27 ms·

I wasn't familiar with Curtis Yarvin, but in looking him up, you can't be serious, right? >Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug,

by canaus 5y ago

I wasn't familiar with Curtis Yarvin, but in looking him up, you can't be serious, right? >Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, convey blatantly racist views. He expresses the belief that white people are genetically endowed with higher IQs than black people. He has suggested race may determine whether individuals are better suited for slavery, and his writing has been interpreted as supportive of the institution of slavery. https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obscure-programming-conference-is-hosting-mencius-moldbug.html https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obs... You're upset that a Eugenics-lite writer was almost banned from a conference?

thegrimmest 5y ago
I just disagree that standing in his presence is a matter of safety for anyone. It's possible to hold abhorrent views and still be a useful contributor.
- worik 5y ago
  It is hyperbole Not evil, an exaggeration but still: would you want to be in the presence of some body so bigoted? Who thought you inferior because because because?
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Yes? They might have other useful ideas or opinions that I may benefit from being exposed to. People are multidimensional. If there is a conference being organized about some technology, I'd like to see speakers who have the most to contribute, on that merit only. I couldn't care less if they march around with armbands on in their spare time. I'm suggesting that more people learn to compartmentalize.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    To me, if they can keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. Up to and including that I shouldn't have been born, though I may draw a line at believing I should be killed, depending on how mentally stable I believe them to be.
FeepingCreature 5y ago
I am completely serious. Curtis Yarvin is a bellwether - the sort of person that any group that starts excluding people for ideological disagreements, would probably exclude first precisely because his position is so problematic. So any group that accepts his technical contribution can obviously be trusted to tolerate any less-severe ideological disagreement. Conversely, any group that doesn't, especially when they have to make up nonexistent concerns to do it because their rules didn't cover this "obvious" reason to kick someone out and couldn't be hastily adjusted, must be viewed with caution. I personally don't hold any beliefs nearly as objectionable as that. But I do hold objectionable beliefs - as I believe any halfway interesting person does. And those who don't, probably will eventually. Just stand by your convictions and give it time. See also LambdaConf's conclusion on why they should allow him to participate anyway: https://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion https://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion I agree with this article fully.
- canaus 5y ago
  What a stupid argument. Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion. If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts. If not, your entire organization is cowardly and hiding behind a scapegoat and mouthpiece.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    > Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion. Sure you don't have to, but if you do, it's a hell of a signal. (At any rate, Curtis Yarvin was invited for his semi-esoteric functional-based distributed operating platform, Urbit.) > If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts. Sorry, I don't. Of course, you'll believe that I do anyway, and that's fine. I do think it's a bit sad that you think that the only reason someone could want somebody to be included, is because they were your ideological compatriots. In fact, the only reason I want anyone to be included in a conference is if they have contributions to the conference's topic.

by canaus 5y ago

thegrimmest 5y ago

I just disagree that standing in his presence is a matter of safety for anyone. It's possible to hold abhorrent views and still be a useful contributor.

worik 5y ago
It is hyperbole Not evil, an exaggeration but still: would you want to be in the presence of some body so bigoted? Who thought you inferior because because because?
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Yes? They might have other useful ideas or opinions that I may benefit from being exposed to. People are multidimensional. If there is a conference being organized about some technology, I'd like to see speakers who have the most to contribute, on that merit only. I couldn't care less if they march around with armbands on in their spare time. I'm suggesting that more people learn to compartmentalize.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  To me, if they can keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. Up to and including that I shouldn't have been born, though I may draw a line at believing I should be killed, depending on how mentally stable I believe them to be.

FeepingCreature 5y ago

I am completely serious. Curtis Yarvin is a bellwether - the sort of person that any group that starts excluding people for ideological disagreements, would probably exclude first precisely because his position is so problematic. So any group that accepts his technical contribution can obviously be trusted to tolerate any less-severe ideological disagreement. Conversely, any group that doesn't, especially when they have to make up nonexistent concerns to do it because their rules didn't cover this "obvious" reason to kick someone out and couldn't be hastily adjusted, must be viewed with caution. I personally don't hold any beliefs nearly as objectionable as that. But I do hold objectionable beliefs - as I believe any halfway interesting person does. And those who don't, probably will eventually. Just stand by your convictions and give it time. See also LambdaConf's conclusion on why they should allow him to participate anyway: https://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion https://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion I agree with this article fully.

canaus 5y ago
What a stupid argument. Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion. If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts. If not, your entire organization is cowardly and hiding behind a scapegoat and mouthpiece.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  > Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion. Sure you don't have to, but if you do, it's a hell of a signal. (At any rate, Curtis Yarvin was invited for his semi-esoteric functional-based distributed operating platform, Urbit.) > If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts. Sorry, I don't. Of course, you'll believe that I do anyway, and that's fine. I do think it's a bit sad that you think that the only reason someone could want somebody to be included, is because they were your ideological compatriots. In fact, the only reason I want anyone to be included in a conference is if they have contributions to the conference's topic.