4 ms·

I am curious, could someone link to the most objectionable content by Curtis Yarvin? I don't think prohibiting someone from speaking at a private tech conferenc

I am curious, could someone link to the most objectionable content by Curtis Yarvin? I don't think prohibiting someone from speaking at a private tech conference due to offensive views is necessarily a bad thing (e.g. prohibiting a KKK member from speaking), however without seeing his objectionable content I don't know if it's appropriate in this circumstance. Alex Miller said he made his decision without reading any of Curtis's content, and I don't think that's a good idea. Otherwise any group loud enough could get anyone blocked from speaking, regardless of whether they did anything wrong.

paxdickinson 11y ago
Those calling for his removal from the conference cited this six-year-old blog post about Thomas Carlyle as their only specific complaint. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-car...
- steveklabnik 11y ago
  This is factually not true, and since you claim to have read my complaints, this comment appears disingenuous. More specifically, I linked http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/mouthbreathing-machiavellis/ http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/mouthbreathing-machiavellis/ and http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ as a brief introduction if you don't want to wade through the torrent of Dark Enlightenment shenanigans.
  - overgard 11y ago
    Why does it matter what his political beliefs entail on a technical subject? More to the point, while I'm guessing you didn't dox him or whatever, the fact that he wrote under a pseudonym and (as a person having read his blog) had no idea of his actual name, I get the impression you went out of your way on this one. I don't really care about right or left (I think both sides are idiotic), but it seems like you're going out of your way on this one.
    - steveklabnik 11y ago
      Your first sentence implies that technology and politics are divorced. I disagree with this. Furthermore, _certain_ views merit more consideration than others, especially with regards to something like a conference, see raganwald's comment elsewhere in this thread about conferences being cultural. Second, I've been aware of Yarvin long enough that I am not particularly aware of how I came to know the psudonym. I don't remember it as being particularly private. I did not go out of my way, I saw his name on the program and instantly remembered. I'm not in the habit of digging through histories, but when I see a name I recognize, I recall a history like anyone else.
      - overgard 11y ago
        > Your first sentence implies that technology and politics are divorced. I disagree with this. I find that perspective strange. Machinery does not particularly care what end it's put to. > Second, I've been aware of Yarvin long enough that I am not particularly aware of how I came to know the psudonym. I don't remember it as being particularly private. I did not go out of my way, I saw his name on the program and instantly remembered. I'm not in the habit of digging through histories, but when I see a name I recognize, I recall a history like anyone else. You try to minimize your association, but you took the effort to get him banned from speaking about a neutral topic because you dislike his political views. You ARE a censor. Frankly I think you're way worse than him, because at least he'd let you talk. Amusingly it appears I have been slowbanned because of my participation in this conversation. Oh well.
        steveklabnik 11y ago
        > you try to minimize your association I did not, I am saying that when you claim I'm putting in a lot of effort to dig through someone's history, that's wrong. > you took the effort to get him banned from speaking If by 'took the effort' you mean 'sent a few dozen tweets over a few hours', then sure, that's effort. I didn't even particularly strongly argue that he should be banned, though I am certainly happy about the outcome here. I never even directly contacted the organizers, just stated my opinion in public, just as you're doing here.
  - k_brother 11y ago
    As someone new to this dialogue I find these second-hand sources highly suspect. There seems like a big difference between this one person and that movement. I don't really see him 'leading' anything. Why not stick to primary sources?
  - paxdickinson 11y ago
    The OP asked for a link to "the most objectionable content by Curtis Yarvin". The article I linked was the only specific Moldbug post I saw those on Twitter objecting to. OP didn't ask for third party articles complaining about Curtis Yarvin, so your comment appears disingenuous.
jessaustin 11y ago
Search for "Mencius Moldbug", but be warned: Moldbug, his supporters, and his detractors are all sorely in need of aggressive editing. If you can find a TL;DR less than a single-spaced page, please link it because I can't even...

paxdickinson 11y ago

Those calling for his removal from the conference cited this six-year-old blog post about Thomas Carlyle as their only specific complaint. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-car...

steveklabnik 11y ago
This is factually not true, and since you claim to have read my complaints, this comment appears disingenuous. More specifically, I linked http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/mouthbreathing-machiavellis/ http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/mouthbreathing-machiavellis/ and http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ as a brief introduction if you don't want to wade through the torrent of Dark Enlightenment shenanigans.
- overgard 11y ago
  Why does it matter what his political beliefs entail on a technical subject? More to the point, while I'm guessing you didn't dox him or whatever, the fact that he wrote under a pseudonym and (as a person having read his blog) had no idea of his actual name, I get the impression you went out of your way on this one. I don't really care about right or left (I think both sides are idiotic), but it seems like you're going out of your way on this one.
  - steveklabnik 11y ago
    Your first sentence implies that technology and politics are divorced. I disagree with this. Furthermore, _certain_ views merit more consideration than others, especially with regards to something like a conference, see raganwald's comment elsewhere in this thread about conferences being cultural. Second, I've been aware of Yarvin long enough that I am not particularly aware of how I came to know the psudonym. I don't remember it as being particularly private. I did not go out of my way, I saw his name on the program and instantly remembered. I'm not in the habit of digging through histories, but when I see a name I recognize, I recall a history like anyone else.
    - overgard 11y ago
      > Your first sentence implies that technology and politics are divorced. I disagree with this. I find that perspective strange. Machinery does not particularly care what end it's put to. > Second, I've been aware of Yarvin long enough that I am not particularly aware of how I came to know the psudonym. I don't remember it as being particularly private. I did not go out of my way, I saw his name on the program and instantly remembered. I'm not in the habit of digging through histories, but when I see a name I recognize, I recall a history like anyone else. You try to minimize your association, but you took the effort to get him banned from speaking about a neutral topic because you dislike his political views. You ARE a censor. Frankly I think you're way worse than him, because at least he'd let you talk. Amusingly it appears I have been slowbanned because of my participation in this conversation. Oh well.
      - steveklabnik 11y ago
        > you try to minimize your association I did not, I am saying that when you claim I'm putting in a lot of effort to dig through someone's history, that's wrong. > you took the effort to get him banned from speaking If by 'took the effort' you mean 'sent a few dozen tweets over a few hours', then sure, that's effort. I didn't even particularly strongly argue that he should be banned, though I am certainly happy about the outcome here. I never even directly contacted the organizers, just stated my opinion in public, just as you're doing here.
- k_brother 11y ago
  As someone new to this dialogue I find these second-hand sources highly suspect. There seems like a big difference between this one person and that movement. I don't really see him 'leading' anything. Why not stick to primary sources?
- paxdickinson 11y ago
  The OP asked for a link to "the most objectionable content by Curtis Yarvin". The article I linked was the only specific Moldbug post I saw those on Twitter objecting to. OP didn't ask for third party articles complaining about Curtis Yarvin, so your comment appears disingenuous.

jessaustin 11y ago

Search for "Mencius Moldbug", but be warned: Moldbug, his supporters, and his detractors are all sorely in need of aggressive editing. If you can find a TL;DR less than a single-spaced page, please link it because I can't even...