4 ms·

I am completely serious. Curtis Yarvin is a bellwether - the sort of person that any group that starts excluding people for ideological disagreements, would pr

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.
  - canaus 5y ago
    No, I think someone should be *excluded* from talking at a conference because they literally write Eugenics theory, regardless of the brackets, semicolons and spaces they write in a text editor. It sounds like we just have a difference in moral standards.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      Yeah. Well - at least if I ever run a conference, you can be confident that you will be welcome to it anyways. :)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - OOPMan 5y ago
      Since moral standards vary a lot across cultures and time, statements like your last line have dubious longevity. Even when it comes to unpleasant people like Moldbug I try to avoid talk of moral standards beyond the really clear-cut ones...

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.
- canaus 5y ago
  No, I think someone should be *excluded* from talking at a conference because they literally write Eugenics theory, regardless of the brackets, semicolons and spaces they write in a text editor. It sounds like we just have a difference in moral standards.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Yeah. Well - at least if I ever run a conference, you can be confident that you will be welcome to it anyways. :)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - OOPMan 5y ago
    Since moral standards vary a lot across cultures and time, statements like your last line have dubious longevity. Even when it comes to unpleasant people like Moldbug I try to avoid talk of moral standards beyond the really clear-cut ones...