to that change. Although I disagree with the "faux-tolerant" assertion (I believe I'm being tolerant!) I'll agree that the change probably wouldn't stem from me. I try to get along with people as much as I can. Perhaps this incurs a cost on others. This criticism is a fair one. I'm not a reactionary-conservative (maybe that's who I'm being compared to?); I'm not trying to mislead you. I honestly believe what I'm typing. (I reserve the right to change it in the future but) I'm not trying to trick you. This is an honest discussion and I am treating it like one (and thanks for doing the same). I don't feign misunderstanding, I just honestly don't understand. > Intolerance of intolerance is a precondition to an actual open society. Isn't intolerance of intolerance an intolerant act in and of itself, though? > (imagine this person being appointed as a teacher at a university then promising his beliefs won't affect his communications with his students) I actually have had teachers that have taught in this way, both in high school and at university. Not that they promised any of this to the administration, but that they made a promise to us not to let their inherent political bias infect what they were teaching us. They would try to present, as best they could, both viewpoints. This, in and of itself, was a lesson to me. People can hold two separate and conflicting ideas in their minds, while realizing the implications of both ideas. As a precise example, it's exactly how I was taught the functionalist and conflict perspectives of sociological theory. It is literally cognitive dissonance to accept both ideas, but you can't understand the whole of sociology without both of them. Cognitive dissonance can be a tool. Hell, I had an English teacher in high school that was a known (and self-admitted, to a degree) misandrist (not to such a degree that the word connotes, but there was a bias). She asked all of her students to use ID numbers rather than names, because she realized that she always graded essays written by males lower than those by women, and that the disparity didn't exist when she didn't know. She was a fine teacher, and the bias rarely ever spilled over into how she taught otherwise. She was also the fairest grader I had that year. > but there is no rational reason to believe he won't bring conflict, strife, and bigotry with him He said he wouldn't. Until he does, I'll believe him. Maybe I'm a pushover for thinking so, but I also think people are innocent until proven guilty. He says some shitty things, but I don't think he'll say them on stage. And if he does, then he gets kicked out. At the same time, tptacek's post here[1] disagrees. I don't have any direct citations, so I can't speak to it. And because of that, I'm going to believe Moldbug. I hate that I have to, but I think I can logically defend it, with a lack of further evidence. (I have to because I can. If I can't, I won't.) > Far better to reject one toxic person than make every non-white person walk on eggshells throughout the conference. We know at least a couple non-white people won't walk on eggshells. I remember this post[2], from someone who isn't white. And I agree with the spirit of that post. If someone says something stupid, by God, let them shout their idiocy, so that we may hear it and strike it down with our logic and our facts. Let us put people in their place when they have asked for it and not a moment before. Moldbug basically represents neoreaction. If he acts poorly, it'll show people like me (who are neutral on him for the time being) that he and what he represents is actually harmful. Suppressing how stupid someone is only makes their stupidity more effective. It's when their stupidity is visible that people can avoid it. To me, it's a win-win. Either he shows us some very strange and interesting tech, or he acts like a dick and no one listens to anyone from the neoreactionary movement ever again. Being intolerant of wholly intolerant people is not a bad thing, but there are some people that can separate their intolerance from the other aspects of their lives. I don't think Moldbug is a wholly intolerant person. I think he holds intolerant views. And I think there is a distinction to be made, especially as these views are not in scope of the talk that he's giving. Even if you consider my views misguided or wrong, do they at least follow logically? 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11367184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11367184 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11362991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11362991

KirinDave 11y ago

I'm intolerant of people who's world-view denies the personhood of an entire category of people. Differentiated just by how they look. He can choose to rectify his behavior and outlook and I will welcome him back into society. I believe people can change. And I will thank you for not assuming you know the hows or the whys of my past. It was not faux-tolerant people like you who would ever lead to that change. My past is full of enablers who spoke just like you did, conflating religious and ideolgocal freedom with bigotry and racism. Intolerance of intolerance is a precondition to an actual open society. Suggesting I allow people to divide themselves in half in a way we'd never do in any other portion of society (imagine this person being appointed as a teacher at a university then promising his beliefs won't affect his communications with his students). It's ludicrous. It's absurd. Let him actually demonstrate the behavior he's pledging and then we can talk, but there is no rational reason to believe he won't bring conflict, strife, and bigotry with him wherever he goes. Even if you cannot see it because you don't seem to be the subject of his ire. Mendacious Moldbug has brought this rejection upon himself in one of the few ways we universally recognize as a way to earn that rejection: by passing the identical fate upon a whole category of people just because of the circumstances of their birth. Far better to reject one toxic person than make every non-white person walk on eggshells throughout the conference. And you need not look far to find a number of people in the community who would feel that way, and already face substantial marginalization that no amount of behavior changing can ameliorate. I'm fine being intolerant of intolerance. Any rational person should realize the implications of not speaking out against intolerance wherever we find it. And part of that speech is making proponents of intolerance feel unwelcome. We shouldn't invite Eric S Raymond or David Duke to speak at these events either.

striking 11y ago
> He can choose to rectify his behavior and outlook and I will welcome him back into society. It's not particularly related to the rest of the discussion, but I'm curious as to what passes as rectifying his behavior. What would he have to do? > It was not faux-tolerant people like you who would ever lead to that change. Although I disagree with the "faux-tolerant" assertion (I believe I'm being tolerant!) I'll agree that the change probably wouldn't stem from me. I try to get along with people as much as I can. Perhaps this incurs a cost on others. This criticism is a fair one. I'm not a reactionary-conservative (maybe that's who I'm being compared to?); I'm not trying to mislead you. I honestly believe what I'm typing. (I reserve the right to change it in the future but) I'm not trying to trick you. This is an honest discussion and I am treating it like one (and thanks for doing the same). I don't feign misunderstanding, I just honestly don't understand. > Intolerance of intolerance is a precondition to an actual open society. Isn't intolerance of intolerance an intolerant act in and of itself, though? > (imagine this person being appointed as a teacher at a university then promising his beliefs won't affect his communications with his students) I actually have had teachers that have taught in this way, both in high school and at university. Not that they promised any of this to the administration, but that they made a promise to us not to let their inherent political bias infect what they were teaching us. They would try to present, as best they could, both viewpoints. This, in and of itself, was a lesson to me. People can hold two separate and conflicting ideas in their minds, while realizing the implications of both ideas. As a precise example, it's exactly how I was taught the functionalist and conflict perspectives of sociological theory. It is literally cognitive dissonance to accept both ideas, but you can't understand the whole of sociology without both of them. Cognitive dissonance can be a tool. Hell, I had an English teacher in high school that was a known (and self-admitted, to a degree) misandrist (not to such a degree that the word connotes, but there was a bias). She asked all of her students to use ID numbers rather than names, because she realized that she always graded essays written by males lower than those by women, and that the disparity didn't exist when she didn't know. She was a fine teacher, and the bias rarely ever spilled over into how she taught otherwise. She was also the fairest grader I had that year. > but there is no rational reason to believe he won't bring conflict, strife, and bigotry with him He said he wouldn't. Until he does, I'll believe him. Maybe I'm a pushover for thinking so, but I also think people are innocent until proven guilty. He says some shitty things, but I don't think he'll say them on stage. And if he does, then he gets kicked out. At the same time, tptacek's post here[1] disagrees. I don't have any direct citations, so I can't speak to it. And because of that, I'm going to believe Moldbug. I hate that I have to, but I think I can logically defend it, with a lack of further evidence. (I have to because I can. If I can't, I won't.) > Far better to reject one toxic person than make every non-white person walk on eggshells throughout the conference. We know at least a couple non-white people won't walk on eggshells. I remember this post[2], from someone who isn't white. And I agree with the spirit of that post. If someone says something stupid, by God, let them shout their idiocy, so that we may hear it and strike it down with our logic and our facts. Let us put people in their place when they have asked for it and not a moment before. Moldbug basically represents neoreaction. If he acts poorly, it'll show people like me (who are neutral on him for the time being) that he and what he represents is actually harmful. Suppressing how stupid someone is only makes their stupidity more effective. It's when their stupidity is visible that people can avoid it. To me, it's a win-win. Either he shows us some very strange and interesting tech, or he acts like a dick and no one listens to anyone from the neoreactionary movement ever again. Being intolerant of wholly intolerant people is not a bad thing, but there are some people that can separate their intolerance from the other aspects of their lives. I don't think Moldbug is a wholly intolerant person. I think he holds intolerant views. And I think there is a distinction to be made, especially as these views are not in scope of the talk that he's giving. Even if you consider my views misguided or wrong, do they at least follow logically? 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11367184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11367184 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11362991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11362991