[teacup50]

The obvious implication is that the conference was expected to enforce a blacklist.

If failing to preemptively blacklist ideologically unacceptable attendees carries with it this degree of negative response, then a preemptive Hollywood-style industry blacklist is exactly what we'll get.

It's already the case that defending someone like Moldbug carries with it the risk of being branded as supporting the popular perception of his views, which in turn means you too can be on the receiving end of mob wisdom.

[knucklesandwich]

Curtis Yarvin is a software engineer, so if you want to make the analogy honest, a blacklist would be a large contingent of software companies refusing to hire him under any circumstances. Dalton Trumbo wasn't pressured not to speak at conferences because of his political allegiances, he was barred from working period (and eventually jailed!). This has absolutely nothing to do with a blacklist.

[teacup50]

So you're saying that this mob is unhappy with him speaking, but has no issue with his being employed?

Like this?

https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/713222987537756163

"In case you think it's just LambdaConf: Google continues to employ one of Moldbug's most devoted followers."

"Tech employees: it's time to hold your execs accountable for lack of action. My tweets aren't gonna do it alone."

[knucklesandwich]

Some tweets and a Sam Biddle provocation piece about Google keeping this person employed (from 2 years ago) != a blacklist. Even if this amounted to action on Google's part, an employer has the right to fire an employee for actions deemed hostile to other employees (and its plausible to say its hostile for an employee to write blog posts about how certain races are genetically inferior). This is implicit in the concept of "at-will employment". I've been on the receiving end of this taken to a ridiculous extent when I was fired from a job for not going to a Christmas party. I found the reason I was fired to be pretty objectionable, but it wasn't anything remotely like being blacklisted.

There's a lot of hypothetical rabbit holes to go down with this, but ultimately this is a distraction from what's being discussed, which is a person choosing to withdraw their workshop group from a conference because of the opinions of a speaker. Boycotting, protests, or simply declining to not participate are fundamental methods of democratic action. It's laughable to me that anyone would equate what's being talked about here with a suppressive measure.

[teacup50]

Not suppressive?

I won't even discuss this subject non-anonymously due to the risk of the mob setting on me by association, not because I agree with Yarvin, but because I disagree strenuously with their use of intimidation to suppress people with whom they disagree.

Attempting to paint this as anything other than intimidation and suppression strikes me as a great irony as I sit here responding, necessarily for the well-being of myself and my family, anonymously.