10 ms·

Republican Rep. William Hurd disinvited from Black Hat conference

42 points by avinium 7y ago

arkades 7y ago
> Imagine a day when you turn on the news and instead of seeing people screaming at each other, you see an informed debate that uses good arguments and well-reasoned analysis. Brought to you by Fox News.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Well, look at the better shows on the channel; it is at least watchable when compared with the status quo. It used to suck way more.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Fox News is the status quo. It contains everything the right hates about "mainstream" media, they just happen to excuse it because it panders to their biases.
youdontknowtho 7y ago
He seems self-aware enough to realize that he was disinvited because of his conservative voting record. That's the point. The things he's voted for a bad for the country and its people. He is exhibiting a common tactic for right-wingers. Break norms, assault liberal republican democracy and then cry foul when someone calls them on it. Some of the people that will be at black hat are threatened by the policies they advocate.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > Break norms, assault liberal republican democracy and then cry foul when someone calls them on it. Most people in the U.S. do not think elective late term abortions should be lawful. Opposition to elective late term abortions is the norm, whatever you think about the issue.
  - youdontknowtho 7y ago
    "elective late-term abortion" is a right-wing talking point. The term is an invention used to help further criminalize something that the state shouldn't be involved in at all.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > "elective late-term abortion" is a right-wing talking point. The term is an invention used to help further criminalize something that the state shouldn't be involved in at all. Well, no. I'm just saying that barring extreme circumstances (serious medical complications, forcible rape, etc.) most people do not think it is moral to abort in the late term. I've never read or heard the phrase "elective late-term abortion" anywhere, "right-wing" or otherwise. I put the word "elective" on it because it seems like it describes basically what the surveys are asking.
      - tehbeard 7y ago
        > barring extreme circumstances Most of the recent bills we've heard about seem to ignore these circumstances..
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      There's a reason why the Satanists have filed lawsuits , using RFRA at the state level. We have states that make religious claims and require abhorrent practices (trans-vaginal wand: rape stick). I'd posit the whole abortion "debate" (in the US) is a Christian vs non-Christian proxy battle.
  - myvoiceismypass 7y ago
    At least be honest. You, and conservatives like Hurd, are against all abortion. “Late term” or not.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > You, and conservatives like Hurd, are against all abortion. “Late term” or not. Well, I'm not sure I'm a conservative. I don't take a position on it since it's extremely complicated, and people have outrageously strong feelings on either side. I'm not not talking about what one side of a wedge issue (all-or-nothing stances on abortion) may or may not believe; I'm talking about a common value that many people share on both sides of the wedge.
- lurker458 7y ago
  Even worse. The policies he advocates are keeping other people out entirely. Even Adi Shamir (the S from RSA) had trouble getting a travel visa a while ago.
- treesrule 7y ago
  So I think this claim is extremely overblown. One of the votes he was criticized for is a stem bill which I don't have the time to look up, and does not look defensible. The other things are abortion rights and he or the people he represents think that abortion is immoral. You aught to stop pretending like everyone who wants to put abortion restrictions in place wants to put women back in the kitchen, its not true and frankly it shows immaturity on the part of people who are unwilling to accept that people who disagree with you might not be corporate agents (even though congresspeople are on some issues). In conclusion, your comment boils down to the idea that somehow half the country is just lying about their preferences and somehow magically the other half of the country knows exactly what they are really thinking.
  - youdontknowtho 7y ago
    Half of the country is not lying. They explicitly want to outlaw abortion. Maybe not half, but about a third explicitly want to put women back in the kitchen. At least one supreme court judge has stated that birth control is next. Amazing. I'm immature. Good comeback.
    - treesrule 7y ago
      Do you have any opinion surveys to back up the claim `third explicitly want to put women back in the kitchen`? If not is there a reason you suspect that? Also genuinely curious re `At least one supreme court judge has stated that birth control is next.` Do you have a source for that?
      - youdontknowtho 7y ago
        You caught me Mr Footnote. I don't know why I thought I could get away with it. Oh woe. Woe is me.
        dang 7y ago
        You have broken the site guidelines egregiously throughout this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Moreover, we've warned you about this a whole bunch of times in the past. I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted about other topics in a way that fits the site guidelines. But if you abuse HN for political flamewar again, we will have to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
smt88 7y ago
Why is this controversial? Black Hat is a private business that needs to decide how best to make attendees happy and convince them to return. Hurd's beliefs/votes are (as far as I can tell) uniformly in the minority[1][2][3][4][5], which means his presence is likely to make most of the attendees angry, perhaps to the point of boycotting the event. The majority of Republicans want businesses to have the right to refuse gays[5], so it seems logical that they (and Will Hurd) would support the right to refuse to include someone based on ideology. 1. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... 2. https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-beliefs-las-vegas-shooting-polls-surveys-2017-10/ https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-belief... 3. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc... 4. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx 5. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-religious-service-refusals-to-gay-and-lesbian-people/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-religio...
- treesrule 7y ago
  It is controversial because I want to live in a country where I am not ostracized for having unpopular opinions.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    As a member of Congress, he doesn’t merely have unpopular opinions, he’s trying to impose them on the rest of us.
    - Zarathustra_ 7y ago
      This could be said of both sides. We elect politicians to pass laws to impose opinions and values. While you may disagree with those, that doesn't make the opinion of the large portion of the population which agrees with him invalid. His opinions may be unpopular among the people who attend Black Hat, but not so much so among the rest of Americans. Congressman Hurd is also well-known for supporting cybersecurity initiatives in government, something we need more of. If you disagree with Mr. Hurd on many issues, but agree with him on cybersecurity, why can't you just agree with him there and let him speak? The politicians with whom I agree only in part are without end.
RickJWagner 7y ago
Shameful and counter-productive. We have to return to free speech and the exchange of free ideas. Banning people for having opposing viewpoints is a big step backwards. If you disagree with someone, hear them out and then explain why your idea is better.
- cal5k 7y ago
  I can’t pinpoint exactly when the shift happened, but in the recent past the tech industry was always the first to defend free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Today it seems to be increasingly beholden to a loud minority of employees with some very illiberal views about speech.
  - gameswithgo 7y ago
    This happened because we saw that free speech on internet forums just let to people harassing women and yelling racist nonsense constantly. The forum you are on deletes garbage too. free speech is a principle that the government can't silence you. it never meant that other people have to listen to you or care what you say.
    - humanrebar 7y ago
      Free speech is a principle based in rationality. Exercise of power should not overrule reason and independent thought. Governments are notoriously powerful and prone to censorship, but private groups like corporations and busybody neighborhoods can also be heavy handed and net harmful.
  - youdontknowtho 7y ago
    Only when the speech is insulting, racist, or oppressive. This whole thing is a dodge so that the far right can get their views in front of people. This is something that they explicitly state as a goal and a tactic. The guy voted for all kinds of gross right wing BS. People don't want to hear what he has to say.
    - 7y ago
netsharc 7y ago
I don't know what his viewpoints are, but what if the person's viewpoint is "climate change is fake" and "the earth is flat". Wouldn't hearing them out just be a waste of time?
- cglace 7y ago
  Not hearing him out will mean “They are trying to hide the truth. They are afraid he will convince more people that the flat earth is flat”
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Incidentally, this is exactly what they’ll say if you do hear him out.
  - dudleypippin 7y ago
    There needs to be a middle ground between shutting down actual dialog and allowing flatearthers to suck all the air from the room. We all have limited time on this (roundish, mind you) earth and it sucks to have to rehash arguments. “No, no, just hear me out” is a hard thing to stomach from someone you know is yammering just to waste your time.
    - humanrebar 7y ago
      Blacklists are the middle ground? There's probably a compromise somewhere, but this isn't a play for middle ground.
    - cglace 7y ago
      I think the worst thing you could do is invite a flat earther(or anyone else you disagree with) and then disinvite them. You have now given them a larger audience and new reason to say they are being censored.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rthrowayay 7y ago
gameswithgo 7y ago
> but I am concerned that this is yet another data point in a growing trend where individuals are unwilling to engage with people who think differently from them. This idea has been said a lot by conservative people over the last 5 years or so. Do you ever stop and reflect if maybe the issue isn't that people are unwilling to engage with different ideas, but instead that conservative politics in the USA have started to adopt truly unacceptable ideas? Many of those ideas are driven by religious dogma with which there can't be any reasonable engagement. How am I supposed to engage with a party that has completely bowed to Trump? How do I engage with a Mitch McConnell who blocks bipartisan legislation from being voted on? How do I engage with a party that refuses to engage the issue of climate change? A party that wants to treat people as subhuman if their sexual preferences are not according to religious dogma? A party who is intentionally appealing to neo nazi groups? What kind of dialog do you have there? Its especially irritating to read that kind of comment on Fox News, which is a unabashedly partisan news service. There are ideas which we can debate, but let us not pretend that everything is open for discussion and compromise. I wouldn't expect people to engage with every crazy liberal idea and person either.
- BorRagnarok 7y ago
  Somehow you're just proving the guys point.
- jswizzy 7y ago
  It's actually the opposite. The left has moved further left. Ten years ago Democrats like Bill Clinton had the same views as current day Republicans. I use to be considered now I'm conservative without changing any of views. https://news.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.asp...
  - onboardram 7y ago
    So, you failed to change with time?
  - smush 7y ago
    I agree. Reductive analogy time: A donkey and an elephant are walking down a road, the donkey in the middle, the elephant on the right, both tied on either end of a rope. Over a span, the donkey pulled to the left and the elephant, in degrees, moved to the center. Now the donkey is on the left of the road and the elephant is in the middle of the road. The friction we are currently experiencing is that while the donkey wants to go further to the left, and has continued pulling to the left, the elephant has decided not to allow itself to be moved any further and thus is still in the center. The donkey does not like not being able to continue moving to the left. The elephant does not like continually being pulled to the left and perhaps like to move back towards the right side of the road. So they are both pulling in opposite directions, the donkey worrying that the elephant will use its greater strength to force the donkey to the right, and the elephant worrying that the donkey will use its greater speed to force the elephant to the left. This analogy is not comprehensive, but maybe it will help someone frame some of the reasons why the one tribe is so angry at the other and vice versa.
finnthehuman 7y ago
If hackers want to get involved with government policy, they’re going to have to learn to have a conversation with elected reps when they disagree on policy. Doubly so if the policy in question gets them hot under the collar.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Especially since both sides of the aisle have wrongheaded policies from a hacker perspective. Want to get progress on DRM laws? It probably won't happen solely by talking to a coalition that includes Hollywood and the broader creative community.
moomin 7y ago
Conservatives don't want freedom of speech. They want freedom from consequences. Everyone knows what Will Hurd thinks. That's why he got disinvited. Call me back about the chilling effects of this when he can't get onto Fox News with those views.
kylnew 7y ago
The amount of downvoting on opinions you disagree with in this thread is disappointing. It’s funny that the discussion is about listening to others we disagree with, but simultaneously valid ideas/comments are being grayed out and pushed down into obscurity
- humanrebar 7y ago
  I think downvoting for toxic tone is fair, especially if the tone is rooted in bigotry.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  This is the point that I think lots of people have been trying to make. This talk about "free speech" is a con. The far right says as much explicitly. They don't want free speech, they want their position legitimized. Calls for civility are the same BS. They advocate for the removal of rights and franchise from whole parts of the population and then complain when people aren't "civil". It's a dodge. The downvotes are just a symptom of that.
finnthehuman 7y ago
This kind of power move works when you’re disinviting bloggers nobody has heard of. Disinviting a sitting representative just looks like burying your head in the sand and expecting everyone to adapt to your point of view just because you let it be known you’re cross. How do you think lobbyists get the policy changes they’re after? By giving the cold shoulder to any rep not already predisposed to voting in their preferred direction?
- onboardram 7y ago
  I think lobbyists use money.
  - taborj 7y ago
    Generally speaking, most governments run on favors. "You support this for me, I'll support this for you."
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  It probably looks like the conference supporting the people who are affected the most by Republican party policies...if you are one of those people. If you aren't one of those people then I can see why it would seem like it was just a political move. That being said, he and his party have materially affected the lives of people who are traveling to the con.
nmstoker 7y ago
Seems an unfortunate state of affairs Here's what the conference said on the matter: https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-usa-2019-keynote-update.html https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-usa-... It creates a healthier society if we can listen to people even when we don't agree with their views, thus I am not be in favour of this becoming the norm. It's also deeply impolite to withdraw an invite in this manner when no new information has come to light, merely a change of mind. If he'd been discovered to be dishonest or a criminal that's one thing, but "meh, thinking about it, we don't think we want you to come any more, even though we asked you before, when we did want you to come" doesn't cut it. Will be interesting to see if they stick to the apolitical line consistently with others.
rndmize 7y ago
What a joke. Another conservative politician calling for people to work together, for "real debate". I suppose the eight years of Republican stonewalling the Obama administration on literally everything, from legislation to judges to executive branch appointees, to an unheard of degree - is just supposed to be forgotten? Perhaps we should have a look at where he stood on the ACA - I don't suppose he was part of the Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics? > He favors repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.[41] In 2017, when House Republican leadership introduced the American Health Care Act (a bill to repeal the ACA), Hurd was faced with a political quandary.[42] Hurd did not say whether he supported or opposed the legislation.[41][43] Ultimately, after the measure was declared dead and withdrawn from a planned vote due to insufficient support, Hurd "released a statement in which he appeared to oppose the overhaul." Pathetic. The use of the ACA by Republicans for campaigning for nearly a decade and then their utter failure to repeal or replace it once they had full control of the federal government will stain them forever in my eyes (or at a minimum, the ones in federal office at the time). It would be great to have a government that focused on policy problems and policy solutions, that had reasoned, evidence-based debates on issues. Unfortunately, the Republican party has done more than any other force to destroy that (Office of Technology Assessment, anyone?). The fact that today, in 2019, we have a Republican president who refuses to admit global warming is a thing, is another exemplar of Republican policy and strategy - which is not to debate, but to avoid it; to hide and ignore and defund evidence when inconvenient; to focus on emotions instead of logic and reason. There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order.
- smush 7y ago
  > There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order. Refusal to engage with individuals on subject A (cyber-security) because you disagree on subject B (healthcare in this case) is unfortunate, and possibly a similar level of hypocrisy if one would otherwise posit being open-minded as a general rule.
archagon 7y ago
Good. Children are missing or in cages, separation of powers is being flagrantly dismantled, and we're on the precipice of a destabilizing global war. This fascist party needs to be snuffed out like a candle. (With that said, Rep. Hurd seems relatively sane compared to most of his colleagues. If he's not a hypocrite like the rest of them, he should really consider changing parties.)
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  Agreed. As long as the Republican party is so far out of bounds I can't really take anything any of them say seriously. The Republican party needs to be defeated so soundly that it either forces them to rethink their positions or it splinters into other parties.

42 points by avinium 7y ago

> Imagine a day when you turn on the news and instead of seeing people screaming at each other, you see an informed debate that uses good arguments and well-reasoned analysis. Brought to you by Fox News.

microcolonel 7y ago
Well, look at the better shows on the channel; it is at least watchable when compared with the status quo. It used to suck way more.
- krapp 7y ago
  Fox News is the status quo. It contains everything the right hates about "mainstream" media, they just happen to excuse it because it panders to their biases.

youdontknowtho 7y ago

He seems self-aware enough to realize that he was disinvited because of his conservative voting record. That's the point. The things he's voted for a bad for the country and its people. He is exhibiting a common tactic for right-wingers. Break norms, assault liberal republican democracy and then cry foul when someone calls them on it. Some of the people that will be at black hat are threatened by the policies they advocate.

microcolonel 7y ago
> Break norms, assault liberal republican democracy and then cry foul when someone calls them on it. Most people in the U.S. do not think elective late term abortions should be lawful. Opposition to elective late term abortions is the norm, whatever you think about the issue.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  "elective late-term abortion" is a right-wing talking point. The term is an invention used to help further criminalize something that the state shouldn't be involved in at all.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > "elective late-term abortion" is a right-wing talking point. The term is an invention used to help further criminalize something that the state shouldn't be involved in at all. Well, no. I'm just saying that barring extreme circumstances (serious medical complications, forcible rape, etc.) most people do not think it is moral to abort in the late term. I've never read or heard the phrase "elective late-term abortion" anywhere, "right-wing" or otherwise. I put the word "elective" on it because it seems like it describes basically what the surveys are asking.
    - tehbeard 7y ago
      > barring extreme circumstances Most of the recent bills we've heard about seem to ignore these circumstances..
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    There's a reason why the Satanists have filed lawsuits , using RFRA at the state level. We have states that make religious claims and require abhorrent practices (trans-vaginal wand: rape stick). I'd posit the whole abortion "debate" (in the US) is a Christian vs non-Christian proxy battle.
- myvoiceismypass 7y ago
  At least be honest. You, and conservatives like Hurd, are against all abortion. “Late term” or not.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > You, and conservatives like Hurd, are against all abortion. “Late term” or not. Well, I'm not sure I'm a conservative. I don't take a position on it since it's extremely complicated, and people have outrageously strong feelings on either side. I'm not not talking about what one side of a wedge issue (all-or-nothing stances on abortion) may or may not believe; I'm talking about a common value that many people share on both sides of the wedge.
lurker458 7y ago
Even worse. The policies he advocates are keeping other people out entirely. Even Adi Shamir (the S from RSA) had trouble getting a travel visa a while ago.
treesrule 7y ago
So I think this claim is extremely overblown. One of the votes he was criticized for is a stem bill which I don't have the time to look up, and does not look defensible. The other things are abortion rights and he or the people he represents think that abortion is immoral. You aught to stop pretending like everyone who wants to put abortion restrictions in place wants to put women back in the kitchen, its not true and frankly it shows immaturity on the part of people who are unwilling to accept that people who disagree with you might not be corporate agents (even though congresspeople are on some issues). In conclusion, your comment boils down to the idea that somehow half the country is just lying about their preferences and somehow magically the other half of the country knows exactly what they are really thinking.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  Half of the country is not lying. They explicitly want to outlaw abortion. Maybe not half, but about a third explicitly want to put women back in the kitchen. At least one supreme court judge has stated that birth control is next. Amazing. I'm immature. Good comeback.
  - treesrule 7y ago
    Do you have any opinion surveys to back up the claim `third explicitly want to put women back in the kitchen`? If not is there a reason you suspect that? Also genuinely curious re `At least one supreme court judge has stated that birth control is next.` Do you have a source for that?
    - youdontknowtho 7y ago
      You caught me Mr Footnote. I don't know why I thought I could get away with it. Oh woe. Woe is me.
      - dang 7y ago
        You have broken the site guidelines egregiously throughout this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Moreover, we've warned you about this a whole bunch of times in the past. I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted about other topics in a way that fits the site guidelines. But if you abuse HN for political flamewar again, we will have to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

smt88 7y ago

Why is this controversial? Black Hat is a private business that needs to decide how best to make attendees happy and convince them to return. Hurd's beliefs/votes are (as far as I can tell) uniformly in the minority[1][2][3][4][5], which means his presence is likely to make most of the attendees angry, perhaps to the point of boycotting the event. The majority of Republicans want businesses to have the right to refuse gays[5], so it seems logical that they (and Will Hurd) would support the right to refuse to include someone based on ideology. 1. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... 2. https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-beliefs-las-vegas-shooting-polls-surveys-2017-10/ https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-belief... 3. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc... 4. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx 5. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-religious-service-refusals-to-gay-and-lesbian-people/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-religio...

treesrule 7y ago
It is controversial because I want to live in a country where I am not ostracized for having unpopular opinions.
- mikeash 7y ago
  As a member of Congress, he doesn’t merely have unpopular opinions, he’s trying to impose them on the rest of us.
  - Zarathustra_ 7y ago
    This could be said of both sides. We elect politicians to pass laws to impose opinions and values. While you may disagree with those, that doesn't make the opinion of the large portion of the population which agrees with him invalid. His opinions may be unpopular among the people who attend Black Hat, but not so much so among the rest of Americans. Congressman Hurd is also well-known for supporting cybersecurity initiatives in government, something we need more of. If you disagree with Mr. Hurd on many issues, but agree with him on cybersecurity, why can't you just agree with him there and let him speak? The politicians with whom I agree only in part are without end.

RickJWagner 7y ago

Shameful and counter-productive. We have to return to free speech and the exchange of free ideas. Banning people for having opposing viewpoints is a big step backwards. If you disagree with someone, hear them out and then explain why your idea is better.

cal5k 7y ago
I can’t pinpoint exactly when the shift happened, but in the recent past the tech industry was always the first to defend free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Today it seems to be increasingly beholden to a loud minority of employees with some very illiberal views about speech.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  This happened because we saw that free speech on internet forums just let to people harassing women and yelling racist nonsense constantly. The forum you are on deletes garbage too. free speech is a principle that the government can't silence you. it never meant that other people have to listen to you or care what you say.
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    Free speech is a principle based in rationality. Exercise of power should not overrule reason and independent thought. Governments are notoriously powerful and prone to censorship, but private groups like corporations and busybody neighborhoods can also be heavy handed and net harmful.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  Only when the speech is insulting, racist, or oppressive. This whole thing is a dodge so that the far right can get their views in front of people. This is something that they explicitly state as a goal and a tactic. The guy voted for all kinds of gross right wing BS. People don't want to hear what he has to say.
  - 7y ago

netsharc 7y ago

I don't know what his viewpoints are, but what if the person's viewpoint is "climate change is fake" and "the earth is flat". Wouldn't hearing them out just be a waste of time?

cglace 7y ago
Not hearing him out will mean “They are trying to hide the truth. They are afraid he will convince more people that the flat earth is flat”
- mikeash 7y ago
  Incidentally, this is exactly what they’ll say if you do hear him out.
- dudleypippin 7y ago
  There needs to be a middle ground between shutting down actual dialog and allowing flatearthers to suck all the air from the room. We all have limited time on this (roundish, mind you) earth and it sucks to have to rehash arguments. “No, no, just hear me out” is a hard thing to stomach from someone you know is yammering just to waste your time.
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    Blacklists are the middle ground? There's probably a compromise somewhere, but this isn't a play for middle ground.
  - cglace 7y ago
    I think the worst thing you could do is invite a flat earther(or anyone else you disagree with) and then disinvite them. You have now given them a larger audience and new reason to say they are being censored.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rthrowayay 7y ago

gameswithgo 7y ago

> but I am concerned that this is yet another data point in a growing trend where individuals are unwilling to engage with people who think differently from them. This idea has been said a lot by conservative people over the last 5 years or so. Do you ever stop and reflect if maybe the issue isn't that people are unwilling to engage with different ideas, but instead that conservative politics in the USA have started to adopt truly unacceptable ideas? Many of those ideas are driven by religious dogma with which there can't be any reasonable engagement. How am I supposed to engage with a party that has completely bowed to Trump? How do I engage with a Mitch McConnell who blocks bipartisan legislation from being voted on? How do I engage with a party that refuses to engage the issue of climate change? A party that wants to treat people as subhuman if their sexual preferences are not according to religious dogma? A party who is intentionally appealing to neo nazi groups? What kind of dialog do you have there? Its especially irritating to read that kind of comment on Fox News, which is a unabashedly partisan news service. There are ideas which we can debate, but let us not pretend that everything is open for discussion and compromise. I wouldn't expect people to engage with every crazy liberal idea and person either.

BorRagnarok 7y ago
Somehow you're just proving the guys point.
jswizzy 7y ago
It's actually the opposite. The left has moved further left. Ten years ago Democrats like Bill Clinton had the same views as current day Republicans. I use to be considered now I'm conservative without changing any of views. https://news.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.asp...
- onboardram 7y ago
  So, you failed to change with time?
- smush 7y ago
  I agree. Reductive analogy time: A donkey and an elephant are walking down a road, the donkey in the middle, the elephant on the right, both tied on either end of a rope. Over a span, the donkey pulled to the left and the elephant, in degrees, moved to the center. Now the donkey is on the left of the road and the elephant is in the middle of the road. The friction we are currently experiencing is that while the donkey wants to go further to the left, and has continued pulling to the left, the elephant has decided not to allow itself to be moved any further and thus is still in the center. The donkey does not like not being able to continue moving to the left. The elephant does not like continually being pulled to the left and perhaps like to move back towards the right side of the road. So they are both pulling in opposite directions, the donkey worrying that the elephant will use its greater strength to force the donkey to the right, and the elephant worrying that the donkey will use its greater speed to force the elephant to the left. This analogy is not comprehensive, but maybe it will help someone frame some of the reasons why the one tribe is so angry at the other and vice versa.

finnthehuman 7y ago

If hackers want to get involved with government policy, they’re going to have to learn to have a conversation with elected reps when they disagree on policy. Doubly so if the policy in question gets them hot under the collar.

humanrebar 7y ago
Especially since both sides of the aisle have wrongheaded policies from a hacker perspective. Want to get progress on DRM laws? It probably won't happen solely by talking to a coalition that includes Hollywood and the broader creative community.

moomin 7y ago

Conservatives don't want freedom of speech. They want freedom from consequences. Everyone knows what Will Hurd thinks. That's why he got disinvited. Call me back about the chilling effects of this when he can't get onto Fox News with those views.

kylnew 7y ago

The amount of downvoting on opinions you disagree with in this thread is disappointing. It’s funny that the discussion is about listening to others we disagree with, but simultaneously valid ideas/comments are being grayed out and pushed down into obscurity

humanrebar 7y ago
I think downvoting for toxic tone is fair, especially if the tone is rooted in bigotry.
youdontknowtho 7y ago
This is the point that I think lots of people have been trying to make. This talk about "free speech" is a con. The far right says as much explicitly. They don't want free speech, they want their position legitimized. Calls for civility are the same BS. They advocate for the removal of rights and franchise from whole parts of the population and then complain when people aren't "civil". It's a dodge. The downvotes are just a symptom of that.

finnthehuman 7y ago

This kind of power move works when you’re disinviting bloggers nobody has heard of. Disinviting a sitting representative just looks like burying your head in the sand and expecting everyone to adapt to your point of view just because you let it be known you’re cross. How do you think lobbyists get the policy changes they’re after? By giving the cold shoulder to any rep not already predisposed to voting in their preferred direction?

onboardram 7y ago
I think lobbyists use money.
- taborj 7y ago
  Generally speaking, most governments run on favors. "You support this for me, I'll support this for you."
youdontknowtho 7y ago
It probably looks like the conference supporting the people who are affected the most by Republican party policies...if you are one of those people. If you aren't one of those people then I can see why it would seem like it was just a political move. That being said, he and his party have materially affected the lives of people who are traveling to the con.

nmstoker 7y ago

Seems an unfortunate state of affairs Here's what the conference said on the matter: https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-usa-2019-keynote-update.html https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-usa-... It creates a healthier society if we can listen to people even when we don't agree with their views, thus I am not be in favour of this becoming the norm. It's also deeply impolite to withdraw an invite in this manner when no new information has come to light, merely a change of mind. If he'd been discovered to be dishonest or a criminal that's one thing, but "meh, thinking about it, we don't think we want you to come any more, even though we asked you before, when we did want you to come" doesn't cut it. Will be interesting to see if they stick to the apolitical line consistently with others.

rndmize 7y ago

What a joke. Another conservative politician calling for people to work together, for "real debate". I suppose the eight years of Republican stonewalling the Obama administration on literally everything, from legislation to judges to executive branch appointees, to an unheard of degree - is just supposed to be forgotten? Perhaps we should have a look at where he stood on the ACA - I don't suppose he was part of the Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics? > He favors repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.[41] In 2017, when House Republican leadership introduced the American Health Care Act (a bill to repeal the ACA), Hurd was faced with a political quandary.[42] Hurd did not say whether he supported or opposed the legislation.[41][43] Ultimately, after the measure was declared dead and withdrawn from a planned vote due to insufficient support, Hurd "released a statement in which he appeared to oppose the overhaul." Pathetic. The use of the ACA by Republicans for campaigning for nearly a decade and then their utter failure to repeal or replace it once they had full control of the federal government will stain them forever in my eyes (or at a minimum, the ones in federal office at the time). It would be great to have a government that focused on policy problems and policy solutions, that had reasoned, evidence-based debates on issues. Unfortunately, the Republican party has done more than any other force to destroy that (Office of Technology Assessment, anyone?). The fact that today, in 2019, we have a Republican president who refuses to admit global warming is a thing, is another exemplar of Republican policy and strategy - which is not to debate, but to avoid it; to hide and ignore and defund evidence when inconvenient; to focus on emotions instead of logic and reason. There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order.

smush 7y ago
> There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order. Refusal to engage with individuals on subject A (cyber-security) because you disagree on subject B (healthcare in this case) is unfortunate, and possibly a similar level of hypocrisy if one would otherwise posit being open-minded as a general rule.

archagon 7y ago

Good. Children are missing or in cages, separation of powers is being flagrantly dismantled, and we're on the precipice of a destabilizing global war. This fascist party needs to be snuffed out like a candle. (With that said, Rep. Hurd seems relatively sane compared to most of his colleagues. If he's not a hypocrite like the rest of them, he should really consider changing parties.)

youdontknowtho 7y ago
Agreed. As long as the Republican party is so far out of bounds I can't really take anything any of them say seriously. The Republican party needs to be defeated so soundly that it either forces them to rethink their positions or it splinters into other parties.