4 ms·

Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk refrain from posting out of fear of career repercussion? No and yes. I have been pretty vocal about it on Tw

Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk refrain from posting out of fear of career repercussion? No and yes. I have been pretty vocal about it on Twitter: https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606474432509394944 https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606474432509394944 https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606673594198794240 https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606673594198794240 but I've also been sitting on a 75%-written blog post that I'm hesitant to actually post. Not because of career repercussions (I have never had an employer who really gave a shit what I write about in my spare time) but because of conference repercussions. I am promoting a book, and to that end I am scheduled to speak at various conferences and meetups. And I worry that the mob would somehow try to get me uninvited. It's not like there's an actual policy that Yarvin violated that I can be confident I'm on the right side of. So I am torn between my natural inclination to say exactly what I think, and the more practical takeaway of "don't write or have written anything that might anger the mob".

topynate 11y ago
You're getting bitten by preference falsification, as proposed by Timur Kuran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
- joelgrus 11y ago
  I mean, I feel like I'm conveying my exact preferences pretty clearly ("let Yarvin speak"), the question is more how much I want to antagonize the people who got him uninvited.
existencebox 11y ago
I typically avoid posting in these sorts of threads, very little good has come from political debates on the internet that I've seen, but your last sentence pushes me to speak up. Status-quo social thoughtcrime is rather terrifying to me. There's no "easy" way to amend laws or lobby a system to address the issue, as one would against a governmental stance. It's also cyclical, as less "clean" people speak out against it, the "only rapists defend rapist" situation mentioned by sister posts occurs, and the entire culture of defending someone who might be distasteful, separating the issue from their broader history, diminishes. I can't claim to judge you for your decision, I fully acknowledge the unfortunate state of things and your ability to make a choice that best serves your needs, but for the sake of putting my money where my mouth is; I think he should have been allowed to speak (espousing viewpoints I disagree with is far and beyond an offensive enough act to cause me to want to petition against someone, and even then, I would not attempt to convey that aversion as anything more than my personal stance). The fact that I (or you, or any of us) feel any uncertainty due to fear of the repercussions for merely voicing this opinion only serves to reinforce my conviction that it needs to be voiced.
- Jare 11y ago
  Thank you both. I too have a half finished post that I can't figure how to finish properly, but I now feel I don't need to.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  That is very, very true. It is, frankly, impossible to force change in such a situation unless you already have a large enough soapbox to be heard and can build a network of similarly minded [and widely read/heard] individuals. I think, regardless of political affiliation, we have to admit to ourselves that most people are prepared & willing to silence people with beliefs they find odious. Please note that I said "beliefs" not "actions". The right to vocalize and discuss our beliefs freely is something that must be fundamentally protected, most especially when it is odious. The only way to do that is to make it both legally permissible [as the law can apply violent force] but also socially permissible to the point of indifference for people to voice different beliefs [even the odious, bigoted ones].
theorique 11y ago
It's not like there's an actual policy that Yarvin violated that I can be confident I'm on the right side of. This is the bigger issue - the chilling of all controversial views and debate. It's less about "violated Rule XXIV, subsection (c) of the Code of Conduct" and more about "wrote some stuff that made us feel funny and we're worried that something awkward might happen at the meeting". Yes, the organizers have the power to rewrite the schedule for bad reasons or no reason at all. But it's important to point out what was done, and why we think it was done.

topynate 11y ago

You're getting bitten by preference falsification, as proposed by Timur Kuran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification

joelgrus 11y ago
I mean, I feel like I'm conveying my exact preferences pretty clearly ("let Yarvin speak"), the question is more how much I want to antagonize the people who got him uninvited.

existencebox 11y ago

I typically avoid posting in these sorts of threads, very little good has come from political debates on the internet that I've seen, but your last sentence pushes me to speak up. Status-quo social thoughtcrime is rather terrifying to me. There's no "easy" way to amend laws or lobby a system to address the issue, as one would against a governmental stance. It's also cyclical, as less "clean" people speak out against it, the "only rapists defend rapist" situation mentioned by sister posts occurs, and the entire culture of defending someone who might be distasteful, separating the issue from their broader history, diminishes. I can't claim to judge you for your decision, I fully acknowledge the unfortunate state of things and your ability to make a choice that best serves your needs, but for the sake of putting my money where my mouth is; I think he should have been allowed to speak (espousing viewpoints I disagree with is far and beyond an offensive enough act to cause me to want to petition against someone, and even then, I would not attempt to convey that aversion as anything more than my personal stance). The fact that I (or you, or any of us) feel any uncertainty due to fear of the repercussions for merely voicing this opinion only serves to reinforce my conviction that it needs to be voiced.

Jare 11y ago
Thank you both. I too have a half finished post that I can't figure how to finish properly, but I now feel I don't need to.
fweespeech 11y ago
That is very, very true. It is, frankly, impossible to force change in such a situation unless you already have a large enough soapbox to be heard and can build a network of similarly minded [and widely read/heard] individuals. I think, regardless of political affiliation, we have to admit to ourselves that most people are prepared & willing to silence people with beliefs they find odious. Please note that I said "beliefs" not "actions". The right to vocalize and discuss our beliefs freely is something that must be fundamentally protected, most especially when it is odious. The only way to do that is to make it both legally permissible [as the law can apply violent force] but also socially permissible to the point of indifference for people to voice different beliefs [even the odious, bigoted ones].

theorique 11y ago

It's not like there's an actual policy that Yarvin violated that I can be confident I'm on the right side of. This is the bigger issue - the chilling of all controversial views and debate. It's less about "violated Rule XXIV, subsection (c) of the Code of Conduct" and more about "wrote some stuff that made us feel funny and we're worried that something awkward might happen at the meeting". Yes, the organizers have the power to rewrite the schedule for bad reasons or no reason at all. But it's important to point out what was done, and why we think it was done.