5 ms·

> it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist' This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. O

> it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist' This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. One is allowed to espouse any ideology that you wish. However, other people are allowed to respond with their own speech. They can call the idea racist if they want. They can take away speaking platforms if they want. Whether a statement is "racist" is a determination made by the current social taboos and mores of a society. I think there are a lot of terrible ideologies out there, and I like that we don't have to give them equal platforms. The free marketplace of ideas means we don't have to "teach the controversy" and give both sides "equal opportunity for debate". Which is great. There are plenty of people who's methods and ideas I so disagree with that I don't think it's worth my time to listen to them (neo-nazis, members of the Westboro Baptist Church).

twoodfin 11y ago
But what does any of that have to do with a talk on urbit?
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Similarly, if Jessitron (singling her out solely because she wrote a really good blog post today [1]) wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology, you are ok with that also? Let me also emphasize that no one disputes that strangeloop has the legal right to do this. The discussion is simply over whether the strangeloop organizers are a bunch of anti-intellectuals who deserve to be in the spotlight for their decisions. [1] http://blog.jessitron.com/2015/06/ultratestable-coding-style.html http://blog.jessitron.com/2015/06/ultratestable-coding-style...
- ncallaway 11y ago
  Again, a disclaimer: I know pretty much nothing about this specific instance except the linked article. I don't know the candidate speaker, their political views, or anything of that nature. No examples in this comment are meant to be reflective of this specific situation. > "wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology" For me, it comes down to how they express their opinions in the public sphere. This matters a lot. If someone develops a persona known for lobbing rhetorical grenades, making ad hominem attacks, or is unnecessarily mean or negative, then I don't have a problem holding them out of a conference — even if I agree with their viewpoints. If they, on the other hand tend to behave in a reasonable way, and are capable of having calm and rational debates, then I would want to see them included in the conference — even if I disagree with their viewpoints.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Then it sounds like you're fully on the side of Yarvin and fully opposed to Strangeloop's actions, since (even when he dared to write about unpopular political opinions) he was never anything less than calm and rational.
- obstinate 11y ago
  It really depends on what her views on women in technology are. If she's pro, then I imagine a conference explicitly trying to ban that category would have little traction, so it hardly matters. If she's con, then yea, sure, ban her from speaking.
topynate 11y ago
I am not suggesting that racists (however defined) be invited to advocate racism to people who find that repugnant. I'm suggesting that that racism not disqualify them in other matters. You are quite correct that people can boycott or pressure for no-platform if they want to. Who on earth would benefit from forced contact? What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to do that. Further, that when that does happen, those who disagree speak up about it.
- ncallaway 11y ago
  > "What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to [boycott or pressure for no platform]" I don't like how this argument generalizes. For example, I am a strong opponent of the labor situation in Qatar as it relates to the World Cup. I want FIFA to either relocate venues or force Qatar to immediately improve their labor practices. Yet, I have no leverage over FIFA, so instead I decide to boycott FIFA's sponsors (Coke, Nike, and Adidas). Now I'm actively punishing those companies because of their speech. And I'm doing it purely because it's my only way to attempt to change the behavior of an actor two-steps removed from them. So, now I'd like one of two things: - Help me find the lines for legitimate boycotts, or - Help me determine why my boycott of Coke, Nike, and Adidas is a poor decision
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Did you tell coke, nike, and adidas that you're boycotting them?
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      Truth be told, I didn't really "start" boycotting Nike products as I didn't happen to be purchasing much from them already. I included them rhetorically as the three-beat felt much more natural in that context. I did tell Coke and Adidas.
      - learnstats2 11y ago
        Boycotting Coca-Cola is extremely challenging: they own a lot of competing "hydration" brands and perhaps even the manufacturing processes used by their direct competitors. I know several people who think they are boycotting Coca-Cola but are extremely ineffective in managing to do so. Although Coke might be disappointed by the damage to their core brand, they might be less than disappointed when you choose their more profitable products as an alternative. Good luck!
ThrustVectoring 11y ago
There are extremely good game-theoretic reasons to support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea. Specifically, I'm imagining a degenerate case where there's a norm of killing people who do X, as well as people who don't kill people who do X, as well as people who advocate making the anti-X policy more lenient. My point is that we can end up in a bad situation that nobody is better off trying to fix. We're arguably in this situation right now with excessive punishment of "sex crimes".
- ncallaway 11y ago
  As a disclaimer: I don't have any context outside of the linked article. I don't know the candidate, what viewpoints they hold, or how those viewpoints have been previously expressed. > "support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea." If I had infinite time on this planet, I'd agree with you. However, my time is extremely limited. It's the most precious resource I have, so I have to aggressively consider the opportunity cost of listening to every person. It's more valuable to me to have a debate with someone I disagree with rather than someone I agree with. However, if someone has reached a conclusion that I find to be shockingly suspect ("all foreigners are terrible people"; "protest the funerals of homosexual service-members"), I am not going to spend time listening to any aspects of that person's reasoning. So, due to my limited time, I'm now punishing this person for expressing their ideas on a specific topic. How does the game-theory deal with the trade-offs of finite time and the opportunity cost of listening to specific speakers?
  - ThrustVectoring 11y ago
    I think we're talking about slightly different topics here. What I'm hearing from you is along the lines of "I shouldn't feel obligated to spend my time listening to racists about their racist ideology." I was trying to aim more at "we shouldn't interfere with a racist having on-topic technology discussions with third parties." Both the differences are important. Choosing who you will and won't engage with is a different beast than who is and isn't allowed to talk about things. Whether certain topics are appropriate for a given context is a different thing than whether choosing wrong on one topic means you are no longer an appropriate person to talk about another. In short, I'm encouraging you to ignore the crank, but not censor him from talking about context-relevant topics.
irickt 11y ago
Yes, and the rejected author can't very well complain because, whether or not his views are "racist", he clearly imagines a society where many people are excluded because of their views. Any group almost by definition has the right to define policies and police its membership, for any cause (including irrational). No group owes you the right of membership.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Nobody is saying otherwise. Please put that argument away. What everyone here is saying is that the policies and policing they are carrying out is _wrong_.
  - irickt 11y ago
    If you stipulate that argument then you agree that it is only for the group to judge what is right and wrong with regard to its members. Outsiders opinions are irrelevant.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      Does that apply to, say, the state of California when it votes to ban gay marriage?
theorique 11y ago
This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. One is allowed to espouse any ideology that you wish. However, other people are allowed to respond with their own speech. They can call the idea racist if they want. They can take away speaking platforms if they want. Ideally, it operates like the free market of ideas. In practice, it tends to offer a disproportionate amount of power to those who are most easily offended, and provides them with a de facto "hecklers' veto" over people with views outside the mainstream. In the Moldbug case, some people wre "so genuinely offended" by the prospect of him speaking (or even being present at the conference) that they were willing to request that his talk offer be revoked. This was the case even when the subject of his talk is completely unrelated to his controversial politics. (Most people would probably agree that a technical conference is the wrong venue for him to speak about his controversial politics.) Would most people attending the conference have known about his politics if there weren't this outcry to bring publicity? Unlikely. This was a deliberate message to alienate and exclude those with conservative politics from the tech industry.

twoodfin 11y ago

But what does any of that have to do with a talk on urbit?

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Similarly, if Jessitron (singling her out solely because she wrote a really good blog post today [1]) wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology, you are ok with that also? Let me also emphasize that no one disputes that strangeloop has the legal right to do this. The discussion is simply over whether the strangeloop organizers are a bunch of anti-intellectuals who deserve to be in the spotlight for their decisions. [1] http://blog.jessitron.com/2015/06/ultratestable-coding-style.html http://blog.jessitron.com/2015/06/ultratestable-coding-style...

ncallaway 11y ago
Again, a disclaimer: I know pretty much nothing about this specific instance except the linked article. I don't know the candidate speaker, their political views, or anything of that nature. No examples in this comment are meant to be reflective of this specific situation. > "wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology" For me, it comes down to how they express their opinions in the public sphere. This matters a lot. If someone develops a persona known for lobbing rhetorical grenades, making ad hominem attacks, or is unnecessarily mean or negative, then I don't have a problem holding them out of a conference — even if I agree with their viewpoints. If they, on the other hand tend to behave in a reasonable way, and are capable of having calm and rational debates, then I would want to see them included in the conference — even if I disagree with their viewpoints.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Then it sounds like you're fully on the side of Yarvin and fully opposed to Strangeloop's actions, since (even when he dared to write about unpopular political opinions) he was never anything less than calm and rational.
obstinate 11y ago
It really depends on what her views on women in technology are. If she's pro, then I imagine a conference explicitly trying to ban that category would have little traction, so it hardly matters. If she's con, then yea, sure, ban her from speaking.

topynate 11y ago

I am not suggesting that racists (however defined) be invited to advocate racism to people who find that repugnant. I'm suggesting that that racism not disqualify them in other matters. You are quite correct that people can boycott or pressure for no-platform if they want to. Who on earth would benefit from forced contact? What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to do that. Further, that when that does happen, those who disagree speak up about it.

ncallaway 11y ago
> "What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to [boycott or pressure for no platform]" I don't like how this argument generalizes. For example, I am a strong opponent of the labor situation in Qatar as it relates to the World Cup. I want FIFA to either relocate venues or force Qatar to immediately improve their labor practices. Yet, I have no leverage over FIFA, so instead I decide to boycott FIFA's sponsors (Coke, Nike, and Adidas). Now I'm actively punishing those companies because of their speech. And I'm doing it purely because it's my only way to attempt to change the behavior of an actor two-steps removed from them. So, now I'd like one of two things: - Help me find the lines for legitimate boycotts, or - Help me determine why my boycott of Coke, Nike, and Adidas is a poor decision
- DanBC 11y ago
  Did you tell coke, nike, and adidas that you're boycotting them?
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    Truth be told, I didn't really "start" boycotting Nike products as I didn't happen to be purchasing much from them already. I included them rhetorically as the three-beat felt much more natural in that context. I did tell Coke and Adidas.
    - learnstats2 11y ago
      Boycotting Coca-Cola is extremely challenging: they own a lot of competing "hydration" brands and perhaps even the manufacturing processes used by their direct competitors. I know several people who think they are boycotting Coca-Cola but are extremely ineffective in managing to do so. Although Coke might be disappointed by the damage to their core brand, they might be less than disappointed when you choose their more profitable products as an alternative. Good luck!

ThrustVectoring 11y ago

There are extremely good game-theoretic reasons to support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea. Specifically, I'm imagining a degenerate case where there's a norm of killing people who do X, as well as people who don't kill people who do X, as well as people who advocate making the anti-X policy more lenient. My point is that we can end up in a bad situation that nobody is better off trying to fix. We're arguably in this situation right now with excessive punishment of "sex crimes".

ncallaway 11y ago
As a disclaimer: I don't have any context outside of the linked article. I don't know the candidate, what viewpoints they hold, or how those viewpoints have been previously expressed. > "support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea." If I had infinite time on this planet, I'd agree with you. However, my time is extremely limited. It's the most precious resource I have, so I have to aggressively consider the opportunity cost of listening to every person. It's more valuable to me to have a debate with someone I disagree with rather than someone I agree with. However, if someone has reached a conclusion that I find to be shockingly suspect ("all foreigners are terrible people"; "protest the funerals of homosexual service-members"), I am not going to spend time listening to any aspects of that person's reasoning. So, due to my limited time, I'm now punishing this person for expressing their ideas on a specific topic. How does the game-theory deal with the trade-offs of finite time and the opportunity cost of listening to specific speakers?
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  I think we're talking about slightly different topics here. What I'm hearing from you is along the lines of "I shouldn't feel obligated to spend my time listening to racists about their racist ideology." I was trying to aim more at "we shouldn't interfere with a racist having on-topic technology discussions with third parties." Both the differences are important. Choosing who you will and won't engage with is a different beast than who is and isn't allowed to talk about things. Whether certain topics are appropriate for a given context is a different thing than whether choosing wrong on one topic means you are no longer an appropriate person to talk about another. In short, I'm encouraging you to ignore the crank, but not censor him from talking about context-relevant topics.

irickt 11y ago

Yes, and the rejected author can't very well complain because, whether or not his views are "racist", he clearly imagines a society where many people are excluded because of their views. Any group almost by definition has the right to define policies and police its membership, for any cause (including irrational). No group owes you the right of membership.

13thLetter 11y ago
Nobody is saying otherwise. Please put that argument away. What everyone here is saying is that the policies and policing they are carrying out is _wrong_.
- irickt 11y ago
  If you stipulate that argument then you agree that it is only for the group to judge what is right and wrong with regard to its members. Outsiders opinions are irrelevant.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Does that apply to, say, the state of California when it votes to ban gay marriage?

theorique 11y ago

This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. One is allowed to espouse any ideology that you wish. However, other people are allowed to respond with their own speech. They can call the idea racist if they want. They can take away speaking platforms if they want. Ideally, it operates like the free market of ideas. In practice, it tends to offer a disproportionate amount of power to those who are most easily offended, and provides them with a de facto "hecklers' veto" over people with views outside the mainstream. In the Moldbug case, some people wre "so genuinely offended" by the prospect of him speaking (or even being present at the conference) that they were willing to request that his talk offer be revoked. This was the case even when the subject of his talk is completely unrelated to his controversial politics. (Most people would probably agree that a technical conference is the wrong venue for him to speak about his controversial politics.) Would most people attending the conference have known about his politics if there weren't this outcry to bring publicity? Unlikely. This was a deliberate message to alienate and exclude those with conservative politics from the tech industry.