5 ms·

> Imagine a conference for people banned from other conferences. Sounds like a nightmare. Anyway, maybe it's just the conferences I go to. But. I've never hea

> Imagine a conference for people banned from other conferences. Sounds like a nightmare. Anyway, maybe it's just the conferences I go to. But. I've never heard of someone getting kicked out for offering a controversial but considered opinion on something. "Y'know, we've found that PHP is really the best tool fo---" "OUT WITH YE, HERETIC. DO NOT RETURN." Usually people are banned for, y'know, doing something destructive or offensive that's out of the bounds of normal discourse. The idea being that banning them improves the experience for everyone else, which is (usually) a good thing.

daxorid 7y ago
I've never heard of someone getting kicked out for offering a controversial but considered opinion on something "Kicked out" is stronger than what usually happens. More like "disinvited". Yarvin/Strangeloop is the canonical example. More recently it was Hurd/BHUSA. It usually takes the form of speakers being dis-invited because they hold opinions, unrelated to the topic of their talk, that are unacceptable to a vocal minority of the attendees.
- chasing 7y ago
  'Yarvin's opinions have been described as racist, with his writings interpreted as supportive of slavery, including the belief that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons... [He] has argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others. "It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff," Yarvin wrote.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin Yeesh.
  - ScottFree 7y ago
    So? It's not like he goes around shouting racial slurs at everybody who passes. His strangeloop talk had nothing to do with his political beliefs. People who have unpopular opinions are capable of behaving like adults in public.
    - neilk 7y ago
      I have heard from people who have gone to conferences with Yarvin that he does talk about racism and his other regressive politics when not on stage, apparently in an attempt to flock together with others with similar beliefs. This should not be surprising, that’s how people work; that’s how conferences work. The person who told me this said, that on the occasion she witnessed, it wasn’t successful. Everyone politely ignored him. But this is not sufficient. We can’t have a civilization if we tolerate the intolerant, and if there are no penalties for trying to move the Overton window on “maybe some people don’t deserve human rights”.
      - ScottFree 7y ago
        > Everyone politely ignored him. Which is exactly what's supposed to happen when you have adults interacting in public. This is fine. > We can’t have a civilization if we tolerate the intolerant This is a ridiculous statement. Western Civilization has tolerated intolerant groups for the entirety of its existence. Inviting one man to talk at a conference is clearly not a threat to the continuing existence of civilization.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- grey-area 7y ago
  Some things are beyond the pale. Actions, and opinions, have consequences. This has always been the case, and I don't think it's a bad thing - there should be limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by harming other people, or advocating their harm. I would hope a vocal majority would oppose a racist white nationalist like Yarvin.
  - daxorid 7y ago
    That's a fine argument, as far as it goes, but in practice it's applied spuriously, unevenly, and unfairly. One of the principals involved in getting Yarvin deplatformed from Strangeloop, Steve Klabnik, is a communist, supporting an ideology that is directly responsible for the murder of 40 million people, and indirectly responsible for another 70 million. Klabnik has spoken, without political interference, at plenty of conferences. If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed. But in practice, they are not.
    - grey-area 7y ago
      If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed I disagree fundamentally with your definition of communism as presupposing mass-murder. Also your comparison with Nazis as somehow equivalent is extremely troubling. That extreme communist states have indulged in mass-murder (like many christian states, democratic states, tyrannical states, etc before them) doesn't mean it is an ideology of mass-murder, and it's extremely disingenuous to suggest it is.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > there should be limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by harming other people, or advocating their harm Here's the problem point: what do you mean by "advocating"? I'm all for not tolerating people who issue explicit calls to violence, but once you extend this to advocating or even talking about things that can be used by others to justify calls to violence, and attempt to remove that person, I think we should stop tolerating you because the paradox of tolerance applies recursively: the moment you go overboard with not tolerating the intolerant and start claiming collateral damage, it is you who's actively intolerant and needs to be removed to safeguard the society. I don't know much about Yarvin beyond what I picked up here and over at SSC, but I don't recall him ever advocating actual, explicit harm to anyone. Being wrong about something does not cross the "intolerance" line if it's not followed by advocating hurting people (or excluding them from society).
tomp 7y ago
Look up "donglegate".
- chasing 7y ago
  I'm familiar with "donglegate." Care to elaborate your point?
  - ScottFree 7y ago
    Do you think people who make innocent, if tasteless, jokes deserve to lose their jobs and not be allowed to attend conferences ever again? I guarantee you that you've made at least one joke in the past year that will qualify you for such a fate at some point in the future.
    - chasing 7y ago
      Is that the argument you thought I was making?
noobermin 7y ago
I'm imagining that this was only for effect, because a conference of bad actors banned for poor conduct is just going to be a smorgasbord of normal, very not heretical ideas from people. Otherwise, what, are the banned going to give talks about how they were banned from the conferences? You're right then, but this just makes the conference just a conference of provocative ideas, which aren't really banned in general because we have free speech in this country generally?
inimino 7y ago
Liking PHP is not controversial. You might find this interesting: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
davidgerard 7y ago
"I'm sorry, you're not groping the female attendee, I'm going to have to ask you to leave"

daxorid 7y ago

I've never heard of someone getting kicked out for offering a controversial but considered opinion on something "Kicked out" is stronger than what usually happens. More like "disinvited". Yarvin/Strangeloop is the canonical example. More recently it was Hurd/BHUSA. It usually takes the form of speakers being dis-invited because they hold opinions, unrelated to the topic of their talk, that are unacceptable to a vocal minority of the attendees.

chasing 7y ago
'Yarvin's opinions have been described as racist, with his writings interpreted as supportive of slavery, including the belief that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons... [He] has argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others. "It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff," Yarvin wrote.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin Yeesh.
- ScottFree 7y ago
  So? It's not like he goes around shouting racial slurs at everybody who passes. His strangeloop talk had nothing to do with his political beliefs. People who have unpopular opinions are capable of behaving like adults in public.
  - neilk 7y ago
    I have heard from people who have gone to conferences with Yarvin that he does talk about racism and his other regressive politics when not on stage, apparently in an attempt to flock together with others with similar beliefs. This should not be surprising, that’s how people work; that’s how conferences work. The person who told me this said, that on the occasion she witnessed, it wasn’t successful. Everyone politely ignored him. But this is not sufficient. We can’t have a civilization if we tolerate the intolerant, and if there are no penalties for trying to move the Overton window on “maybe some people don’t deserve human rights”.
    - ScottFree 7y ago
      > Everyone politely ignored him. Which is exactly what's supposed to happen when you have adults interacting in public. This is fine. > We can’t have a civilization if we tolerate the intolerant This is a ridiculous statement. Western Civilization has tolerated intolerant groups for the entirety of its existence. Inviting one man to talk at a conference is clearly not a threat to the continuing existence of civilization.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
grey-area 7y ago
Some things are beyond the pale. Actions, and opinions, have consequences. This has always been the case, and I don't think it's a bad thing - there should be limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by harming other people, or advocating their harm. I would hope a vocal majority would oppose a racist white nationalist like Yarvin.
- daxorid 7y ago
  That's a fine argument, as far as it goes, but in practice it's applied spuriously, unevenly, and unfairly. One of the principals involved in getting Yarvin deplatformed from Strangeloop, Steve Klabnik, is a communist, supporting an ideology that is directly responsible for the murder of 40 million people, and indirectly responsible for another 70 million. Klabnik has spoken, without political interference, at plenty of conferences. If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed. But in practice, they are not.
  - grey-area 7y ago
    If we were to apply your argument equally, Nazis and Communists would both be deplatformed I disagree fundamentally with your definition of communism as presupposing mass-murder. Also your comparison with Nazis as somehow equivalent is extremely troubling. That extreme communist states have indulged in mass-murder (like many christian states, democratic states, tyrannical states, etc before them) doesn't mean it is an ideology of mass-murder, and it's extremely disingenuous to suggest it is.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > there should be limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by harming other people, or advocating their harm Here's the problem point: what do you mean by "advocating"? I'm all for not tolerating people who issue explicit calls to violence, but once you extend this to advocating or even talking about things that can be used by others to justify calls to violence, and attempt to remove that person, I think we should stop tolerating you because the paradox of tolerance applies recursively: the moment you go overboard with not tolerating the intolerant and start claiming collateral damage, it is you who's actively intolerant and needs to be removed to safeguard the society. I don't know much about Yarvin beyond what I picked up here and over at SSC, but I don't recall him ever advocating actual, explicit harm to anyone. Being wrong about something does not cross the "intolerance" line if it's not followed by advocating hurting people (or excluding them from society).

tomp 7y ago

Look up "donglegate".

chasing 7y ago
I'm familiar with "donglegate." Care to elaborate your point?
- ScottFree 7y ago
  Do you think people who make innocent, if tasteless, jokes deserve to lose their jobs and not be allowed to attend conferences ever again? I guarantee you that you've made at least one joke in the past year that will qualify you for such a fate at some point in the future.
  - chasing 7y ago
    Is that the argument you thought I was making?

noobermin 7y ago

I'm imagining that this was only for effect, because a conference of bad actors banned for poor conduct is just going to be a smorgasbord of normal, very not heretical ideas from people. Otherwise, what, are the banned going to give talks about how they were banned from the conferences? You're right then, but this just makes the conference just a conference of provocative ideas, which aren't really banned in general because we have free speech in this country generally?

inimino 7y ago

Liking PHP is not controversial. You might find this interesting: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

davidgerard 7y ago

"I'm sorry, you're not groping the female attendee, I'm going to have to ask you to leave"