12 ms·

Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

151 points by buffyoda 10y ago

mrcsparker 10y ago
Wonderful graphs at the bottom. I hope that this passes. It was too bad that an article like this had to be written.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
swampthinker 10y ago
Sorry, I guess I've been living under a rock. What's the context for this?
- sridca 10y ago
  http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Lambdaconf_incident http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Lambdaconf_incident > In March 2016, the organizers of [LambdaConf] announced that they would include neo-reactionary Curtis Yarvin on the program despite widespread protest. --- http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/sjws-urge-programming-conference-to-ban-speaker-over-political-views/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/sjws-urge-programmi... > LambdaConf, an annual gathering of programmers in Boulder, Colorado, has faced calls from social justice warriors to cancel a talk by Curtis Yarvin, the developer of the Urbit programming environment, due to his political views.
  - striking 10y ago
    I appreciate the fact that you posted links to both perspectives on the issue.
- sremani 10y ago
  A controversial speaker and subsequent protests, what is inclusive and what is right. Open Bazaar vs Safe Space debate of the Conferences. For an average person who is interested in functional programming this is a side show, but since we all are now about "Culture", this is one more phase of Culture wars.
- antifasci 10y ago
  TL;DR LambdaConf invited a controversial speaker and people got very upset. The whole story: LambdaConf accepted a talk by Curtis Yarvin [0] for his work on Urbit [1][2] through a blind selection process. Before announcing the speaker list they realized this could be controversial and wrote about their decision to invite him anyway [3]. There was enormous push back on social media [4, 5], causing a number of sponsors to withdraw. An IndieGogo was set up to raise money for the conference [6] and was funded within 24 hours [7]. Soon after, a number of people co-signed a statement opposing LambdaConf's decision [8]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin 1 - https://github.com/urbit/urbit https://github.com/urbit/urbit 2 - http://urbit.org/ http://urbit.org/ 3 - http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion 4 - https://twitter.com/seldo/status/714258138325626880 https://twitter.com/seldo/status/714258138325626880 5 - https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=lambdaconf&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=lambd... 6 - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-lambdaconf-and-an-open-society--3#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-lambdaconf-and-an-op... 7 - https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/716242082696921088 https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/716242082696921088 8 - https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ (edit: formatting)
- incepted 10y ago
  You're not, it's just a microscopic drama that is engulfing a tiny subset of the FP world. I'm following a lot of these people and their Twitter stream has been flooded by reactions to this, which makes me think they really don't have much else to talk about. It's pathetic, really.
- randomname2 10y ago
  Inc reporting on this: http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/indiegogo-campaign-funding-tech-conference-white-nationalist.html http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/indiegogo-campaign-funding-... Also at http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/11/ot47-openai/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/11/ot47-openai/ "And a very different kind of campaign – computer science conference LambdaConf uses a blind review process to select topics for presentation. This year one of their selections was a talk on weird-namespace-software Urbit by Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug). A group of Twitter activists demanded that he be excluded from the conference for his political views. When the conference refused to capitulate, the activists started pressuring sponsors to pull out of the conference in the hopes of making the conference financially unviable. After some preliminary success, anti-censorship blog Status 451 launched a counter-campaign to get people concerned about freedom of opinion in tech to donate to LambdaConf and help make up the difference. This is usually where I’d ask you to donate, except that they reached their $15,000 goal within the first day of their campaign, they’re now 146% funded, and the only reason to give any more at this point is to give an even louder FUCK YOU to the people involved. Since that actually sounds pretty good, you can take a look at the campaign here. See also ESR’s take."
hoodoof 10y ago
Seems conferences are quite a controversial thing these days.
- marklyon 10y ago
  Agreed. In addition to "codes of conduct" that seem to assume all attendees are lecherous, racist rapists some conferences step outside their focus and end up turning away potential attendees. For example, this military member who really seems to be the target market for DjangoCon but who can't attend due to past pro-marijuana speakers. https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/4dihy4/django_trainings/d1yngty https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/4dihy4/django_train...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - chipotle_coyote 10y ago
    While I suppose there may be some codes of conduct out there that truly make those assumptions, most of the ones I've seen are simply predicated on the assumption that it's better to proactively make rules outlining acceptable behavior -- and, ideally, outlining both the ways complaints will be handled, including enforcement. We'd all like to believe that "trust everyone to not to be jerks to one another" is code enough for any convention, and I get that "X, Y and Z will not be tolerated" can come across like taking sides in a debate. But establishing a CoC first is the social engineering equivalent of test-driven development. Handling complaints on an entirely ad hoc, subjective basis works as long as complaints remain relatively minor, but the failure mode can be pretty spectacular, and not in a good way.
ng12 10y ago
How crazy -- I'm vaguely familiar with Curtis' work, and would have never known (or cared) about his political views until the people looking to "no platform" him gave him a platform. Streisand effect, people.
- Aqueous 10y ago
  When will people learn that you don't fight a view by attempting to suppress it?
  - danharaj 10y ago
    That wasn't the point of protesting his presence at LambdaConf. The point was so that people who want to go to LambdaConf and feel threatened and humiliated by someone's enthusiastic support of racism and slavery don't have to associate with such a person. It is so exasperating that so many people who aren't denigrated and targeted by his hateful politics think this is a matter of abstract principle. Somehow, letting my and others' humanity be a matter of political opinion is the mature, apolitical position. Utterly frustrating attitude. It's perfectly fine to be tolerant of Yarvin's views, it is completely unreasonable to ask others to associate with a person who envisions a world where their humanity is forfeit.
    - Aqueous 10y ago
      In public life we have to - and should - encounter and tolerate people whose opinions we find abhorrent. I would much prefer a world where I feel emotional discomfort being in the presence of someone I loathe than a world where such a person is prohibited from ever being near me, because of social ostracism. It provides for a much richer marketplace of ideas. If you don't like him, protest him. Disturb him with your words as much as he disturbs you with his.
      - danharaj 10y ago
        Free speech is such a pretty principal when you can always foist its costs on other people. You can keep your marketplace. I'm going to be emphatic, because i am emphatic about this position: Free speech is a powerful principle because speech has power. Because speech can hurt people, because speech can change the world. If speech did not matter, free speech would not matter. If speech matters, and speech has power, then its effects must be considered. To do anything less is irrational. The idea that rejecting Yarvin's ideas so emphatically that we would deny him platform would lead to unjust suppression of speech is a fallacy. It is a slippery slope. So many people who strive to be rational individuals and avoid cognitive biases, and yet balk at treating speech for what it is instead of a sacred object that should be worshipped. By saying Yarvin should be allowed to speak, you are merely saying that protecting his speech is more important than the emotional and professional cost it exacts on the people he targets. And yes, he targets people. Through all his extremely verbose, meandering writings, a clear thread of contempt for certain others' runs. "The relationship of master and slave is a natural human relationship: that of patron and client." - Curtis Yarvin You can react to speech the way you want. But you're not taking any moral high ground with your approach when you explicitly deny the impact of speech on others and how they react to it. Association is a form of speech. Petitioning others to stand with you is a form of speech. Protecting Yarvin's speech on the grounds of principle, which is rejecting others' speech out of hand in contradiction of the same principles is inconsistent. All speech has consequences, and there is no neutral advocacy of "free speech" because truly free speech is a realm of conflict and inconsistency.
brokentone 10y ago
This is really a wonderful post. Too many open source projects, conferences, and the like have turned into witch hunts by, as John mentions, the morality police. Maintainers are bullied into adopting CoCs even if there have been no issues at all in their community, and distancing themselves from valued members of their community for something dumb they may have said or done in entirely different contexts or years ago. The whole set of posts John has provided on the matter have been extremely fair and thoughtful.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
douche 10y ago
This is probably the most reasonable response to these sorts of pressures I've ever seen. One can hope that other groups will follow their lead and strive to act like fully-grown, professional, adults. I'm sure they'll get eviscerated for it, though.
- josinalvo 10y ago
  I'm not quite so sure... I think they will get some social media messages, and perhaps some lost sponsors. Nothing they can't weather.
- McGlockenshire 10y ago
  The attempt to be a neutral platform is laudable, and the wording used to express the idea seems to be well thought through. The fact remains that even though that insist that they are not endorsing any of the speakers' views, the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience (even if the presentation is entirely topical and non-controversial) acts as an implicit endorsement. Denying this doesn't change the effective endorsement.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    > the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience acts as an implicit endorsement Giving a speaker a talk acts an implicit endorsement of all of their views? That doesn't even sound remotely true, yet you state it as if it was tautological.
    - McGlockenshire 10y ago
      The endorsement is implicit, not explicit. Conf: "We're giving person A a presentation slot because they have a compelling presentation on topic W." Possible Attendee: "Are you aware that person A has said things X, Y, and Z, which taken together can make people reluctant to associate with them?" Conf: "We are aware of that but do not wish to make our conference about anything X, Y, or Z. The presentation is topical." PA: "If you feature this speaker, you will cause some people to be reluctant to associate with your conference as well." Conf: "We understand that, but speaker A is discussing topic W, not topics X, Y, or Z. We choose to feature the speaker because of their presentation on W." By taking this position, the conference associates itself with the speaker. Possible attendees will see this association and draw the conclusion that the conference endorses the speaker, even if that endorsement is only about non-controversial things that are within the topic of the conference. Dryly stating that there is no endorsement of any off-topic position does not remove that association and the implicit endorsement. Implicit endorsement by association is a real effect. Go talk to any major politician about how they can't be seen talking to anyone remotely controversial, because of how associating with that person might be seen as endorsement.
tomp 10y ago
What an amazing article; cool-headed, rational and very well-argued. Especially the "Appendix" containing definitions and short doscussions/arguments is worth reading.
- marshray 10y ago
  Yeah, it's going to drive people nuts. Edit: (people on both sides)
seibelj 10y ago
I read an FAQ on neo-reactionism and it's totally insane. But I would be fine with the guy lecturing about computers if he knew his stuff. Honestly I find intelligent, rational people who come to radically different conclusions about society to be fascinating. On the other hand, if Hitler himself was alive and gave a speech on art, I wouldn't want to hear it because of his politics and actions. So clearly there is a spectrum for me, and at some point the politics become so bad I can't stand the person. Also, by giving this person a speaking role, he becomes more authoritative in all subjects, so it probably is better not to help him. In summary, lots to think about!
- tomp 10y ago
  I would love to hear a speech by Hitler. Regardless of his actions, he was a master persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade more than most people couldn't in 1000 years! We could all learn a lot from him - which of course doesn't mean that we would have to use the skills for the same means he did.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >he was a master persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade more than most people couldn't in 1000 years No. He accomplished what most people wouldn't and oughtn't in a thousand years.
    - antifasci 10y ago
      Or just didn't until Stalin and Mao.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      That's not in conflict with what was said in your quote. Hitler changed the world enormously. It was terrible, but the influence is undeniable. I'm reminded of all the people I've seen making fun of Time for naming Hitler their Man of the Year, without realizing that Man/Person of the Year is purely about the size of impact, not how good it is.
  - 10y ago
lbarrow 10y ago
There's no such thing as "not becoming political". Hosting an event is a political act; so is selling tickets to the event or paying people to help you run it. These acts might be _normal_ but they're still _political_. When someone says, "I don't want this to get political", what they're really saying is "I'm comfortable with the politics of the status quo and I want things to stay the way they are". Sometimes that's totally fine. In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery. De Goes can have his conference, but arguing that this isn't a political decision is simply incorrect.
- tomp 10y ago
  > In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery. The alternative is to give voice to an almost-militant group of bullies bent on oppressing opinions of people whe don't think like them. Only one of these positions is logically internally consistent.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    What does "almost-militant" mean?
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      It sounds like it means "I feel threatened by these people's views even though they've shown no interest in physically acting on them." Which is kind of ironic, given the context.
    - tomp 10y ago
      It means that, if I believed in the concept of "verbal assault" or "verbal violence", they would be equivalent to a militant terrorist group, planning and executing organized attacks.
- jblow 10y ago
  [q]In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery.[/q] This is possibly disingenuous, and at least overly rhetorical. They are not "giving him a voice" to talk about anything related to anything racist, and I'm sure if he used his slot to talk about anything racist, he would get perma-banned from the conference. It is hard to say more than this without just repeating things said in the conference's statement. The idea is that a professional society ought to be able to cohere even when the members of that society disagree on matters outside the subject at hand. It seems like a good idea.
lukev 10y ago
Of course, LambdaConf has every right to define its community in the way it sees fit. While their explanation does have a lot of logical appeal (see: https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-diversity/10154092724913630 https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-dive...), it's important to remember that prospective attendees and speakers also have the right of free association. The fact is, I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk. I would encourage others to make the same decision. I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so. They are human beings and deserve all the rights and privileges thereof. But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending nothing is wrong. This isn't a free speech issue, this is a "who do you want in your community" issue. In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity. I hope people give me the same treatment. I am more than the content of my technical talks, and so is Yarvin.
- tomp 10y ago
  > In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity. Isn't this exactly what you're doing?
  - exolymph 10y ago
    I think the parent comment is referring to how people have tried to argue that Yarvin will be able to sequester one part of his personality and creative output, and that the rest of us should pretend his Moldbug persona doesn't affect the rest of him.
  - lukev 10y ago
    Not at all! I can disassociate myself from Yarvin, and even "no-platform" him while fully acknowledging that he's a legit functional programmer with interesting technical ideas. But I can't engage with him as a peer, in community, without denying or ignoring (or accepting) that he's a racist.
FireBeyond 10y ago
Apropos of anything else, the 'lawyer' example is a bad one, and contrived for the purpose of example. If an attorney "knows" that their client is guilty, they are duty-bound as officers of the court to make that knowledge known. Obviously that doesn't happen as much as it should...
- powera 10y ago
  Your statement is factually incorrect, at least in the US court system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privil...
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    I consider myself educated! I believe it is different in the UK and Australian systems, however. But how do you police it, after all the only thing revealing such lack would be privileged...
- russellallen 10y ago
  The general rule in Common Law (English speaking) legal systems is that if the lawyer knows (as opposed to suspects) that their client is guilty, they cannot let their client plead not guilty. They can still defend the client by pleading for a lesser sentence etc, or they can cease acting for the client. They don't have any obligation to tell the court, just an obligation not to lie to the court. Of course each jurisdiction will have its own rules about this.
  - powera 10y ago
    Except you don't enter a plea for an action, you enter a plea for a criminal charge. A murderer can confess a crime to his lawyer (under privilege), and still honestly plead not-guilty to first-degree murder (for example, it could be considered manslaughter).
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  IANAL, but I don't think they are allowed to make it known if they learned it as part of an attorney-client privileged conversation.
1123581321 10y ago
I think the policy to ignore social media is a valuable innovation. For a couple of years, I have hoped to see companies adopt this policy to protect their employees from being capriciously let go.
gwright 10y ago
From the article: > Someone with progressive political views might feel emotionally threatened in the presence of rabid and well-known Trump supporters who are openly contemptuous of progressives in their personal lives […] Ugh. I’m not sure how I would have selected examples of potentional emotional distress but a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious attitudes wouldn’t have been my first choice.
- mcphage 10y ago
  > a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious attitudes I assume that the bit you quoted was a reference to the recent events at Emory University.
rtpg 10y ago
I'm not a part of LambdaConf, nor would I plan to (not because of the controversy, but just because I don't have the time/money to attend any US-based conference)... But these discussions remind me a lot of the "censorship" discussions that have been had both on places like reddit or twitter. For the longest time, code of conducts were a thing that were accepted. Don't be a jerk, don't spout racist stuff at people. Loads of forums had it, and the places that didn't basically became 4chan (which is interesting in its own right but filled with pretty rude people). Sometime between 1995 and 2015, we started thinking that rules that basically say "don't be a jerk" stopped being the norm.... I really wonder why. Now it gets classified as "censorship". That being said, my understanding is that this guy's talk wasn't "How FP advances the causes of Stormfont", which makes it pretty hard to say outright "gotta kick him out". But I wouldn't want Marine Le Pen or Trump at my FP conference, no matter how subtle and developed their views on FP are. My opinion does not entire conference submission guidelines make, but I can understand fighting against that. Social interactions don't work in a vacuum... Glad I don't have to participate at this
mintplant 10y ago
Quoting from a Lobste.rs post [1] on the other side of this issue: > Here’s a different approach, which explains this quite reasonably: LambdaConf made a lot of effort to contact organisations involving PoC, introducing diversity scholarships etc. to gain some fame. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, they decide to run a person which is clearly incompatible. These organisations cut their ties and oppose the project they supported. It’s all very unsurprising. You can’t shout “everyone is equal, please spread!” and then invite someone on the speakers list who wrote hundreds of thousands of words how he thinks people are fundamentally unequal by disposition and some should be slaves. > I’d be far less aggravated if LambdaConf had just been a run-of-the-mill conference, but it tried to be the diverse conference in FP. Now it shows that they actually meant “libertarian”. Appropriating terms like “inclusive” or “diverse” for that is just a recipe for disaster... > LambdaConf chose to be a temporary, short space where anything goes unless it’s not physically violent. What they communicated was something different though. And that difference is biting them now, making sponsors jump off and people protest. In sum: people are upset because they feel used - that LambdaConf made one set of promises and advertised in a specific way to gain fame, then flipped on those values afterward. [1] https://lobste.rs/s/dibl7y/why_we_re_sponsoring_lambdaconf_2016/comments/x7kpvy#c_x7kpvy https://lobste.rs/s/dibl7y/why_we_re_sponsoring_lambdaconf_2...
- tomp 10y ago
  Using the words "inclusive" and "diverse" to describe a position which encourages banning people who think differently than most is highly problematic and disingenuous.
jordigh 10y ago
> Free speech advocates have gathered on one side, advocates for social justice on the other wtf Those two are supposed to be the same side. There's some really perverse twisting of words here to put social justice in opposition to free speech. How has the debate come to this?
- Kalium 10y ago
  A speaker-blind selection process selected a talk by someone who is considered by some to be offensive for reasons not directly relevant to the content of the talk.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Yet definitely relevant to the people who would choose to attend the conference. It's definitely going to make some people feel uncomfortable attending, knowing that they invited someone who believes that you are not deserving of human rights and dignity to speak.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - calibraxis 10y ago
    The Lambdaconf guy who mindbogglingly rejects social media for being "fickle, highly emotional, and irrational" has no idea about free speech. Moldbug has a record of going to professional confs and advocating racism. (Working to exclude people.) Furthermore, one of their sponsors is a racist political blog, which is unprecedented in my experience. (For evidence, see my comment history.) Context: a country which notoriously kills and incarcerates blacks, as a replacement for slavery. Racism involves political actions which directly impact the lives of participants and users. This creates an atmosphere completely counter to education. People always say "Hallway chats are the best part!" so it's not just about a talk.
- flubert 10y ago
  >Those two are supposed to be the same side. How is it different from how "Progressive" and "Classically Liberal/Libertarian" are pretty much opposites?
danharaj 10y ago
This is an open letter of people protesting LambdaConf's decision: https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ I invite anyone to peruse that list and tell me these aren't some of the brightest professionals and integral community members in functional programming (subtracting me of course). I welcome anyone to make the claim that these individuals haven't come to their positions through reason and deep consideration for the ramifications of how this issue is resolved.
- antifasci 10y ago
  The fact that you cite only a single source should stand as simple enough reason to discredit it. In response, I offer you a single citation [0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
  - mmmnop 10y ago
    The fact that you created a new anonymous account to do nothing more than name call stands as a simple enough way you discredited...you. McCarthyism was intolerance, not an intolerance of intolerance. It's ironic to have to explain simple type theory here. Or maybe not.
    - thescribe 10y ago
      Perhaps the grandparent rationally fears retaliation?
    - antifasci 10y ago
      And yet, the 'intolerance' that you're so intolerant of goes without citation, without explanation, without discussion. Strikes me as blatant McCarthyism. Perhaps my account is anonymous because the comment should stand on its own? The discussion surrounding this issue shouldn't require personal reputation. The facts should be sufficient.
      - philwelch 10y ago
pklausler 10y ago
I don't recall this kind of brouhaha affecting more "academic" conferences, e.g. ISCA or Supercomputing, but I can't come up with a decent reason why that might be the case. Did the LambdaConf organizers just get unlucky?
xirdstl 10y ago
This is a divisive issue, and originally I found myself agreeing with this post, because, in general, I expect a conference to about mature professionals focusing on the craft. That said, LambdaConf advertises itself as a "magical place" with a "passionate and friendly community of like-minded souls." Given that, I understand why people are upset. They are trying to have it both ways.
jessaustin 10y ago
Is it meaningful that there is no link to LambdaConf in TFA? Don't make me Google...
OoTheNigerian 10y ago
Exceptionally lucid and captures every this I think of and aligns well with my position. It is ironically said that fundamental Christians of today would give Jesus the hardest time if this was his Era. Likewise, I have observed that the most "militantly liberal expousers" seem to be the most intolerant of other views.(I speak as an observer from outside the western world where this is prevalent) I hope this is the end of this issue. This response will serve as template for future moral police people
eruditely 10y ago
I have so much respect for the lambdaconf organizers and will remember John A De Goes as a highly ethical individual. Love what they're doing.
dham 10y ago
This may not be a very popular belief but I honestly don't care what other people believe/think/worship/do as long as it doesn't harm any one else or me. I have extreme liberals on my Twitter feed as do I have extreme conservatives. People post stuff every now and again that kind of turns me off, but I still follow them because they have good stuff to say tech wise. I'm always open minded to what they post though. In our profession we can't always work with the most open minded people(politically) but as long as the work gets done and they are open minded technically that's all that matters to me. I work with and hang out with people I don't agree with on certain things, drink beer, go over for dinner. No issue for me. I'm Libertarian, so politically I have something I can agree with on both sides usually. As long as this guy doesn't give any hate speech or harm someone then I honestly don't see the problem.
zimbu668 10y ago
I read Yarvin's response to this whole incident: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d#.6xux1ooek https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam... Could someone provide a link to his pro-slavery arguments?
- antifasci 10y ago
  Exactly.
anaphor 10y ago
About the chart on "moral reasoning", consequentialism, the idea that only the outcome is what matters, is an ethical system that one can base their morals off of. I'm not sure where they got the idea that they're two separate things. Also the whole "xyism" thing seems to be their own made-up terminology for the idea of an illusory correlation in social psychology. Why not just say stereotyping groups is a bad idea instead of the weird references to logic and set theory?
wcummings 10y ago
This is the blog in question: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of it. There's some racist lingo, but more than anything this guy seems unhinged, like the kind of person I wouldn't want to be in a room with, let alone have a conversation with.
bad_user 10y ago
I do not understand the prevailing opinions in this thread and I must confess that, even though I disagree respectfully with LambdaConf's choices (respectfully as in, hey, it's their conference and I can even understand their reasoning), seeing the uncertainty and the doubt and the bullying and the lack of empathy for the less fortunate, this is the first time I'm ashamed of being a software developer. For those with doubts, here's one of his posts that is racist by definition: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carl... And given his now infamous Medium post, given that it can be hard to parse English, here's a review of the book that he's recommending in support of his racist views: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/troublesome-sources https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... I personally don't understand how anybody can claim that his views aren't racist in the most profound hate-inducing ways, and for every such assertion it feels like a spit in the face at least of those that have had grandfathers surviving WWII, let alone the minorities amongst us that fear not for their job, but for their personal safety. But keep thinking that hate speech is just political opinion that needs to be protected. And keep demeaning and silencing those that ring alarms, as if "SJWs" are amongst your biggest problems. Yeah, that worked out well in the past.
- dmix 10y ago
  Left authoritarianism and right wing authoritarianism are two sides of the same coin [1]. I couldn't accept one without the other as they operate on the same principles. Which is why I am willing to go to a tech conference as long as the subject matter is entirely about technology. If it included political discourse by said people it would be a different story and I wouldn't attend. Attendance is voluntary. And as far as I'm concerned people are free to attend whatever political conference they please. The only time I would support forcing a speaker not to be able to attend is if he planned to give a speech specifically involving inciting violence, coercion, or other blatant criminal acts at that specific venue - and specifically a venue residing within my local community/country. The internet is a different story. [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-29/emergence-orwellian-newspeak-and-death-free-speech http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-29/emergence-orwellian...
davidgerard 10y ago
An attempt to derive a concept of “inclusivity” from first principles, complete with made-up jargon words and diagrams. DeGoes wants to be thought of as “inclusive” but doesn’t understand that the purpose of inclusivity is to hear from marginalised voices you might be systemically excluding. He thinks “ah, we’ll achieve ‘inclusivity’ by including everyone, even the odious!” Thus achieving literally the opposite. But that’s okay, he can show his working. His new reactionary fandom (~ 0 of whom give two hoots about functional programming) are fully onside. Everyone else has left them to it; it’s unclear if DeGoes understands in any way that this is what has happened.

151 points by buffyoda 10y ago

mrcsparker 10y ago

Wonderful graphs at the bottom. I hope that this passes. It was too bad that an article like this had to be written.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

swampthinker 10y ago

Sorry, I guess I've been living under a rock. What's the context for this?

sridca 10y ago
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Lambdaconf_incident http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Lambdaconf_incident > In March 2016, the organizers of [LambdaConf] announced that they would include neo-reactionary Curtis Yarvin on the program despite widespread protest. --- http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/sjws-urge-programming-conference-to-ban-speaker-over-political-views/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/sjws-urge-programmi... > LambdaConf, an annual gathering of programmers in Boulder, Colorado, has faced calls from social justice warriors to cancel a talk by Curtis Yarvin, the developer of the Urbit programming environment, due to his political views.
- striking 10y ago
  I appreciate the fact that you posted links to both perspectives on the issue.
sremani 10y ago
A controversial speaker and subsequent protests, what is inclusive and what is right. Open Bazaar vs Safe Space debate of the Conferences. For an average person who is interested in functional programming this is a side show, but since we all are now about "Culture", this is one more phase of Culture wars.
antifasci 10y ago
TL;DR LambdaConf invited a controversial speaker and people got very upset. The whole story: LambdaConf accepted a talk by Curtis Yarvin [0] for his work on Urbit [1][2] through a blind selection process. Before announcing the speaker list they realized this could be controversial and wrote about their decision to invite him anyway [3]. There was enormous push back on social media [4, 5], causing a number of sponsors to withdraw. An IndieGogo was set up to raise money for the conference [6] and was funded within 24 hours [7]. Soon after, a number of people co-signed a statement opposing LambdaConf's decision [8]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin 1 - https://github.com/urbit/urbit https://github.com/urbit/urbit 2 - http://urbit.org/ http://urbit.org/ 3 - http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion 4 - https://twitter.com/seldo/status/714258138325626880 https://twitter.com/seldo/status/714258138325626880 5 - https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=lambdaconf&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=lambd... 6 - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-lambdaconf-and-an-open-society--3#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-lambdaconf-and-an-op... 7 - https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/716242082696921088 https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/716242082696921088 8 - https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ (edit: formatting)
incepted 10y ago
You're not, it's just a microscopic drama that is engulfing a tiny subset of the FP world. I'm following a lot of these people and their Twitter stream has been flooded by reactions to this, which makes me think they really don't have much else to talk about. It's pathetic, really.
randomname2 10y ago
Inc reporting on this: http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/indiegogo-campaign-funding-tech-conference-white-nationalist.html http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/indiegogo-campaign-funding-... Also at http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/11/ot47-openai/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/11/ot47-openai/ "And a very different kind of campaign – computer science conference LambdaConf uses a blind review process to select topics for presentation. This year one of their selections was a talk on weird-namespace-software Urbit by Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug). A group of Twitter activists demanded that he be excluded from the conference for his political views. When the conference refused to capitulate, the activists started pressuring sponsors to pull out of the conference in the hopes of making the conference financially unviable. After some preliminary success, anti-censorship blog Status 451 launched a counter-campaign to get people concerned about freedom of opinion in tech to donate to LambdaConf and help make up the difference. This is usually where I’d ask you to donate, except that they reached their $15,000 goal within the first day of their campaign, they’re now 146% funded, and the only reason to give any more at this point is to give an even louder FUCK YOU to the people involved. Since that actually sounds pretty good, you can take a look at the campaign here. See also ESR’s take."

hoodoof 10y ago

Seems conferences are quite a controversial thing these days.

marklyon 10y ago
Agreed. In addition to "codes of conduct" that seem to assume all attendees are lecherous, racist rapists some conferences step outside their focus and end up turning away potential attendees. For example, this military member who really seems to be the target market for DjangoCon but who can't attend due to past pro-marijuana speakers. https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/4dihy4/django_trainings/d1yngty https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/4dihy4/django_train...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chipotle_coyote 10y ago
  While I suppose there may be some codes of conduct out there that truly make those assumptions, most of the ones I've seen are simply predicated on the assumption that it's better to proactively make rules outlining acceptable behavior -- and, ideally, outlining both the ways complaints will be handled, including enforcement. We'd all like to believe that "trust everyone to not to be jerks to one another" is code enough for any convention, and I get that "X, Y and Z will not be tolerated" can come across like taking sides in a debate. But establishing a CoC first is the social engineering equivalent of test-driven development. Handling complaints on an entirely ad hoc, subjective basis works as long as complaints remain relatively minor, but the failure mode can be pretty spectacular, and not in a good way.

ng12 10y ago

How crazy -- I'm vaguely familiar with Curtis' work, and would have never known (or cared) about his political views until the people looking to "no platform" him gave him a platform. Streisand effect, people.

Aqueous 10y ago
When will people learn that you don't fight a view by attempting to suppress it?
- danharaj 10y ago
  That wasn't the point of protesting his presence at LambdaConf. The point was so that people who want to go to LambdaConf and feel threatened and humiliated by someone's enthusiastic support of racism and slavery don't have to associate with such a person. It is so exasperating that so many people who aren't denigrated and targeted by his hateful politics think this is a matter of abstract principle. Somehow, letting my and others' humanity be a matter of political opinion is the mature, apolitical position. Utterly frustrating attitude. It's perfectly fine to be tolerant of Yarvin's views, it is completely unreasonable to ask others to associate with a person who envisions a world where their humanity is forfeit.
  - Aqueous 10y ago
    In public life we have to - and should - encounter and tolerate people whose opinions we find abhorrent. I would much prefer a world where I feel emotional discomfort being in the presence of someone I loathe than a world where such a person is prohibited from ever being near me, because of social ostracism. It provides for a much richer marketplace of ideas. If you don't like him, protest him. Disturb him with your words as much as he disturbs you with his.
    - danharaj 10y ago
      Free speech is such a pretty principal when you can always foist its costs on other people. You can keep your marketplace. I'm going to be emphatic, because i am emphatic about this position: Free speech is a powerful principle because speech has power. Because speech can hurt people, because speech can change the world. If speech did not matter, free speech would not matter. If speech matters, and speech has power, then its effects must be considered. To do anything less is irrational. The idea that rejecting Yarvin's ideas so emphatically that we would deny him platform would lead to unjust suppression of speech is a fallacy. It is a slippery slope. So many people who strive to be rational individuals and avoid cognitive biases, and yet balk at treating speech for what it is instead of a sacred object that should be worshipped. By saying Yarvin should be allowed to speak, you are merely saying that protecting his speech is more important than the emotional and professional cost it exacts on the people he targets. And yes, he targets people. Through all his extremely verbose, meandering writings, a clear thread of contempt for certain others' runs. "The relationship of master and slave is a natural human relationship: that of patron and client." - Curtis Yarvin You can react to speech the way you want. But you're not taking any moral high ground with your approach when you explicitly deny the impact of speech on others and how they react to it. Association is a form of speech. Petitioning others to stand with you is a form of speech. Protecting Yarvin's speech on the grounds of principle, which is rejecting others' speech out of hand in contradiction of the same principles is inconsistent. All speech has consequences, and there is no neutral advocacy of "free speech" because truly free speech is a realm of conflict and inconsistency.

brokentone 10y ago

This is really a wonderful post. Too many open source projects, conferences, and the like have turned into witch hunts by, as John mentions, the morality police. Maintainers are bullied into adopting CoCs even if there have been no issues at all in their community, and distancing themselves from valued members of their community for something dumb they may have said or done in entirely different contexts or years ago. The whole set of posts John has provided on the matter have been extremely fair and thoughtful.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

douche 10y ago

This is probably the most reasonable response to these sorts of pressures I've ever seen. One can hope that other groups will follow their lead and strive to act like fully-grown, professional, adults. I'm sure they'll get eviscerated for it, though.

josinalvo 10y ago
I'm not quite so sure... I think they will get some social media messages, and perhaps some lost sponsors. Nothing they can't weather.
McGlockenshire 10y ago
The attempt to be a neutral platform is laudable, and the wording used to express the idea seems to be well thought through. The fact remains that even though that insist that they are not endorsing any of the speakers' views, the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience (even if the presentation is entirely topical and non-controversial) acts as an implicit endorsement. Denying this doesn't change the effective endorsement.
- mcphage 10y ago
  > the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience acts as an implicit endorsement Giving a speaker a talk acts an implicit endorsement of all of their views? That doesn't even sound remotely true, yet you state it as if it was tautological.
  - McGlockenshire 10y ago
    The endorsement is implicit, not explicit. Conf: "We're giving person A a presentation slot because they have a compelling presentation on topic W." Possible Attendee: "Are you aware that person A has said things X, Y, and Z, which taken together can make people reluctant to associate with them?" Conf: "We are aware of that but do not wish to make our conference about anything X, Y, or Z. The presentation is topical." PA: "If you feature this speaker, you will cause some people to be reluctant to associate with your conference as well." Conf: "We understand that, but speaker A is discussing topic W, not topics X, Y, or Z. We choose to feature the speaker because of their presentation on W." By taking this position, the conference associates itself with the speaker. Possible attendees will see this association and draw the conclusion that the conference endorses the speaker, even if that endorsement is only about non-controversial things that are within the topic of the conference. Dryly stating that there is no endorsement of any off-topic position does not remove that association and the implicit endorsement. Implicit endorsement by association is a real effect. Go talk to any major politician about how they can't be seen talking to anyone remotely controversial, because of how associating with that person might be seen as endorsement.

tomp 10y ago

What an amazing article; cool-headed, rational and very well-argued. Especially the "Appendix" containing definitions and short doscussions/arguments is worth reading.

marshray 10y ago
Yeah, it's going to drive people nuts. Edit: (people on both sides)

seibelj 10y ago

I read an FAQ on neo-reactionism and it's totally insane. But I would be fine with the guy lecturing about computers if he knew his stuff. Honestly I find intelligent, rational people who come to radically different conclusions about society to be fascinating. On the other hand, if Hitler himself was alive and gave a speech on art, I wouldn't want to hear it because of his politics and actions. So clearly there is a spectrum for me, and at some point the politics become so bad I can't stand the person. Also, by giving this person a speaking role, he becomes more authoritative in all subjects, so it probably is better not to help him. In summary, lots to think about!

tomp 10y ago
I would love to hear a speech by Hitler. Regardless of his actions, he was a master persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade more than most people couldn't in 1000 years! We could all learn a lot from him - which of course doesn't mean that we would have to use the skills for the same means he did.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >he was a master persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade more than most people couldn't in 1000 years No. He accomplished what most people wouldn't and oughtn't in a thousand years.
  - antifasci 10y ago
    Or just didn't until Stalin and Mao.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    That's not in conflict with what was said in your quote. Hitler changed the world enormously. It was terrible, but the influence is undeniable. I'm reminded of all the people I've seen making fun of Time for naming Hitler their Man of the Year, without realizing that Man/Person of the Year is purely about the size of impact, not how good it is.
- 10y ago

lbarrow 10y ago

There's no such thing as "not becoming political". Hosting an event is a political act; so is selling tickets to the event or paying people to help you run it. These acts might be _normal_ but they're still _political_. When someone says, "I don't want this to get political", what they're really saying is "I'm comfortable with the politics of the status quo and I want things to stay the way they are". Sometimes that's totally fine. In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery. De Goes can have his conference, but arguing that this isn't a political decision is simply incorrect.

tomp 10y ago
> In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery. The alternative is to give voice to an almost-militant group of bullies bent on oppressing opinions of people whe don't think like them. Only one of these positions is logically internally consistent.
- danharaj 10y ago
  What does "almost-militant" mean?
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    It sounds like it means "I feel threatened by these people's views even though they've shown no interest in physically acting on them." Which is kind of ironic, given the context.
  - tomp 10y ago
    It means that, if I believed in the concept of "verbal assault" or "verbal violence", they would be equivalent to a militant terrorist group, planning and executing organized attacks.
jblow 10y ago
[q]In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery.[/q] This is possibly disingenuous, and at least overly rhetorical. They are not "giving him a voice" to talk about anything related to anything racist, and I'm sure if he used his slot to talk about anything racist, he would get perma-banned from the conference. It is hard to say more than this without just repeating things said in the conference's statement. The idea is that a professional society ought to be able to cohere even when the members of that society disagree on matters outside the subject at hand. It seems like a good idea.

lukev 10y ago

Of course, LambdaConf has every right to define its community in the way it sees fit. While their explanation does have a lot of logical appeal (see: https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-diversity/10154092724913630 https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-dive...), it's important to remember that prospective attendees and speakers also have the right of free association. The fact is, I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk. I would encourage others to make the same decision. I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so. They are human beings and deserve all the rights and privileges thereof. But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending nothing is wrong. This isn't a free speech issue, this is a "who do you want in your community" issue. In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity. I hope people give me the same treatment. I am more than the content of my technical talks, and so is Yarvin.

tomp 10y ago
> In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity. Isn't this exactly what you're doing?
- exolymph 10y ago
  I think the parent comment is referring to how people have tried to argue that Yarvin will be able to sequester one part of his personality and creative output, and that the rest of us should pretend his Moldbug persona doesn't affect the rest of him.
- lukev 10y ago
  Not at all! I can disassociate myself from Yarvin, and even "no-platform" him while fully acknowledging that he's a legit functional programmer with interesting technical ideas. But I can't engage with him as a peer, in community, without denying or ignoring (or accepting) that he's a racist.

FireBeyond 10y ago

Apropos of anything else, the 'lawyer' example is a bad one, and contrived for the purpose of example. If an attorney "knows" that their client is guilty, they are duty-bound as officers of the court to make that knowledge known. Obviously that doesn't happen as much as it should...

powera 10y ago
Your statement is factually incorrect, at least in the US court system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privil...
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  I consider myself educated! I believe it is different in the UK and Australian systems, however. But how do you police it, after all the only thing revealing such lack would be privileged...
russellallen 10y ago
The general rule in Common Law (English speaking) legal systems is that if the lawyer knows (as opposed to suspects) that their client is guilty, they cannot let their client plead not guilty. They can still defend the client by pleading for a lesser sentence etc, or they can cease acting for the client. They don't have any obligation to tell the court, just an obligation not to lie to the court. Of course each jurisdiction will have its own rules about this.
- powera 10y ago
  Except you don't enter a plea for an action, you enter a plea for a criminal charge. A murderer can confess a crime to his lawyer (under privilege), and still honestly plead not-guilty to first-degree murder (for example, it could be considered manslaughter).
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
IANAL, but I don't think they are allowed to make it known if they learned it as part of an attorney-client privileged conversation.

1123581321 10y ago

I think the policy to ignore social media is a valuable innovation. For a couple of years, I have hoped to see companies adopt this policy to protect their employees from being capriciously let go.

gwright 10y ago

From the article: > Someone with progressive political views might feel emotionally threatened in the presence of rabid and well-known Trump supporters who are openly contemptuous of progressives in their personal lives […] Ugh. I’m not sure how I would have selected examples of potentional emotional distress but a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious attitudes wouldn’t have been my first choice.

mcphage 10y ago
> a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious attitudes I assume that the bit you quoted was a reference to the recent events at Emory University.

rtpg 10y ago

I'm not a part of LambdaConf, nor would I plan to (not because of the controversy, but just because I don't have the time/money to attend any US-based conference)... But these discussions remind me a lot of the "censorship" discussions that have been had both on places like reddit or twitter. For the longest time, code of conducts were a thing that were accepted. Don't be a jerk, don't spout racist stuff at people. Loads of forums had it, and the places that didn't basically became 4chan (which is interesting in its own right but filled with pretty rude people). Sometime between 1995 and 2015, we started thinking that rules that basically say "don't be a jerk" stopped being the norm.... I really wonder why. Now it gets classified as "censorship". That being said, my understanding is that this guy's talk wasn't "How FP advances the causes of Stormfont", which makes it pretty hard to say outright "gotta kick him out". But I wouldn't want Marine Le Pen or Trump at my FP conference, no matter how subtle and developed their views on FP are. My opinion does not entire conference submission guidelines make, but I can understand fighting against that. Social interactions don't work in a vacuum... Glad I don't have to participate at this

mintplant 10y ago

Quoting from a Lobste.rs post [1] on the other side of this issue: > Here’s a different approach, which explains this quite reasonably: LambdaConf made a lot of effort to contact organisations involving PoC, introducing diversity scholarships etc. to gain some fame. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, they decide to run a person which is clearly incompatible. These organisations cut their ties and oppose the project they supported. It’s all very unsurprising. You can’t shout “everyone is equal, please spread!” and then invite someone on the speakers list who wrote hundreds of thousands of words how he thinks people are fundamentally unequal by disposition and some should be slaves. > I’d be far less aggravated if LambdaConf had just been a run-of-the-mill conference, but it tried to be the diverse conference in FP. Now it shows that they actually meant “libertarian”. Appropriating terms like “inclusive” or “diverse” for that is just a recipe for disaster... > LambdaConf chose to be a temporary, short space where anything goes unless it’s not physically violent. What they communicated was something different though. And that difference is biting them now, making sponsors jump off and people protest. In sum: people are upset because they feel used - that LambdaConf made one set of promises and advertised in a specific way to gain fame, then flipped on those values afterward. [1] https://lobste.rs/s/dibl7y/why_we_re_sponsoring_lambdaconf_2016/comments/x7kpvy#c_x7kpvy https://lobste.rs/s/dibl7y/why_we_re_sponsoring_lambdaconf_2...

tomp 10y ago
Using the words "inclusive" and "diverse" to describe a position which encourages banning people who think differently than most is highly problematic and disingenuous.

jordigh 10y ago

> Free speech advocates have gathered on one side, advocates for social justice on the other wtf Those two are supposed to be the same side. There's some really perverse twisting of words here to put social justice in opposition to free speech. How has the debate come to this?

Kalium 10y ago
A speaker-blind selection process selected a talk by someone who is considered by some to be offensive for reasons not directly relevant to the content of the talk.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Yet definitely relevant to the people who would choose to attend the conference. It's definitely going to make some people feel uncomfortable attending, knowing that they invited someone who believes that you are not deserving of human rights and dignity to speak.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- calibraxis 10y ago
  The Lambdaconf guy who mindbogglingly rejects social media for being "fickle, highly emotional, and irrational" has no idea about free speech. Moldbug has a record of going to professional confs and advocating racism. (Working to exclude people.) Furthermore, one of their sponsors is a racist political blog, which is unprecedented in my experience. (For evidence, see my comment history.) Context: a country which notoriously kills and incarcerates blacks, as a replacement for slavery. Racism involves political actions which directly impact the lives of participants and users. This creates an atmosphere completely counter to education. People always say "Hallway chats are the best part!" so it's not just about a talk.
flubert 10y ago
>Those two are supposed to be the same side. How is it different from how "Progressive" and "Classically Liberal/Libertarian" are pretty much opposites?

danharaj 10y ago

This is an open letter of people protesting LambdaConf's decision: https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ I invite anyone to peruse that list and tell me these aren't some of the brightest professionals and integral community members in functional programming (subtracting me of course). I welcome anyone to make the claim that these individuals haven't come to their positions through reason and deep consideration for the ramifications of how this issue is resolved.

antifasci 10y ago
The fact that you cite only a single source should stand as simple enough reason to discredit it. In response, I offer you a single citation [0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- mmmnop 10y ago
  The fact that you created a new anonymous account to do nothing more than name call stands as a simple enough way you discredited...you. McCarthyism was intolerance, not an intolerance of intolerance. It's ironic to have to explain simple type theory here. Or maybe not.
  - thescribe 10y ago
    Perhaps the grandparent rationally fears retaliation?
  - antifasci 10y ago
    And yet, the 'intolerance' that you're so intolerant of goes without citation, without explanation, without discussion. Strikes me as blatant McCarthyism. Perhaps my account is anonymous because the comment should stand on its own? The discussion surrounding this issue shouldn't require personal reputation. The facts should be sufficient.
    - philwelch 10y ago

pklausler 10y ago

I don't recall this kind of brouhaha affecting more "academic" conferences, e.g. ISCA or Supercomputing, but I can't come up with a decent reason why that might be the case. Did the LambdaConf organizers just get unlucky?

xirdstl 10y ago

This is a divisive issue, and originally I found myself agreeing with this post, because, in general, I expect a conference to about mature professionals focusing on the craft. That said, LambdaConf advertises itself as a "magical place" with a "passionate and friendly community of like-minded souls." Given that, I understand why people are upset. They are trying to have it both ways.

jessaustin 10y ago

Is it meaningful that there is no link to LambdaConf in TFA? Don't make me Google...

OoTheNigerian 10y ago

Exceptionally lucid and captures every this I think of and aligns well with my position. It is ironically said that fundamental Christians of today would give Jesus the hardest time if this was his Era. Likewise, I have observed that the most "militantly liberal expousers" seem to be the most intolerant of other views.(I speak as an observer from outside the western world where this is prevalent) I hope this is the end of this issue. This response will serve as template for future moral police people

eruditely 10y ago

I have so much respect for the lambdaconf organizers and will remember John A De Goes as a highly ethical individual. Love what they're doing.

dham 10y ago

This may not be a very popular belief but I honestly don't care what other people believe/think/worship/do as long as it doesn't harm any one else or me. I have extreme liberals on my Twitter feed as do I have extreme conservatives. People post stuff every now and again that kind of turns me off, but I still follow them because they have good stuff to say tech wise. I'm always open minded to what they post though. In our profession we can't always work with the most open minded people(politically) but as long as the work gets done and they are open minded technically that's all that matters to me. I work with and hang out with people I don't agree with on certain things, drink beer, go over for dinner. No issue for me. I'm Libertarian, so politically I have something I can agree with on both sides usually. As long as this guy doesn't give any hate speech or harm someone then I honestly don't see the problem.

zimbu668 10y ago

I read Yarvin's response to this whole incident: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d#.6xux1ooek https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam... Could someone provide a link to his pro-slavery arguments?

antifasci 10y ago
Exactly.

anaphor 10y ago

About the chart on "moral reasoning", consequentialism, the idea that only the outcome is what matters, is an ethical system that one can base their morals off of. I'm not sure where they got the idea that they're two separate things. Also the whole "xyism" thing seems to be their own made-up terminology for the idea of an illusory correlation in social psychology. Why not just say stereotyping groups is a bad idea instead of the weird references to logic and set theory?

wcummings 10y ago

This is the blog in question: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of it. There's some racist lingo, but more than anything this guy seems unhinged, like the kind of person I wouldn't want to be in a room with, let alone have a conversation with.

bad_user 10y ago

I do not understand the prevailing opinions in this thread and I must confess that, even though I disagree respectfully with LambdaConf's choices (respectfully as in, hey, it's their conference and I can even understand their reasoning), seeing the uncertainty and the doubt and the bullying and the lack of empathy for the less fortunate, this is the first time I'm ashamed of being a software developer. For those with doubts, here's one of his posts that is racist by definition: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1 http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carl... And given his now infamous Medium post, given that it can be hard to parse English, here's a review of the book that he's recommending in support of his racist views: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/troublesome-sources https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... I personally don't understand how anybody can claim that his views aren't racist in the most profound hate-inducing ways, and for every such assertion it feels like a spit in the face at least of those that have had grandfathers surviving WWII, let alone the minorities amongst us that fear not for their job, but for their personal safety. But keep thinking that hate speech is just political opinion that needs to be protected. And keep demeaning and silencing those that ring alarms, as if "SJWs" are amongst your biggest problems. Yeah, that worked out well in the past.

dmix 10y ago
Left authoritarianism and right wing authoritarianism are two sides of the same coin [1]. I couldn't accept one without the other as they operate on the same principles. Which is why I am willing to go to a tech conference as long as the subject matter is entirely about technology. If it included political discourse by said people it would be a different story and I wouldn't attend. Attendance is voluntary. And as far as I'm concerned people are free to attend whatever political conference they please. The only time I would support forcing a speaker not to be able to attend is if he planned to give a speech specifically involving inciting violence, coercion, or other blatant criminal acts at that specific venue - and specifically a venue residing within my local community/country. The internet is a different story. [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-29/emergence-orwellian-newspeak-and-death-free-speech http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-29/emergence-orwellian...

davidgerard 10y ago

An attempt to derive a concept of “inclusivity” from first principles, complete with made-up jargon words and diagrams. DeGoes wants to be thought of as “inclusive” but doesn’t understand that the purpose of inclusivity is to hear from marginalised voices you might be systemically excluding. He thinks “ah, we’ll achieve ‘inclusivity’ by including everyone, even the odious!” Thus achieving literally the opposite. But that’s okay, he can show his working. His new reactionary fandom (~ 0 of whom give two hoots about functional programming) are fully onside. Everyone else has left them to it; it’s unclear if DeGoes understands in any way that this is what has happened.