4 ms·

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

by 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.

pdonis 11y ago
> You're presenting a false dichotomy, being either 'political maelstrom' or 'zero politics'. No, I'm presenting a distinction between a technical talk and a political talk. > You're misreading me totally if you think I'm saying it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility But you apparently think that it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility if Curtis Yarvin gives a technical talk and never mentions his political views once. That seems both unreasonable and stupid to me. > 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? Because they're stupid to exclude him based on his political views when he has something technically valuable to contribute and isn't going to talk about his political views, only about the technical issues. Sure, it's their conference, so they get to decide who speaks; but that doesn't mean their decision about who gets to speak is automatically a smart one. The conference is supposed to be about technical issues; if you exclude people with technically valuable contributions based on their political views, when they don't even intend to talk about those views, you're reducing the technical value of the conference. What kind of sense does that make? And why shouldn't people who are interested in the technical value of the conference express their opinion that the conference organizers are making a stupid decision that reduces that technical value? > How, then, are organisers meant to invite on seminar-merit-free-of-reputation? By asking the speakers in general terms what they propose to talk about. You don't need a word by word transcript of a speaker's talk to know whether he's going to talk about a technical subject or about his political views.

by vacri 11y ago

pdonis 11y ago

> You're presenting a false dichotomy, being either 'political maelstrom' or 'zero politics'. No, I'm presenting a distinction between a technical talk and a political talk. > You're misreading me totally if you think I'm saying it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility But you apparently think that it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility if Curtis Yarvin gives a technical talk and never mentions his political views once. That seems both unreasonable and stupid to me. > 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? Because they're stupid to exclude him based on his political views when he has something technically valuable to contribute and isn't going to talk about his political views, only about the technical issues. Sure, it's their conference, so they get to decide who speaks; but that doesn't mean their decision about who gets to speak is automatically a smart one. The conference is supposed to be about technical issues; if you exclude people with technically valuable contributions based on their political views, when they don't even intend to talk about those views, you're reducing the technical value of the conference. What kind of sense does that make? And why shouldn't people who are interested in the technical value of the conference express their opinion that the conference organizers are making a stupid decision that reduces that technical value? > How, then, are organisers meant to invite on seminar-merit-free-of-reputation? By asking the speakers in general terms what they propose to talk about. You don't need a word by word transcript of a speaker's talk to know whether he's going to talk about a technical subject or about his political views.