5 ms·

It sounds like they're going for new, potentially-interesting heretical ideas, not stupid old ones.

by defen 7y ago

pwinnski 7y ago
The old ideas always try to dress themselves up in new clothes, but I can't imagine they'll be able to escape the usual suspects.
SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
And yet it always seems to be the stupid old ideas that crop up. Sometimes in a good disguise, sometimes in a thin disguise. Is Milo Yiannopoulos onto this yet?
theamk 7y ago
Is there such a thing? Do you have an example? Because every time I heard about people getting banned / disinvited, it was usually because of old ideas.
- defen 7y ago
  Ideas don't just appear out of the ether, so for any given idea, it's possible to point to influences and declare the idea therefore "not new". So, by "new", perhaps what I really mean is "newly considered acceptable in a small but influential or passionate community". The conference also doesn't seem to be exclusively devoted to "ideas that get you banned from things." To pick a seemingly non-political example from the list - are there any mainstream medical or nutritional experts talking about the benefits of starvation?
  - theamk 7y ago
    Well, they are pretty clear that they are looking at "ideas that get you banned": > heretical thinkers have been met with hostility, even death, and vindicated by posterity. > Imagine a conference for people banned from other conferences. .. which actually brings the good question: why is "benefits of starvation" listed in the topics list? Pubmed lists over 120K articles for "fasting", and some of them seem to be pretty positive: [0] (disclaimer: I have not read the paper, only glanced at abstract) Why would someone recommending starvation may be banned from the conferences, if there are many people who are doing research in this area? I have a couple of ideas, and they are pretty grim. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29086496 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29086496
erik_seaberg 7y ago
It would also be good to spend some time on the defects in those stupid old ideas, to counter the undeserved street cred from being continually banned.

It sounds like they're going for new, potentially-interesting heretical ideas, not stupid old ones.

by defen 7y ago

It sounds like they're going for new, potentially-interesting heretical ideas, not stupid old ones.

The old ideas always try to dress themselves up in new clothes, but I can't imagine they'll be able to escape the usual suspects.

SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago

And yet it always seems to be the stupid old ideas that crop up. Sometimes in a good disguise, sometimes in a thin disguise. Is Milo Yiannopoulos onto this yet?

theamk 7y ago

Is there such a thing? Do you have an example? Because every time I heard about people getting banned / disinvited, it was usually because of old ideas.

defen 7y ago
Ideas don't just appear out of the ether, so for any given idea, it's possible to point to influences and declare the idea therefore "not new". So, by "new", perhaps what I really mean is "newly considered acceptable in a small but influential or passionate community". The conference also doesn't seem to be exclusively devoted to "ideas that get you banned from things." To pick a seemingly non-political example from the list - are there any mainstream medical or nutritional experts talking about the benefits of starvation?
- theamk 7y ago
  Well, they are pretty clear that they are looking at "ideas that get you banned": > heretical thinkers have been met with hostility, even death, and vindicated by posterity. > Imagine a conference for people banned from other conferences. .. which actually brings the good question: why is "benefits of starvation" listed in the topics list? Pubmed lists over 120K articles for "fasting", and some of them seem to be pretty positive: [0] (disclaimer: I have not read the paper, only glanced at abstract) Why would someone recommending starvation may be banned from the conferences, if there are many people who are doing research in this area? I have a couple of ideas, and they are pretty grim. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29086496 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29086496

erik_seaberg 7y ago

It would also be good to spend some time on the defects in those stupid old ideas, to counter the undeserved street cred from being continually banned.