6 ms·

That's the amazing thing. For all their talk of "inclusivity", when they find anyone disagrees with their goals or methods their strategies revolve around: publ

That's the amazing thing. For all their talk of "inclusivity", when they find anyone disagrees with their goals or methods their strategies revolve around: public denouncements, banishment, and going after people's livelihoods. All the warm-fuzzy talk belies one of the most viciously aggressive anti-free-speech political machines ever assembled.

x0x0 10y ago
Criticizing speech with more speech (denouncements) and exercising your right to freedom of association (banishment) are two of the key ideas of free speech itself. You seem confused.
- tomohawk 10y ago
  If that's as far as it goes. However, they are going far past that. They are using coercion and bullying. They are trying to get people fired. They are taking their children away. This is intolerance. This is totalitarianism.
  - knucklesandwich 10y ago
    This is an awful lot of outrage over details that aren't substantiated by the Nodevember statement[1] or any cited sources whatsoever. [1]: http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html
- xupybd 10y ago
  I don't think banishment and freedom of association are linked in the way you are implying. I'm not free to associate with someone if they are removed from my professional circle for reasons that I don't agree with. Criticizing speech is most definitely part of free speech, but it's the consequences of that speech that is worrying. In the east your professional opportunities dry up when people start accusing you of being an enemy of the state. In the west the same happens when you are declared an enemy of the minority. Inclusion is fantastic, but not if it means excluding people for trivial examples of speech that people have to work hard to be offended by.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    I'm not going to touch what happens in the east, wherever that is, because that's irrelevant to the American concept of free speech. But your basic point is you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong? And people shouldn't be excluded (freedom of association also means the freedom not to associate) if they produce speech xupybd doesn't find offensive (trivial examples blah blah blah)? I reiterate you and gp are deeply confused.
    - xupybd 10y ago
      Even the American concept of free speech has it's limits. There are Libel laws for that very reason.
      - x0x0 10y ago
        What does libel have to do with banishment, public criticism of Crockford, or freedom of association? I'll help: Nothing. ps -- you are exactly free to associate with someone if they are removed from your professional circle for reasons you don't agree with. Doing so is itself free speech. Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so. Still free speech. You're free to never go to Nodevember or any conferences the Nodevember principles are involved with. You're free to go to the next conference that invites Crockford just because he's there, and to brag about that on twitter and hn. You're even free to attempt to create your own conference featuring 8 hours of Crockford making bad biceps jokes. More free speech!
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        For what it's worth, I've seen no one claiming conferences doesn't have the right to exclude whomever they want. > Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so. I believe that is what is happening here. A portion of the tech community (of which I am a part) have begun to see this movement[1] as toxic, and are speaking out against it. The desired result is to either come to an equitable compromise, or eject the members of the movement from the community. [1]: "this movement", meaning what others here have referred to as "SJW". I'm unaware of a term for it that is not implicitly biased, and while I oppose the movement as a whole I recognize that there are underlying issues that must be addressed and am loath to group everyone who would describe themselves as passionate about "social justice" into a single group. It's far more nuanced than that.
- overgard 10y ago
  If I disagree with someone, I will state it, but I won't try to get them banned from a speaking engagement and I won't track down their employer, or go out of the way to label them publicly. There are ways to have a discourse without going to extremes. What's happening now looks more like a witch hunt then it does a public debate.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    You can either 1 - support free speech, which includes criticism, even public (maybe even virulent! or unhinged, as long as you don't incite violence!) criticism (free speech!). And the freedom to associate (or not!) Also free speech! Including this thread, which is criticism of the criticism. or 2 - your idea of "free speech", where you certainly can't criticize someone in public, or not invite them / disinvite to your privately run privately owned conference speaking to individuals who have voluntarily chosen to associate with each other. I have no problem with you and others criticizing nodevember; they seem incompetent. But you don't understand free speech if you think public criticism is anti free speech.
    - overgard 10y ago
      You've invented a strawman. I am aware free speech has consequences. I am not against criticizing a person publicly, if the argument lies in that realm. My point is that the SJW's often escalate a discussion from the realm of words to the realm of actions. It's an extremely passive aggressive style where the implicit threat is "if you don't tow the party line, we will go out of our way to create bad consequences for you". As an example of that happening, well, look right here. Douglas Crockford did not apparently do anything, but his views were deemed "problematic" by someone, and because of this he is now suffering in the actual real world. Personally, I think that's fucked up and I don't abide by that behavior. I view people that act in such a way as hypocritical cowards.
- mickronome 10y ago
  The phrase "you seem confused" appears to be almost derogatory in nature, or do you believe the parent poster was in a state of confusion ? I fail to understand how it could be relevant to the argument in either case, or was it intended to silence someone elses voice? The legal concept of free speech is not a hammer to solve every problem, and neither is it an instruction manual for how to act in any situation. Free speach is a framework within which communication is implicitly encouraged and explicitly guaranteed, except in certain cases when it causes damage to others, defamation per se being one example. Your right to say something does not always make it the right thing to say, this is not in any way nullified by the existence of legal protection for the speach in question.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    Within two sentences, the parent said "public denouncements [speech], banishment [freedom of association/speech]" are anti-free speech. Rather, they are a core part of the right to free speech, and something that is being countered with more speech. Hence confusion. I'm not sure how you think "you seem confused" will silence gp; it's a comment on the transition in the two sentences above. That free speech includes speech you don't care for is an implicit part of the deal.

x0x0 10y ago

Criticizing speech with more speech (denouncements) and exercising your right to freedom of association (banishment) are two of the key ideas of free speech itself. You seem confused.

tomohawk 10y ago
If that's as far as it goes. However, they are going far past that. They are using coercion and bullying. They are trying to get people fired. They are taking their children away. This is intolerance. This is totalitarianism.
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  This is an awful lot of outrage over details that aren't substantiated by the Nodevember statement[1] or any cited sources whatsoever. [1]: http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html
xupybd 10y ago
I don't think banishment and freedom of association are linked in the way you are implying. I'm not free to associate with someone if they are removed from my professional circle for reasons that I don't agree with. Criticizing speech is most definitely part of free speech, but it's the consequences of that speech that is worrying. In the east your professional opportunities dry up when people start accusing you of being an enemy of the state. In the west the same happens when you are declared an enemy of the minority. Inclusion is fantastic, but not if it means excluding people for trivial examples of speech that people have to work hard to be offended by.
- x0x0 10y ago
  I'm not going to touch what happens in the east, wherever that is, because that's irrelevant to the American concept of free speech. But your basic point is you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong? And people shouldn't be excluded (freedom of association also means the freedom not to associate) if they produce speech xupybd doesn't find offensive (trivial examples blah blah blah)? I reiterate you and gp are deeply confused.
  - xupybd 10y ago
    Even the American concept of free speech has it's limits. There are Libel laws for that very reason.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      What does libel have to do with banishment, public criticism of Crockford, or freedom of association? I'll help: Nothing. ps -- you are exactly free to associate with someone if they are removed from your professional circle for reasons you don't agree with. Doing so is itself free speech. Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so. Still free speech. You're free to never go to Nodevember or any conferences the Nodevember principles are involved with. You're free to go to the next conference that invites Crockford just because he's there, and to brag about that on twitter and hn. You're even free to attempt to create your own conference featuring 8 hours of Crockford making bad biceps jokes. More free speech!
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        For what it's worth, I've seen no one claiming conferences doesn't have the right to exclude whomever they want. > Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so. I believe that is what is happening here. A portion of the tech community (of which I am a part) have begun to see this movement[1] as toxic, and are speaking out against it. The desired result is to either come to an equitable compromise, or eject the members of the movement from the community. [1]: "this movement", meaning what others here have referred to as "SJW". I'm unaware of a term for it that is not implicitly biased, and while I oppose the movement as a whole I recognize that there are underlying issues that must be addressed and am loath to group everyone who would describe themselves as passionate about "social justice" into a single group. It's far more nuanced than that.
overgard 10y ago
If I disagree with someone, I will state it, but I won't try to get them banned from a speaking engagement and I won't track down their employer, or go out of the way to label them publicly. There are ways to have a discourse without going to extremes. What's happening now looks more like a witch hunt then it does a public debate.
- x0x0 10y ago
  You can either 1 - support free speech, which includes criticism, even public (maybe even virulent! or unhinged, as long as you don't incite violence!) criticism (free speech!). And the freedom to associate (or not!) Also free speech! Including this thread, which is criticism of the criticism. or 2 - your idea of "free speech", where you certainly can't criticize someone in public, or not invite them / disinvite to your privately run privately owned conference speaking to individuals who have voluntarily chosen to associate with each other. I have no problem with you and others criticizing nodevember; they seem incompetent. But you don't understand free speech if you think public criticism is anti free speech.
  - overgard 10y ago
    You've invented a strawman. I am aware free speech has consequences. I am not against criticizing a person publicly, if the argument lies in that realm. My point is that the SJW's often escalate a discussion from the realm of words to the realm of actions. It's an extremely passive aggressive style where the implicit threat is "if you don't tow the party line, we will go out of our way to create bad consequences for you". As an example of that happening, well, look right here. Douglas Crockford did not apparently do anything, but his views were deemed "problematic" by someone, and because of this he is now suffering in the actual real world. Personally, I think that's fucked up and I don't abide by that behavior. I view people that act in such a way as hypocritical cowards.
mickronome 10y ago
The phrase "you seem confused" appears to be almost derogatory in nature, or do you believe the parent poster was in a state of confusion ? I fail to understand how it could be relevant to the argument in either case, or was it intended to silence someone elses voice? The legal concept of free speech is not a hammer to solve every problem, and neither is it an instruction manual for how to act in any situation. Free speach is a framework within which communication is implicitly encouraged and explicitly guaranteed, except in certain cases when it causes damage to others, defamation per se being one example. Your right to say something does not always make it the right thing to say, this is not in any way nullified by the existence of legal protection for the speach in question.
- x0x0 10y ago
  Within two sentences, the parent said "public denouncements [speech], banishment [freedom of association/speech]" are anti-free speech. Rather, they are a core part of the right to free speech, and something that is being countered with more speech. Hence confusion. I'm not sure how you think "you seem confused" will silence gp; it's a comment on the transition in the two sentences above. That free speech includes speech you don't care for is an implicit part of the deal.