4 ms·

Alex Payne founded a socialist blog: https://www.jacobinmag.com/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/ Why is writing about certain political ideas OK, but writing about

Alex Payne founded a socialist blog: https://www.jacobinmag.com/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/ Why is writing about certain political ideas OK, but writing about certain other political ideas not OK? Why are those certain other political ideas "not OK" enough for someone to be banned from a technology conference?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
steveklabnik 11y ago
It would seem from this blog post, he joined the advisory board, but was not a founder: https://al3x.net/2015/03/03/jacobin.html https://al3x.net/2015/03/03/jacobin.html
sagichmal 11y ago
> Why is writing about certain political ideas OK, but > writing about certain other political ideas not OK? Calling socialism and racism the same thing, just a "certain political view", is about as intellectually honest as calling speeding and murder the same thing, just a "certain sort of crime".
- corporealist 11y ago
  Has anyone produced evidence of racism? Most of his detractors on Twitter have been beyond hysterical yet I doubt most of them have read anything he's written, and I've yet to see any examples. What is wrong with people that the presence of Curtis Yarvin makes them feel unsafe? EDIT: This seems to be the one example that is being bandied about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9676625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9676625 . Replies to that post point out that the case is extremely flimsy. Give me a break. This guy is a rightwinger (outside of his industry) and somebody didn't like it. What an embarrassment. They're proving the right's points.
- ShardPhoenix 11y ago
  You're right - socialism is much worse than racism. Socialism (actual socialism, not "social democracy" aka capitalist welfare state) destroys countries (eg North Korea), while racism is merely a moderate problem (eg South Korea is very racist but doing fine). edit: To be fair, people are probably more sensitive to racism in America because America is so diverse.
- danielHanniger 11y ago
  racism has killed very few people compared to socialism.
  - newuser88273 11y ago
    If you sum over all micro-insults suffered by victims of racists, caused by billions, possibly trillions of micro-aggressions, who knows how many death-equivalents you might get? Anyway, whomever socialists might have killed, it was long ago: smack in the middle of the dark ages of widespread racism, to be exact. Which means those so-called victims of socialism probably all were racists.
Houshalter 11y ago
Scott Alexander makes a very good point about this here (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...). I can't do it justice, but I'll try to summarize it, because that piece is very long. Imagine you lived in soviet Russia. If you criticize the communist government, and said that the previous capitalist system was better, you would be shot. But if you criticize the government and said we needed more communism, you'd get praise. If you are in favor of reform, and new policies, and support the direction society is currently headed, you won't be ostracized. People might not agree with you, but they won't have you shot. But imagine trying to suggest we go back and undo the changes that have been made? Imagine someone advocated reestablishing slavery, or getting rid of women's right to vote, etc. They would be ostracized. You might not agree with the person who wants to create a new system. But the person advocating we go back to the old system, no. He's trying to undo all the progress we've made! Society has fought that battle and established that the losing side was wrong. It may have been controversial at one time, but now everyone knows that slavery is definitely wrong. The liberal isn't fighting lost wars, he's moving onto new battles. Where no one has yet been declared a loser.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

steveklabnik 11y ago

It would seem from this blog post, he joined the advisory board, but was not a founder: https://al3x.net/2015/03/03/jacobin.html https://al3x.net/2015/03/03/jacobin.html

sagichmal 11y ago

> Why is writing about certain political ideas OK, but > writing about certain other political ideas not OK? Calling socialism and racism the same thing, just a "certain political view", is about as intellectually honest as calling speeding and murder the same thing, just a "certain sort of crime".

corporealist 11y ago
Has anyone produced evidence of racism? Most of his detractors on Twitter have been beyond hysterical yet I doubt most of them have read anything he's written, and I've yet to see any examples. What is wrong with people that the presence of Curtis Yarvin makes them feel unsafe? EDIT: This seems to be the one example that is being bandied about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9676625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9676625 . Replies to that post point out that the case is extremely flimsy. Give me a break. This guy is a rightwinger (outside of his industry) and somebody didn't like it. What an embarrassment. They're proving the right's points.
ShardPhoenix 11y ago
You're right - socialism is much worse than racism. Socialism (actual socialism, not "social democracy" aka capitalist welfare state) destroys countries (eg North Korea), while racism is merely a moderate problem (eg South Korea is very racist but doing fine). edit: To be fair, people are probably more sensitive to racism in America because America is so diverse.
danielHanniger 11y ago
racism has killed very few people compared to socialism.
- newuser88273 11y ago
  If you sum over all micro-insults suffered by victims of racists, caused by billions, possibly trillions of micro-aggressions, who knows how many death-equivalents you might get? Anyway, whomever socialists might have killed, it was long ago: smack in the middle of the dark ages of widespread racism, to be exact. Which means those so-called victims of socialism probably all were racists.

Houshalter 11y ago

Scott Alexander makes a very good point about this here (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...). I can't do it justice, but I'll try to summarize it, because that piece is very long. Imagine you lived in soviet Russia. If you criticize the communist government, and said that the previous capitalist system was better, you would be shot. But if you criticize the government and said we needed more communism, you'd get praise. If you are in favor of reform, and new policies, and support the direction society is currently headed, you won't be ostracized. People might not agree with you, but they won't have you shot. But imagine trying to suggest we go back and undo the changes that have been made? Imagine someone advocated reestablishing slavery, or getting rid of women's right to vote, etc. They would be ostracized. You might not agree with the person who wants to create a new system. But the person advocating we go back to the old system, no. He's trying to undo all the progress we've made! Society has fought that battle and established that the losing side was wrong. It may have been controversial at one time, but now everyone knows that slavery is definitely wrong. The liberal isn't fighting lost wars, he's moving onto new battles. Where no one has yet been declared a loser.