12 ms·

Why We're Sponsoring LambdaConf 2016

116 points by waffle_ss 11y ago

Mithaldu 11y ago
Today i learned why anyone cares what lambdaconf does: The ticket prices sit at an absolutely ridiculous minimum of $500. I can't imagine what could possibly justify that expense. For context: I've attended many conferences, in the sizes of 100 to 4000: Purely technical; technical with lots of music and beer; focused on arts, crafts and acting. Never have i seen a regular price over $150. Now here comes LambdaConf, a con about a niche language, with a sponsor that describes it as "a lot of those speakers are new to speaking at tech conferences" and "reasonably priced". I can't help but feel something is amiss here, either in their self-portray, or my understanding.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  For comparison, Pycon is $300 for individuals, $600 corporate (https://us.pycon.org/2016/registration/ https://us.pycon.org/2016/registration/ ), early bird registration for CppCon is $845 ( https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cppcon-2016-registration-18889615348 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cppcon-2016-registration-188896... ), and early bird for Scala Days is $950 ( http://event.scaladays.org/scaladays-nyc-2016#04-Registration http://event.scaladays.org/scaladays-nyc-2016#04-Registratio... ) (I just picked three arbitrary languages (four, actually, but I couldn't immediately find pricing for a java conference) )
- jaegerpicker 11y ago
  I've attended quite a few national conferences and all of them were higher priced.
  - busterarm 11y ago
    Shit, I want to go to SHARE and that conference is ~$2000. And there's like 2 of them a year. Also Blackhat.
- johnny22 11y ago
  try getting a ticket to oscon. way above my price range
- jghn 11y ago
  Many software conferences are several hundred dollars or more
pklausler 11y ago
If the LambdaConf 2016 web site is accurate, haskellbook.com is the only sponsor of the conference.
- jauer 11y ago
  It looks like they had six other sponsors before this kerfuffle: https://web.archive.org/web/20160321025225/http://lambdaconf.us/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160321025225/http://lambdaconf...
codygman 11y ago
There's a simple way to preserve free speech and have inclusion here: Don't allow any speakers whose beliefs are based on the supremacy of one race.
- brighteyes 11y ago
  The principle sounds appealing, but 1. This speaker denies fitting that description, and of those that read his work, some agree that he isn't, while some disagree, and some aren't sure. Perhaps not surprising, since he wrote a lot, and it's fairly complex. This is therefore not a clear-cut case. 2. Worse, what racial supremacy means depends on who is talking. For example, Black Lives Matters protestors have claimed that a public library, which by federal law cannot exclude people based on race, is white supremacist for that very reason: http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-accuses-public-library-of-white-supremacy/ http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-accuses-public-li... There is no simple way or simple solution here. These are hard questions, with no clear answers.
  - tzs 11y ago
    Infowars is generally not a very creditable source. For those leery of believing something from there, here is the same story from The Tennessean, which is part of USA Today: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/02/19/black-lives-matter-color-only-rule-runs-afoul-nashville-library/80606970/ http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/...
    - brighteyes 11y ago
      Thank you for the better link, I wasn't aware that the first source wasn't reputable.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gd1 11y ago
  Sure, it's simple. Don't allow heretics (Galileo, Spinoza) Don't allow homosexuals (Turing) Don't allow Communists (Hollywood Ten) You're basically assuming that your moral code (that you happen to share with the majority at this moment in history) is the correct one, and you should be able to wield power to silence anyone who thinks differently. Now maybe you are right about his views, maybe I even agree with you, but that isn't the point. The whole point of the enlightenment is that people are allowed to think/write/muse about ideas that the majority might not approve of.
colllectorof 11y ago
The fact that sponsoring a functional programming conference elicited an explanation of this length shows that something in our society is profoundly fucked up.
- brighteyes 11y ago
  Some interesting thoughts on that by one of the relevant people in this story are here: http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy , in the "Professionalism" section. He explains why, in his opinion, these clashes between the private and the professional are becoming more common.
  - erichocean 11y ago
    From the link: > Personally, if a conference allows all peaceful people to attend and speak so long as they treat attendees exceedingly well, then guess what I think it’s going to select for? > Wait for it… a diverse community of peaceful people who are willing to treat attendees exceedingly well, even when they strongly disagree with them! > That doesn’t sound terrible to me. In fact, I wish the whole world were more like this. Agreed. The more I learn about this, the happier I am that LambdaConf has taken the stand they have. It's not about Yarvin, it's about everyone else, and they seem to get that.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
wutf 11y ago
In the limit it is hypocritical to select against someone who wants to select against people. This is where moonconf falls short - in the limit, they would kill in the name of empathy. Complete hypocrisy.
bsder 11y ago
I have a VERY deep problem with this that has nothing to do with the views of anybody involved. The problem I have is that this is a mob turning its power on someone with FAR LESS power than the mob in question. It is one thing when the mob attacks someone of greater power as greater power can defend itself. It is something else when a mob expresses itself with positive support for the downtrodden--that's still okay. However, attacking someone unable to match with equal social defense is NOT okay. We have a word for that--it's called "bullying". The people involved may feel righteous, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bullies. And, I am disappointed that a conference of geeks can't seem to identify social bullying when it occurs in front of them. As always, people only seem to be able to empathize when they are on the receiving end of the pointy stick.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > this is a mob turning its power on someone with FAR LESS power than the mob in question Most of the discussions and conversation about power deal with 1-on-1 situations: person X has more power than person Y, for reasons A, B, and C. But group action—that's a different matter, and I don't know how it figures into the picture. Person X may have more power than P, Q, R, S, or T—but P, Q, R, S, and T together may have more power than X. Or they may not. When and how they do is an important question, that I wish we had better answers to.
  - bsder 11y ago
    > but P, Q, R, S, and T together may have more power than X. Or they may not. When and how they do is an important question, that I wish we had better answers to. There are rarely clean answers when the problem is social. In this instance, however, it is very clear that the mob has far more power than the individual they are targeting. For the person in question, if he had equivalent power, he could simply replace the sponsors and lost speakers with people who shared his views. At that point, the mob would be VERY reluctant to pull out for fear of leaving the stage to people whom they find distasteful. The fact that this mob would have a very different behavior if he actually had real power is telling and disappointing.
- 11y ago
ankushnarula 11y ago
Related: "What Went Wrong? Campus Unrest, Viewpoint Diversity, and Freedom of Speech" http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/campus-unrest-viewpoint-diversity-and-freedom-of-speech/ http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/campus-unrest-viewpoint-...
tunesmith 11y ago
Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? I get the general sense that a lot more people answer "Yes" to that question than has been historically true (at least, post-1776 American true).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- devalier 11y ago
  Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? Yes. And ironically, the one who convinced me of that point is Yarvin/Moldbug. (He actually argued, partly tongue-and-cheek, that Egypt should shut off its internet from the world. And while this sounds outrageous and terrible, remember that he was right about the revolutions in the Arab world, and virtually everyone in the tech world who cheered on the revolutions were wrong). I think it is fine that some speech is considered beyond the pale. Some speech is in fact dangerous. Power comes from the barrel of the gun -- but speech is used to organize the gun holders. Speech tells the people with the guns who the bad guys are. My problem is that the wrong people are controlling speech, and for the wrong reasons. De-platforming is being instigated via a heckler's veto -- the biggest cry-bullies try to dictate what is acceptable. I'd rather have speech controlled by an official council selected by a random lottery of citizens, than by self-appointed censors. And also I don't agree with banning Yarvin/Moldbug in particular. I have found Yarvin/Moldbug to be an amazingly insightful and interesting blogger. The history and sources he has cited has greatly enhanced my understanding of the world. Sometimes he can be abrasive, hyperbolic or a troll, but overall I am better off for having read him. I hate it that I'm scared in real life to mention that I have read his material. I'd rather see him inside the Overton window of conversation. But the worst aspect of the current attempt to deplatform, is that the line of what is acceptable is constantly changing. If I say "it's silly that someone with male equipment be allowed to use a women's bathroom", does that make me transphobic? Should I be banned from conferences? What about five years from now, when the line has moved? And what belief that is normal now, will be unacceptable in twenty years?
  - 11y ago
lhnz 11y ago
An interesting titbit of information from LambdaConf's organiser: "In the past few days, we’ve also seen a huge bump in the number of people applying for our diversity scholarship program (49 applications so far), and we’re doing everything in our power to give out as many scholarships as possible." [0] It's good of Julie and Chris to continue supporting the conference, and (I think) a real shame how quick the other sponsors were to bow out. Hopefully in future people will try to think more about the positive work they can do and less about how they look. (Obviously, for those that really have strong moral reasons to exit, it's a shame but completely understandable.) I guess one of the positives is that we now have two conferences [1], so those that can't stand the idea of being in the same room as Yarvin can be around other people that think exactly the same. [0] http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy [1] http://moonconf.org/ http://moonconf.org/
- setra 11y ago
  Whats funny about this is that by pulling out as protest for Moldbug they are making it harder for the conference to subsidize diversity.
  - lhnz 11y ago
    Yes, it's very sad. Hopefully the community will be able to band together to ensure that any difficulties are overcome. Principles > Politics
  - pbarnes_1 11y ago
    None of those people was going to go anyway, so the point is moot. This conference is pretty much dead.
    - tome 11y ago
      > This conference is pretty much dead. What makes you think that?
    - coolsunglasses 11y ago
      'Fraid not. The conference is still having three concurrent tracks for three days, nigh 80 speakers. Our training and everything else we're doing (I'm Chris) is still happening too.
soapdog 11y ago
As someone who is not aware of what is all the problem about and couldn't really understand from the linked text, can someone provide me with some more context please. What is the difficulty that is affecting lambdaconf? What happened?
- vox_mollis 11y ago
  LambdaConf is permitting Curtis Yarvin to speak, which offends the sensibilities of some attendees.
- incepted 11y ago
  A speaker invited to that conference has posted racist and bigoted statements on his blog. Lambdaconf is (currently anyway) deciding to invite him to speak anyway, causing all kinds of chaos. That same person was once invited at another conference (QCon I think?) but was then uninvited after the organizers of that conference were made aware of that person's posts.
  - tome 11y ago
    I think you're referring to Strange Loop, not QCon. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur...
  - vox_mollis 11y ago
    (QCon I think?) It was StrangeLoop, and the dis-invitation effort was spearheaded by Steve Klabnik and Bodil Stokke.
    - jgalt212 11y ago
      Bodil Stokke has strong opinions like the ocean has water.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    It's also far from clear how "racist" the statements were - most of the people on twitter don't seem to have actually read Moldbug/Yarvin. Proponents of ostracizing Yarvin are notably unwilling to actually discuss why they believe it's racist. (I admit, I've not come anywhere near reading his entire work. He's longwinded and that's a big barrier.) The actual blog post that's criticized is here: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-car... My best summary of the controversial part of the blog that I can come up with is this: Suddenly we see the relationship between slavery and government. Serfdom and slavery can be described as microgovernment and nanogovernment respectively. In government proper, the normal human role of patron is filled by a giant, impersonal, and often accidentally sadistic bureaucracy...In serfdom, this role is filled by a noble house...In slavery, mastership is exercised by a mobile individual whose slaves go with him. We see these same relationship parameters emerging...This is a pretty good clue that this structure is one to which humans are biologically adapted. Nozick had a much shorter essay (Yarvin is not known for brevity) which expresses the same idea: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/nozick_slave.html http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/no... The larger part of the essay is about creating order in society and Robert Carlyle's views on that. The specific quote which is interpreted as supporting slavery is this: 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. This is mostly tangential to his main points, however.
incepted 11y ago
It's clear that whether you invite or don't invite someone to a conference, you are making a stand. What the organizers of that conference fail to see is that inviting someone with such a toxic and racist personality will only encourage that person to keep posting their hateful comments.
- saryant 11y ago
  That's not clear at all. In fact, this episode has shown that many disagree with that statement.
- hga 11y ago
  Except "Mencius Moldbug" stopped posting altogether a couple of years ago, and for a year prior to that only some random poetry: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ From everything I've heard Moldbug is now purely a historical figure in the "Dark Enlightenment", although I suppose more real than Emmanuel Goldstein.
Chris2048 11y ago
Just to establish something, What is a good example of the worst example of racism in MMs blog? What is considered an unacceptable level of "racism", or racism at all differs wildly between people.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  See tome's reply and keep the following in mind. MM is rarely explicitly racist; it's more like he espouses ideas that obviously entail racial superiority and then stops shy and pretends like you're an idiot if you actually believe those "obvious" entailments The Progressives or whoever have been selling you. (Preface: It's hard to explain, and the following might sound like a bit of an ad hom, but that's not how I mean it. It's just a really useful lense through which to view MM's writing -- especially if you find yourself thinking "he's just saying kinda true things that aren't very PC!". Understanding the rhetorical ploys an author is using can help you see through the trees to the heart of the author's argument and then -- in MM's case -- be sure you're well-founeded in summarily rejecting it.) Reading MM is like reading an above-average-but-not-exceptionally-bright high schooler who went on a depth-first search of Google for every topic he writes about. The authority emaninating from a depth-first search is obviously flawed because it ignores the forest for the trees, but can be oddly convincing if you don't notice what's going on. Or at least difficult to refute in a clear-headed and logical way because you get stuck in the quagmire of meaningless specificities. Concretely, MM's writing generally has a well-developed thesis with logical arguments and reasonable citation, but falls flat on its face for reasons that can only be described as "common sense". MM's hope -- or maybe his own blieve -- is that his authoritative knowledge of particularities supporting his point trumps the forest of "common sense" generalities. But the dozens of obvious objections that aren't addressed by MM -- or are just hand-waved away with a bit of rhetoric about some evil other (progressives, etc.) -- really are at the heart of the matter. A few historical examples really are no replacement for a global view of historical reality. Of course MM is smart enough to be well-aware of the elephants in the room. However, he's maybe more interested in trolling than in debate. Or maybe really does blieve they're unsubstantiated progressive lies. IDK. In any case, instead of addressing these elephants head on, he kind of summarily dismisses the most obvious rebuttals with a bit of a literary eye roll. For example, in one comment he rambles on about colonialism being not-so-impeachable because those Africans were brutes prior to and after colonization. The problems with a statement like this really are quite obvious, but his comment goes on at length about particularities of specific European leaders and African dynasties instead of addressing head-on the litany of common-sense high-level objections to his poisition. It's like when a high schooler puts forth a totally untenable position that is just wrong, and considers himself unimpeached because no one in the room has a response to the particular arcane knowledge he used to backup his point. Even though that knowledge was totally tangential or at best provided one supportive data point in an infinite sea of data suggesting he's dead wrong. I think people who disagree that MM's writing is racist are mostly just hoodwinked by the above rhetorical ploy -- getting so specific about a few trees that the reader forgets about the forest, and therefore conclusing that the author doesn't need to be held responsible for the obvious historical entailments that follow from his advocacy.
brighteyes 11y ago
The activists trying to get him banned are not achieving anything useful. They are raising awareness of the man, his online persona "Moldbug", and the writings of that persona. This is the Streisand effect. If your goal is to get fewer people to read his views, then causing drama around him is completely counterproductive. I only heard about him from the previous drama (Strange Loop), and more people are hearing about him for the first time now. And he's not writing under that persona anymore. There is no stream of new articles coming out. The only news about him is when activists try to get him banned.
- erichocean 11y ago
  In addition, Yarvin may be wrong, but he's also wrong in (at least to me) a unique way. Ironically, what little I read of his when he was linked to by Scott Alexander at Slater Star Codex awhile back made me appreciate the US bureaucracy a lot more than I had prior to reading him. If anything, I went away feeling much more comfortable with how the current US government operates day to day and far less troubled by how little effect "democracy" actually has in this country. I doubt that's what Yarvin intended, of course, but if I had just heard "racist" and "bigot" and shunned him entirely, as many people seem to think I should have, I'd be less informed today and substantially less positive about our government. I'm glad I didn't.
- ankushnarula 11y ago
  I had heard of Yarvin and dismissed him last year. But thanks to this controversy, I've spent many hours reading his writing in the past week. Although I vehemently disagree with his technocratic conclusions I found his willingness to think openly refreshing - particularly for someone who grew up and lives in a viscously egalitarian environment. My takeaway is that we all censor our own thinking because of fear of groupthink and banishment.
- colllectorof 11y ago
  > If your goal is to get fewer people to read his views, then causing drama around him is completely counterproductive. If, however, your goal is to attract attention to yourself, it's a wonderfully effective strategy.

116 points by waffle_ss 11y ago

Today i learned why anyone cares what lambdaconf does: The ticket prices sit at an absolutely ridiculous minimum of $500. I can't imagine what could possibly justify that expense. For context: I've attended many conferences, in the sizes of 100 to 4000: Purely technical; technical with lots of music and beer; focused on arts, crafts and acting. Never have i seen a regular price over $150. Now here comes LambdaConf, a con about a niche language, with a sponsor that describes it as "a lot of those speakers are new to speaking at tech conferences" and "reasonably priced". I can't help but feel something is amiss here, either in their self-portray, or my understanding.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
For comparison, Pycon is $300 for individuals, $600 corporate (https://us.pycon.org/2016/registration/ https://us.pycon.org/2016/registration/ ), early bird registration for CppCon is $845 ( https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cppcon-2016-registration-18889615348 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cppcon-2016-registration-188896... ), and early bird for Scala Days is $950 ( http://event.scaladays.org/scaladays-nyc-2016#04-Registration http://event.scaladays.org/scaladays-nyc-2016#04-Registratio... ) (I just picked three arbitrary languages (four, actually, but I couldn't immediately find pricing for a java conference) )
jaegerpicker 11y ago
I've attended quite a few national conferences and all of them were higher priced.
- busterarm 11y ago
  Shit, I want to go to SHARE and that conference is ~$2000. And there's like 2 of them a year. Also Blackhat.
johnny22 11y ago
try getting a ticket to oscon. way above my price range
jghn 11y ago
Many software conferences are several hundred dollars or more

pklausler 11y ago

If the LambdaConf 2016 web site is accurate, haskellbook.com is the only sponsor of the conference.

jauer 11y ago
It looks like they had six other sponsors before this kerfuffle: https://web.archive.org/web/20160321025225/http://lambdaconf.us/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160321025225/http://lambdaconf...

codygman 11y ago

There's a simple way to preserve free speech and have inclusion here: Don't allow any speakers whose beliefs are based on the supremacy of one race.

brighteyes 11y ago
The principle sounds appealing, but 1. This speaker denies fitting that description, and of those that read his work, some agree that he isn't, while some disagree, and some aren't sure. Perhaps not surprising, since he wrote a lot, and it's fairly complex. This is therefore not a clear-cut case. 2. Worse, what racial supremacy means depends on who is talking. For example, Black Lives Matters protestors have claimed that a public library, which by federal law cannot exclude people based on race, is white supremacist for that very reason: http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-accuses-public-library-of-white-supremacy/ http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-accuses-public-li... There is no simple way or simple solution here. These are hard questions, with no clear answers.
- tzs 11y ago
  Infowars is generally not a very creditable source. For those leery of believing something from there, here is the same story from The Tennessean, which is part of USA Today: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/02/19/black-lives-matter-color-only-rule-runs-afoul-nashville-library/80606970/ http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/...
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    Thank you for the better link, I wasn't aware that the first source wasn't reputable.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gd1 11y ago
Sure, it's simple. Don't allow heretics (Galileo, Spinoza) Don't allow homosexuals (Turing) Don't allow Communists (Hollywood Ten) You're basically assuming that your moral code (that you happen to share with the majority at this moment in history) is the correct one, and you should be able to wield power to silence anyone who thinks differently. Now maybe you are right about his views, maybe I even agree with you, but that isn't the point. The whole point of the enlightenment is that people are allowed to think/write/muse about ideas that the majority might not approve of.

colllectorof 11y ago

The fact that sponsoring a functional programming conference elicited an explanation of this length shows that something in our society is profoundly fucked up.

brighteyes 11y ago
Some interesting thoughts on that by one of the relevant people in this story are here: http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy , in the "Professionalism" section. He explains why, in his opinion, these clashes between the private and the professional are becoming more common.
- erichocean 11y ago
  From the link: > Personally, if a conference allows all peaceful people to attend and speak so long as they treat attendees exceedingly well, then guess what I think it’s going to select for? > Wait for it… a diverse community of peaceful people who are willing to treat attendees exceedingly well, even when they strongly disagree with them! > That doesn’t sound terrible to me. In fact, I wish the whole world were more like this. Agreed. The more I learn about this, the happier I am that LambdaConf has taken the stand they have. It's not about Yarvin, it's about everyone else, and they seem to get that.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

wutf 11y ago

In the limit it is hypocritical to select against someone who wants to select against people. This is where moonconf falls short - in the limit, they would kill in the name of empathy. Complete hypocrisy.

bsder 11y ago

I have a VERY deep problem with this that has nothing to do with the views of anybody involved. The problem I have is that this is a mob turning its power on someone with FAR LESS power than the mob in question. It is one thing when the mob attacks someone of greater power as greater power can defend itself. It is something else when a mob expresses itself with positive support for the downtrodden--that's still okay. However, attacking someone unable to match with equal social defense is NOT okay. We have a word for that--it's called "bullying". The people involved may feel righteous, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bullies. And, I am disappointed that a conference of geeks can't seem to identify social bullying when it occurs in front of them. As always, people only seem to be able to empathize when they are on the receiving end of the pointy stick.

mcphage 11y ago
> this is a mob turning its power on someone with FAR LESS power than the mob in question Most of the discussions and conversation about power deal with 1-on-1 situations: person X has more power than person Y, for reasons A, B, and C. But group action—that's a different matter, and I don't know how it figures into the picture. Person X may have more power than P, Q, R, S, or T—but P, Q, R, S, and T together may have more power than X. Or they may not. When and how they do is an important question, that I wish we had better answers to.
- bsder 11y ago
  > but P, Q, R, S, and T together may have more power than X. Or they may not. When and how they do is an important question, that I wish we had better answers to. There are rarely clean answers when the problem is social. In this instance, however, it is very clear that the mob has far more power than the individual they are targeting. For the person in question, if he had equivalent power, he could simply replace the sponsors and lost speakers with people who shared his views. At that point, the mob would be VERY reluctant to pull out for fear of leaving the stage to people whom they find distasteful. The fact that this mob would have a very different behavior if he actually had real power is telling and disappointing.
11y ago

ankushnarula 11y ago

Related: "What Went Wrong? Campus Unrest, Viewpoint Diversity, and Freedom of Speech" http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/campus-unrest-viewpoint-diversity-and-freedom-of-speech/ http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/campus-unrest-viewpoint-...

tunesmith 11y ago

Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? I get the general sense that a lot more people answer "Yes" to that question than has been historically true (at least, post-1776 American true).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
devalier 11y ago
Does free speech have the power to corrupt other minds at a level that that free speech should instead be controlled? Yes. And ironically, the one who convinced me of that point is Yarvin/Moldbug. (He actually argued, partly tongue-and-cheek, that Egypt should shut off its internet from the world. And while this sounds outrageous and terrible, remember that he was right about the revolutions in the Arab world, and virtually everyone in the tech world who cheered on the revolutions were wrong). I think it is fine that some speech is considered beyond the pale. Some speech is in fact dangerous. Power comes from the barrel of the gun -- but speech is used to organize the gun holders. Speech tells the people with the guns who the bad guys are. My problem is that the wrong people are controlling speech, and for the wrong reasons. De-platforming is being instigated via a heckler's veto -- the biggest cry-bullies try to dictate what is acceptable. I'd rather have speech controlled by an official council selected by a random lottery of citizens, than by self-appointed censors. And also I don't agree with banning Yarvin/Moldbug in particular. I have found Yarvin/Moldbug to be an amazingly insightful and interesting blogger. The history and sources he has cited has greatly enhanced my understanding of the world. Sometimes he can be abrasive, hyperbolic or a troll, but overall I am better off for having read him. I hate it that I'm scared in real life to mention that I have read his material. I'd rather see him inside the Overton window of conversation. But the worst aspect of the current attempt to deplatform, is that the line of what is acceptable is constantly changing. If I say "it's silly that someone with male equipment be allowed to use a women's bathroom", does that make me transphobic? Should I be banned from conferences? What about five years from now, when the line has moved? And what belief that is normal now, will be unacceptable in twenty years?
- 11y ago

lhnz 11y ago

An interesting titbit of information from LambdaConf's organiser: "In the past few days, we’ve also seen a huge bump in the number of people applying for our diversity scholarship program (49 applications so far), and we’re doing everything in our power to give out as many scholarships as possible." [0] It's good of Julie and Chris to continue supporting the conference, and (I think) a real shame how quick the other sponsors were to bow out. Hopefully in future people will try to think more about the positive work they can do and less about how they look. (Obviously, for those that really have strong moral reasons to exit, it's a shame but completely understandable.) I guess one of the positives is that we now have two conferences [1], so those that can't stand the idea of being in the same room as Yarvin can be around other people that think exactly the same. [0] http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-controversy [1] http://moonconf.org/ http://moonconf.org/

setra 11y ago
Whats funny about this is that by pulling out as protest for Moldbug they are making it harder for the conference to subsidize diversity.
- lhnz 11y ago
  Yes, it's very sad. Hopefully the community will be able to band together to ensure that any difficulties are overcome. Principles > Politics
- pbarnes_1 11y ago
  None of those people was going to go anyway, so the point is moot. This conference is pretty much dead.
  - tome 11y ago
    > This conference is pretty much dead. What makes you think that?
  - coolsunglasses 11y ago
    'Fraid not. The conference is still having three concurrent tracks for three days, nigh 80 speakers. Our training and everything else we're doing (I'm Chris) is still happening too.

soapdog 11y ago

As someone who is not aware of what is all the problem about and couldn't really understand from the linked text, can someone provide me with some more context please. What is the difficulty that is affecting lambdaconf? What happened?

vox_mollis 11y ago
LambdaConf is permitting Curtis Yarvin to speak, which offends the sensibilities of some attendees.
incepted 11y ago
A speaker invited to that conference has posted racist and bigoted statements on his blog. Lambdaconf is (currently anyway) deciding to invite him to speak anyway, causing all kinds of chaos. That same person was once invited at another conference (QCon I think?) but was then uninvited after the organizers of that conference were made aware of that person's posts.
- tome 11y ago
  I think you're referring to Strange Loop, not QCon. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur...
- vox_mollis 11y ago
  (QCon I think?) It was StrangeLoop, and the dis-invitation effort was spearheaded by Steve Klabnik and Bodil Stokke.
  - jgalt212 11y ago
    Bodil Stokke has strong opinions like the ocean has water.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's also far from clear how "racist" the statements were - most of the people on twitter don't seem to have actually read Moldbug/Yarvin. Proponents of ostracizing Yarvin are notably unwilling to actually discuss why they believe it's racist. (I admit, I've not come anywhere near reading his entire work. He's longwinded and that's a big barrier.) The actual blog post that's criticized is here: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-car... My best summary of the controversial part of the blog that I can come up with is this: Suddenly we see the relationship between slavery and government. Serfdom and slavery can be described as microgovernment and nanogovernment respectively. In government proper, the normal human role of patron is filled by a giant, impersonal, and often accidentally sadistic bureaucracy...In serfdom, this role is filled by a noble house...In slavery, mastership is exercised by a mobile individual whose slaves go with him. We see these same relationship parameters emerging...This is a pretty good clue that this structure is one to which humans are biologically adapted. Nozick had a much shorter essay (Yarvin is not known for brevity) which expresses the same idea: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/nozick_slave.html http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/no... The larger part of the essay is about creating order in society and Robert Carlyle's views on that. The specific quote which is interpreted as supporting slavery is this: 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. This is mostly tangential to his main points, however.

incepted 11y ago

It's clear that whether you invite or don't invite someone to a conference, you are making a stand. What the organizers of that conference fail to see is that inviting someone with such a toxic and racist personality will only encourage that person to keep posting their hateful comments.

saryant 11y ago
That's not clear at all. In fact, this episode has shown that many disagree with that statement.
hga 11y ago
Except "Mencius Moldbug" stopped posting altogether a couple of years ago, and for a year prior to that only some random poetry: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ From everything I've heard Moldbug is now purely a historical figure in the "Dark Enlightenment", although I suppose more real than Emmanuel Goldstein.

Chris2048 11y ago

Just to establish something, What is a good example of the worst example of racism in MMs blog? What is considered an unacceptable level of "racism", or racism at all differs wildly between people.

nmrm2 11y ago
See tome's reply and keep the following in mind. MM is rarely explicitly racist; it's more like he espouses ideas that obviously entail racial superiority and then stops shy and pretends like you're an idiot if you actually believe those "obvious" entailments The Progressives or whoever have been selling you. (Preface: It's hard to explain, and the following might sound like a bit of an ad hom, but that's not how I mean it. It's just a really useful lense through which to view MM's writing -- especially if you find yourself thinking "he's just saying kinda true things that aren't very PC!". Understanding the rhetorical ploys an author is using can help you see through the trees to the heart of the author's argument and then -- in MM's case -- be sure you're well-founeded in summarily rejecting it.) Reading MM is like reading an above-average-but-not-exceptionally-bright high schooler who went on a depth-first search of Google for every topic he writes about. The authority emaninating from a depth-first search is obviously flawed because it ignores the forest for the trees, but can be oddly convincing if you don't notice what's going on. Or at least difficult to refute in a clear-headed and logical way because you get stuck in the quagmire of meaningless specificities. Concretely, MM's writing generally has a well-developed thesis with logical arguments and reasonable citation, but falls flat on its face for reasons that can only be described as "common sense". MM's hope -- or maybe his own blieve -- is that his authoritative knowledge of particularities supporting his point trumps the forest of "common sense" generalities. But the dozens of obvious objections that aren't addressed by MM -- or are just hand-waved away with a bit of rhetoric about some evil other (progressives, etc.) -- really are at the heart of the matter. A few historical examples really are no replacement for a global view of historical reality. Of course MM is smart enough to be well-aware of the elephants in the room. However, he's maybe more interested in trolling than in debate. Or maybe really does blieve they're unsubstantiated progressive lies. IDK. In any case, instead of addressing these elephants head on, he kind of summarily dismisses the most obvious rebuttals with a bit of a literary eye roll. For example, in one comment he rambles on about colonialism being not-so-impeachable because those Africans were brutes prior to and after colonization. The problems with a statement like this really are quite obvious, but his comment goes on at length about particularities of specific European leaders and African dynasties instead of addressing head-on the litany of common-sense high-level objections to his poisition. It's like when a high schooler puts forth a totally untenable position that is just wrong, and considers himself unimpeached because no one in the room has a response to the particular arcane knowledge he used to backup his point. Even though that knowledge was totally tangential or at best provided one supportive data point in an infinite sea of data suggesting he's dead wrong. I think people who disagree that MM's writing is racist are mostly just hoodwinked by the above rhetorical ploy -- getting so specific about a few trees that the reader forgets about the forest, and therefore conclusing that the author doesn't need to be held responsible for the obvious historical entailments that follow from his advocacy.

brighteyes 11y ago

The activists trying to get him banned are not achieving anything useful. They are raising awareness of the man, his online persona "Moldbug", and the writings of that persona. This is the Streisand effect. If your goal is to get fewer people to read his views, then causing drama around him is completely counterproductive. I only heard about him from the previous drama (Strange Loop), and more people are hearing about him for the first time now. And he's not writing under that persona anymore. There is no stream of new articles coming out. The only news about him is when activists try to get him banned.

erichocean 11y ago
In addition, Yarvin may be wrong, but he's also wrong in (at least to me) a unique way. Ironically, what little I read of his when he was linked to by Scott Alexander at Slater Star Codex awhile back made me appreciate the US bureaucracy a lot more than I had prior to reading him. If anything, I went away feeling much more comfortable with how the current US government operates day to day and far less troubled by how little effect "democracy" actually has in this country. I doubt that's what Yarvin intended, of course, but if I had just heard "racist" and "bigot" and shunned him entirely, as many people seem to think I should have, I'd be less informed today and substantially less positive about our government. I'm glad I didn't.
ankushnarula 11y ago
I had heard of Yarvin and dismissed him last year. But thanks to this controversy, I've spent many hours reading his writing in the past week. Although I vehemently disagree with his technocratic conclusions I found his willingness to think openly refreshing - particularly for someone who grew up and lives in a viscously egalitarian environment. My takeaway is that we all censor our own thinking because of fear of groupthink and banishment.
colllectorof 11y ago
> If your goal is to get fewer people to read his views, then causing drama around him is completely counterproductive. If, however, your goal is to attract attention to yourself, it's a wonderfully effective strategy.