5 ms·

TL;DR - racism sprinkled with claims of not being a racist by the author's definition of racism. An article written because the author does not want his politic

TL;DR - racism sprinkled with claims of not being a racist by the author's definition of racism. An article written because the author does not want his political advocacy to affect his carrier, so he thought that more toxic opinions would serve towards that purpose. The sad thing is that LambdaConf, a super awesome conference organized by super awesome folks, is now destroyed, losing all good will because of this one single act. Which is what happens when you've got tolerant people being taken advantage of and going to the extreme of tolerating intolerance.

cogware 11y ago
How is LambdaConf "destroyed"? That seems like pure hyperbole. The conference will go on, and most people won't remember this Moldbug business longer than 15 minutes. It's also not clear to me what is the "intolerance" that they are tolerating. Can you provide textual evidence for Moldbug being intolerant? In the post, he comes across as tolerant, albeit with a narrative outside the political mainstream.
- bad_user 11y ago
  > most people won't remember this Moldbug business longer than 15 minutes People attending? Maybe they'll forget. But many of the regular speakers or sponsors from FP conferences will not. On the Scala side I know of at least the Typelevel Summit in Boulder being canceled (http://goo.gl/2HAVca http://goo.gl/2HAVca) and along with sponsors like 47 degrees pulling their sponsorship for LambdaConf (http://goo.gl/h9WucI http://goo.gl/h9WucI). Note that the Typelevel members are community leaders that have contributed to many projects, including Scalaz, Cats, Algebra, Shapeless, Simulacrum, Machinist, Ensime, Spire, etc. And on the Clojure side you've got people like David Nolen of ClojureScript and Om fame saying that LambdaConf is now on the list of conferences he'll never attend. People follow leaders and if you think this won't have repercussions for LambdaConf, think again. > In the post, he comes across as tolerant, albeit with a narrative outside the political mainstream. Related to this article, I'm not interested in arguing the fine nuances of his argument or the English language, but when you don't consider other people as being your equal, that's racist by definition. A fact made clear by Moldbug's writing. And the fact that there are people that jump in defense of his narrative highlights the importance of speaking and acting against such beliefs.
  - j-pb 11y ago
    The point is not about him being a racist or not. As long as he doesn't bring his personal views to a professional setting I don't care about them. I also don't mind if people don't attend his talks as a form of protest. Heck I probably wouldn't go to them myself. But demanding somebody be cancelled from a conference because you don't agree with them on something that has nothing to do with the topics of said conference seems to set a bad precedence. After all that might give others the right to demand people not be permitted to speak because they are communists, gay, hippies, or what else. As for tolerant people being tricked into allowing intolerance. I'm pretty sure everybody there has a limit on intolerance that they won't tolerate anymore. I firmly believe that everybody has the absolute right for physical protection, so if he had a history of violence there would have been a clear cut line. However, I don't think that anybody has the right to not be offended, or to be protected from "emotional harm". I expect adults to be able to control themselves enough that this shouldn't be an issue. If all he's done is being an ass, that doesn't justify him being kicked out. Sticks and stones.
    - bad_user 11y ago
      > The point is not about him being a racist or not. As long as he doesn't bring his personal views to a professional setting I don't care about them. You're free to have that belief, but like it or not, being included as a speaker at an important conference gives a person prestige and credence for his ideas and others might not like it. > demanding somebody be cancelled from a conference ... because they are communists, gay, hippies ... Right here is the mistake that I think the organizers of LambdaConf did. You cannot compare gays and hippies with white supremacists, because being gay or hippie does not rob others of their humanity. Communism, in the theoretical sense, wouldn't be guilty of that either. Now, I've heard somebody making a valid point: another speaker happens to work on military drones, that ultimately have been used to target women and children. Why aren't people outraged about that one? Well, maybe we should be outraged about that one as well, though the context is different, as military drones, like science in general, can be used for both good and evil. For example the same science that gave us a process for producing nitrogen and synthetic fertilizer is also responsible for gas warfare in WWI. So context matters, I'm not ready yet to condemn the work on military drones as being evil (though it probably is), but I sure am ready to condemn racism, because personally I believe that racism represents the worst of humanity, being the justification given to most wars that ever happened. > I don't think that anybody has the right to not be offended, or to be protected from "emotional harm" First of all we aren't talking about what is legal. If we are, then having a belief that somebody shouldn't speak at a conference is perfectly within our right for freedom of expression. And this isn't censorship, but Ostracism, an act which again, is perfectly within our right for freedom of association. People are always free to organize events that accept this person (with LambdaConf choosing this path) and the author can even start his own conferences and communities. That said, in my country at least, the freedom of speech does not hold for hate speech and you can be prosecuted for causing emotional harm due to hate speech targeting groups based on religion, ethnicity, race or sex. Note that whether the author would escape guilt, that's for a court to decide and I'm not a lawyer, but to me his writings sure sound like hate speech. And don't get me wrong, if he would be found innocent of hate speech by a court, then I expect for people to uphold his right for freedom of speech, but again, that doesn't mean people can't exercise their own freedom of speech or freedom of association.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > How is LambdaConf "destroyed"? That seems like pure hyperbole. The conference will go on I don't think that's a given; all but one of their corporate sponsors have pulled out, so it might not be feasible. I don't know how many of their sponsors were providing money vs. sponsoring events, though.
mcphage 11y ago
> Which is what happens when you've got tolerant people being taken advantage of I'm not sure who you think the organizers of LambdaConf were taken advantage of by—Yarvin? He's not the one trying to scuttle LambdaConf, though.
Mithaldu 11y ago
> racism I don't disagree with the assertion, but i also cannot agree, primarily because i am actually confused. I don't see anything he wrote in the post that's racist. Maybe i missed it. Can you please point out which parts of his post are actually racist? > the author's definition of racism Are you talking about "someone who thinks white people are better than black people"? Because if so, you misunderstood him, though understandably so. That quote is not an actual definition of racism. It is a simplified start of an explanation in which he looks at a detailed example. His actual definition is not mentioned. Note the leading phrase there: "Let’s agree"
- bad_user 11y ago
  Recism: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. It's been said that to prove and to refute hate speech, like most other bullshit, takes orders of magnitude more effort than to produce it. However, this article makes perfectly clear to me the author's opinions on the matter, which are clearly racist: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carl... And if I may quote: "Not all humans are born the same, of course, and the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery. For others, it is more suited to slavery. And others still are badly suited to either. These characteristics can be expected to group differently in human populations of different origins. Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences." "A person makes a good slave if he is loyal, patient, and not exceptionally bright or stubborn".
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    I did not ask for quotes from elsewhere. You summarized the linked article as racism. Where is racism in it?
13thLetter 11y ago
Since you're so concerned about tolerant people being taken advantage of, may we also assume that you'd oppose LambdaConf having a speaker who was a revolutionary Communist? You don't get a much more destructive and intolerant ideology than that one, after all, and there are a lot of people from formerly-Communist countries who would have every right under this philosophy to feel unsafe.

cogware 11y ago

How is LambdaConf "destroyed"? That seems like pure hyperbole. The conference will go on, and most people won't remember this Moldbug business longer than 15 minutes. It's also not clear to me what is the "intolerance" that they are tolerating. Can you provide textual evidence for Moldbug being intolerant? In the post, he comes across as tolerant, albeit with a narrative outside the political mainstream.

bad_user 11y ago
> most people won't remember this Moldbug business longer than 15 minutes People attending? Maybe they'll forget. But many of the regular speakers or sponsors from FP conferences will not. On the Scala side I know of at least the Typelevel Summit in Boulder being canceled (http://goo.gl/2HAVca http://goo.gl/2HAVca) and along with sponsors like 47 degrees pulling their sponsorship for LambdaConf (http://goo.gl/h9WucI http://goo.gl/h9WucI). Note that the Typelevel members are community leaders that have contributed to many projects, including Scalaz, Cats, Algebra, Shapeless, Simulacrum, Machinist, Ensime, Spire, etc. And on the Clojure side you've got people like David Nolen of ClojureScript and Om fame saying that LambdaConf is now on the list of conferences he'll never attend. People follow leaders and if you think this won't have repercussions for LambdaConf, think again. > In the post, he comes across as tolerant, albeit with a narrative outside the political mainstream. Related to this article, I'm not interested in arguing the fine nuances of his argument or the English language, but when you don't consider other people as being your equal, that's racist by definition. A fact made clear by Moldbug's writing. And the fact that there are people that jump in defense of his narrative highlights the importance of speaking and acting against such beliefs.
- j-pb 11y ago
  The point is not about him being a racist or not. As long as he doesn't bring his personal views to a professional setting I don't care about them. I also don't mind if people don't attend his talks as a form of protest. Heck I probably wouldn't go to them myself. But demanding somebody be cancelled from a conference because you don't agree with them on something that has nothing to do with the topics of said conference seems to set a bad precedence. After all that might give others the right to demand people not be permitted to speak because they are communists, gay, hippies, or what else. As for tolerant people being tricked into allowing intolerance. I'm pretty sure everybody there has a limit on intolerance that they won't tolerate anymore. I firmly believe that everybody has the absolute right for physical protection, so if he had a history of violence there would have been a clear cut line. However, I don't think that anybody has the right to not be offended, or to be protected from "emotional harm". I expect adults to be able to control themselves enough that this shouldn't be an issue. If all he's done is being an ass, that doesn't justify him being kicked out. Sticks and stones.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    > The point is not about him being a racist or not. As long as he doesn't bring his personal views to a professional setting I don't care about them. You're free to have that belief, but like it or not, being included as a speaker at an important conference gives a person prestige and credence for his ideas and others might not like it. > demanding somebody be cancelled from a conference ... because they are communists, gay, hippies ... Right here is the mistake that I think the organizers of LambdaConf did. You cannot compare gays and hippies with white supremacists, because being gay or hippie does not rob others of their humanity. Communism, in the theoretical sense, wouldn't be guilty of that either. Now, I've heard somebody making a valid point: another speaker happens to work on military drones, that ultimately have been used to target women and children. Why aren't people outraged about that one? Well, maybe we should be outraged about that one as well, though the context is different, as military drones, like science in general, can be used for both good and evil. For example the same science that gave us a process for producing nitrogen and synthetic fertilizer is also responsible for gas warfare in WWI. So context matters, I'm not ready yet to condemn the work on military drones as being evil (though it probably is), but I sure am ready to condemn racism, because personally I believe that racism represents the worst of humanity, being the justification given to most wars that ever happened. > I don't think that anybody has the right to not be offended, or to be protected from "emotional harm" First of all we aren't talking about what is legal. If we are, then having a belief that somebody shouldn't speak at a conference is perfectly within our right for freedom of expression. And this isn't censorship, but Ostracism, an act which again, is perfectly within our right for freedom of association. People are always free to organize events that accept this person (with LambdaConf choosing this path) and the author can even start his own conferences and communities. That said, in my country at least, the freedom of speech does not hold for hate speech and you can be prosecuted for causing emotional harm due to hate speech targeting groups based on religion, ethnicity, race or sex. Note that whether the author would escape guilt, that's for a court to decide and I'm not a lawyer, but to me his writings sure sound like hate speech. And don't get me wrong, if he would be found innocent of hate speech by a court, then I expect for people to uphold his right for freedom of speech, but again, that doesn't mean people can't exercise their own freedom of speech or freedom of association.
mcphage 11y ago
> How is LambdaConf "destroyed"? That seems like pure hyperbole. The conference will go on I don't think that's a given; all but one of their corporate sponsors have pulled out, so it might not be feasible. I don't know how many of their sponsors were providing money vs. sponsoring events, though.

mcphage 11y ago

> Which is what happens when you've got tolerant people being taken advantage of I'm not sure who you think the organizers of LambdaConf were taken advantage of by—Yarvin? He's not the one trying to scuttle LambdaConf, though.

Mithaldu 11y ago

> racism I don't disagree with the assertion, but i also cannot agree, primarily because i am actually confused. I don't see anything he wrote in the post that's racist. Maybe i missed it. Can you please point out which parts of his post are actually racist? > the author's definition of racism Are you talking about "someone who thinks white people are better than black people"? Because if so, you misunderstood him, though understandably so. That quote is not an actual definition of racism. It is a simplified start of an explanation in which he looks at a detailed example. His actual definition is not mentioned. Note the leading phrase there: "Let’s agree"

bad_user 11y ago
Recism: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. It's been said that to prove and to refute hate speech, like most other bullshit, takes orders of magnitude more effort than to produce it. However, this article makes perfectly clear to me the author's opinions on the matter, which are clearly racist: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carl... And if I may quote: "Not all humans are born the same, of course, and the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery. For others, it is more suited to slavery. And others still are badly suited to either. These characteristics can be expected to group differently in human populations of different origins. Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences." "A person makes a good slave if he is loyal, patient, and not exceptionally bright or stubborn".
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  I did not ask for quotes from elsewhere. You summarized the linked article as racism. Where is racism in it?

13thLetter 11y ago

Since you're so concerned about tolerant people being taken advantage of, may we also assume that you'd oppose LambdaConf having a speaker who was a revolutionary Communist? You don't get a much more destructive and intolerant ideology than that one, after all, and there are a lot of people from formerly-Communist countries who would have every right under this philosophy to feel unsafe.