3 ms·

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 yo

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.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
> 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? I can't tell if you're talking about the inclusivity crowd, or the people who are standing up against it.
- x0x0 10y ago
  The nodevember crew seems (I don't know all the facts and I don't really care) to be silly. But it's their right to so be. I'm criticizing overgard, etc, for claiming that public criticism / not associating with Crockford is somehow anti-free speech on the basis that overgard etc disagree with it.

by x0x0 10y ago

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.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

> 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? I can't tell if you're talking about the inclusivity crowd, or the people who are standing up against it.

x0x0 10y ago
The nodevember crew seems (I don't know all the facts and I don't really care) to be silly. But it's their right to so be. I'm criticizing overgard, etc, for claiming that public criticism / not associating with Crockford is somehow anti-free speech on the basis that overgard etc disagree with it.