3 ms·

Conferences are not public services. They're private endeavours; they should be able to pick and choose who they want to speak. If the speakers have a backgroun

by vacri 11y ago

Conferences are not public services. They're private endeavours; they should be able to pick and choose who they want to speak. If the speakers have a background they disagree with, or disagree with values they promote, so be it. The idea that a talk is only seen in light of the technical merits is utter nonsense, particularly for politically volatile talks. I've seen any number of good talks by no-names that get ignored, and more than a few by famous figures that were mundane yet accoladed, for example, before we even get to volatility. Ultimately, if a speaker feels unfairly done by, they can always organise their own conferences (this can and does happen). It turns out that organising a conference is quite difficult, and it's demoralising to have all your hard work trumped by some grandstanding idiot, so it's also understandable that organisers don't want to deal with political sideshows.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
white-flame 11y ago
The issue is moreso in how the conference itself is perceived. By taking a line like this, it becomes perceived not just as a technical conference, but one that's aligned for/against a particular external agenda. I don't think it's a good idea for conferences which are normally a discussion ground for some particular topic to grow tendrils outside that topic. (Note that 'not a good idea' means it's still ultimately up to them)
pdonis 11y ago
> The idea that a talk is only seen in light of the technical merits is utter nonsense If it's a technical conference, then a talk should be seen only in the light of its technical merits. A technical conference that allows political agendas unrelated to the technical issues to determine what gets talked about is a useless technical conference. > particularly for politically volatile talks If it's a technical conference, the talks shouldn't be politically volatile, because they shouldn't be about political issues. A technical conference that's full of talks that are politically volatile is a useless technical conference.
- vacri 11y ago
  You simply can't separate out politics like this. Wherever humans interact, you have politics. Human interaction does not exist without politics. It's chasing a pipe dream to say that a talk can be given free of politics. Often everyone shares the same politics, so it's not a problem, but politics simply can't be hived off like that. This isn't to say that everything needs to be political; it's just that you can't eliminate politics by decree. A technical conference that's full of talks that are politically volatile is a useless technical conference. ... I don't think you understand what I was getting at. I was defending the rights of conference organisers to stop that from happening. One way to do this is by not signing on controversial technical figures. I really don't understand what you're trying to get across to me - that somehow you will have a politics-free technical conference by ignoring the political environment surrounding your speakers? Humans just don't work that way... as is evident by what happens when technical conferences ignore the political environment surrounding their speakers.
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    > You simply can't separate out politics like this. Wrong pronoun, you mean "I." Most people have no problem interacting with people having terrible political beliefs.
    - vacri 11y ago
      No, I meant the rhetorical 'you', and now I mean 'you, SamReidHughes', because it's clear that you don't understand human politicking. Did you notice that I did not say "terrible political beliefs", I just said 'politics', making no value judgement? You're putting words in my mouth to put me in my place, but I'm not accepting it. You're not attacking the merits of what I said, but distorting it into something that's easy to attack. Right here, this is politics in action. So yes, you personally, SamReidHughs, demonstrably have trouble separating politics from technical merit. If you want other examples, just have a look at any time an article about technical abilities comes up here on HN when the person is Jobs or Stallman or Torvalds. Most of the discussion goes political, with little in the way of technical comment on what they might be talking about.

by vacri 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

white-flame 11y ago

The issue is moreso in how the conference itself is perceived. By taking a line like this, it becomes perceived not just as a technical conference, but one that's aligned for/against a particular external agenda. I don't think it's a good idea for conferences which are normally a discussion ground for some particular topic to grow tendrils outside that topic. (Note that 'not a good idea' means it's still ultimately up to them)

pdonis 11y ago

> The idea that a talk is only seen in light of the technical merits is utter nonsense If it's a technical conference, then a talk should be seen only in the light of its technical merits. A technical conference that allows political agendas unrelated to the technical issues to determine what gets talked about is a useless technical conference. > particularly for politically volatile talks If it's a technical conference, the talks shouldn't be politically volatile, because they shouldn't be about political issues. A technical conference that's full of talks that are politically volatile is a useless technical conference.

vacri 11y ago
You simply can't separate out politics like this. Wherever humans interact, you have politics. Human interaction does not exist without politics. It's chasing a pipe dream to say that a talk can be given free of politics. Often everyone shares the same politics, so it's not a problem, but politics simply can't be hived off like that. This isn't to say that everything needs to be political; it's just that you can't eliminate politics by decree. A technical conference that's full of talks that are politically volatile is a useless technical conference. ... I don't think you understand what I was getting at. I was defending the rights of conference organisers to stop that from happening. One way to do this is by not signing on controversial technical figures. I really don't understand what you're trying to get across to me - that somehow you will have a politics-free technical conference by ignoring the political environment surrounding your speakers? Humans just don't work that way... as is evident by what happens when technical conferences ignore the political environment surrounding their speakers.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  > You simply can't separate out politics like this. Wrong pronoun, you mean "I." Most people have no problem interacting with people having terrible political beliefs.
  - vacri 11y ago
    No, I meant the rhetorical 'you', and now I mean 'you, SamReidHughes', because it's clear that you don't understand human politicking. Did you notice that I did not say "terrible political beliefs", I just said 'politics', making no value judgement? You're putting words in my mouth to put me in my place, but I'm not accepting it. You're not attacking the merits of what I said, but distorting it into something that's easy to attack. Right here, this is politics in action. So yes, you personally, SamReidHughs, demonstrably have trouble separating politics from technical merit. If you want other examples, just have a look at any time an article about technical abilities comes up here on HN when the person is Jobs or Stallman or Torvalds. Most of the discussion goes political, with little in the way of technical comment on what they might be talking about.