4 ms·

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

• 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.
• pdonis 11y ago
  > Wherever humans interact, you have politics. > This isn't to say that everything needs to be political So which is it? Either humans can talk about technical issues without getting bogged down in irrelevancies like the speaker's political views on topics unrelated to the technical issue, or they can't. If they can't, then technical issues will not get solved. I don't dispute that this can happen; I just dispute that it has to happen. Technical issues have gotten solved, which means humans are capable of putting aside irrelevant political differences. But apparently not all the time. > I was defending the rights of conference organisers to stop that from happening. No, you were defending the rights of conference organizers to not allow someone to speak on a technical issue that has nothing to do with whatever political views they have espoused in other venues. The speaker that was prohibited was not proposing to speak about his political views; he was proposing to speak about a technical issue that has nothing to do with his political views. So whatever the conference organizers thought they were doing, they were not preventing a politically volatile talk from happening. > Humans just don't work that way... as is evident by what happens when technical conferences ignore the political environment surrounding their speakers. Examples, please?
  • vacri 11y ago
    You're presenting a false dichotomy, being either 'political maelstrom' or 'zero politics'. Politics is not binary like that; it's not a "which is it" situation. Likewise, being able to deal with an issue isn't a binary either, as there are many levels of dealing with something. You're misreading me totally if you think I'm saying it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility (and frankly, putting words in my mouth). > No, you were defending the rights of conference organizers... Once again, for the cheap seats: there's no such thing as a talk free of politics. Just because the seminar content itself is not political doesn't mean that there's no politics involved. If the conference organisers don't want to be associated with a technically proficient but politically bigoted speaker, why should they be shamed into accepting the speaker? Why does the freedom of expression of the speaker trump the freedom of expression of the conference organisers? As I said, conferences are not public services. Put another way: If I was to organise a conference (and all the work that entails), it'd be a cold fucking day in hell before I would be shamed by stealth bigots who try to cow me into taking a speaker who I found repulsive, personally or politically. It's my damn conference, and I'm trying to present a certain theme in a certain context. Random speakers don't have the right to have their freedom of expression exerted over my freedom of expression - at my conference, I am the big dog. Other people are free to hold their own conferences. If potential speakers want to be bigot in a way I have a problem with, well, that's one of the social costs they pay for having those opinions. Diddums. Inviting speakers also carries a professional association with that speaker - again, the idea that politics doesn't matter for a seminar is false. There are a ton of speakers out there; who you choose does have an affect on your own reputation. And keep in mind that most conference talks are not locked-in when the speaker is invited. The organisers frequently don't even have a title for a speaker's talk when the invites go out, let alone the content. How, then, are organisers meant to invite on seminar-merit-free-of-reputation? > Examples, please? You've been on HN for four years now, surely you can remember some. Given that I've now had to re-explain my position three times, I'll leave this history search to you.