[lukev]

Of course, LambdaConf has every right to define its community in the way it sees fit.

While their explanation does have a lot of logical appeal (see: https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-dive...), it's important to remember that prospective attendees and speakers also have the right of free association.

The fact is, I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk. I would encourage others to make the same decision. I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so. They are human beings and deserve all the rights and privileges thereof.

But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending nothing is wrong.

This isn't a free speech issue, this is a "who do you want in your community" issue. In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity.

I hope people give me the same treatment. I am more than the content of my technical talks, and so is Yarvin.

[apsec112]

"But consider the following: I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china.

Please try not to be insufficiently surprised by this. Every time a Republican and a Democrat break bread together with good will, it is a miracle. It is an equilibrium as beneficial as civilization or liberalism, which developed in the total absence of any central enforcing authority." - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...

[phillmv]

Thought experiment:

Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

[apsec112]

"Cooperation is unstable, in both game theory and evolutionary biology, without some kind of punishment for defection. So it's one thing to subtract points off someone's reputation for mistakes they make themselves, directly. But if you also look askance at someone for refusing to castigate a person or idea, then that is punishment of non-punishers, a far more dangerous idiom that can lock an equilibrium in place even if it's harmful to everyone involved." - http://lesswrong.com/lw/42/tolerate_tolerance/

[zardgiv]

Quoting a big old paragraph from someone else without providing any of your own content is just lazy.

[stcredzero]

Thought experiment:

Is there a point at which you can treat a person as "sufficiently abhorrent" to dissuade you from associating with them? Does this point include being a productive member of society and taking part in a democratic civic life?

In terms of having a tolerant and open multicultural society, the only things that shouldn't be tolerated are actions and words that run counter to having a tolerant and open multicultural society. Sexism and racism run counter to a tolerant and open multicultural society. However, the exercise of authority to shun those with opinions you don't like is also intolerance. It's obeying "the letter" of tolerance but runs entirely counter to the spirit of tolerance. If you advocate a society where the government codifies and enacts tolerance, but all the citizens are intolerant in their civic life, then you advocate a society of divided enemy groups with a dead civic life, where opposing camps uneasily coexist, fling epithets over walls, and begin to regard the "others" as less than human.

You can't fight intolerance with intolerance precisely because you can't fight hate with hate. The only real way to fight intolerance is through real communication and convincing people. Venting frustration only plays into "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."

[phillmv]

Yes, of course, obviously.

I would not associate myself with, say, someone who in their off time writes long diatribes about how my ethnic group is lazy, incompetent, undeserving of legal rights and fit only to be exterminated or enslaved.

I'd be a fool not to shun this person and encourage others to do the same, however nice and pleasant they may be in person.

For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole.

What you describe is not a new problem. To quote Karl Popper,

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[shkkmo]

Social shaming can only work when the person being shamed is being included in the society doing the shaming. If you shame and exclude someone, you are going to end up alienating and possibly radicalizing them.

Social shaming should be used carefully, sparingly and among close knit communities.

Social shaming that works: "You are welcome, but the things you are saying make me and the people around me feel bad."

Social shaming that doesn't work: "You are a bad person and are not welcome here."

[zardgiv]

I don't think we need to worry about radicalizing the guy talking about how some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

[stcredzero]

For one, social shaming can, occasionally, be an effective way to change behaviour: it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so". For another, I don't have the time and energy or personal obligation to graciously engage with every single person who may be a complete asshole.

What Social Media has generated is a millieu that jumps at the chance to engage in social shaming. It's the same sort of corruption as embodied in a state the jumps at the chance to prosecute to gratify the crowd, regardless of how actual justice is served. I see social shaming as so often practiced as a way for one group to enforce its will over another and assure itself of its own agency. (Such groups also profit non-materially from the additional division and outrage generated.)

it's a short hand for "your opinion is wrong, because all these respectable people say so"

If that's to apply, then the people who are using it first need to have convinced society at large.

Analogy: there are points of etiquette that only apply in a particular culture. If you try enforcing one culture's etiquette when you are the lone member of that culture in a different cultural group, then you are just being foolish. So what about when there are approximately equal numbers? Taking such action in that case also just causes division. It's only when there is a clear majority, and when the majority acts in a benevolent and inclusive fashion that pressure works. Absent benevolence from the majority, there is also only more division. This is just human nature.

In the group dynamic, it doesn't matter that in your mind, you "are right." For one thing, you are only human, so you could well be wrong or misapplying context. In the end, you are either coercing someone or convincing them. It's only the latter that brings true change.

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them

This is exactly my point. This is why an "intolerance in spirit" which damages civic life shouldn't be tolerated. Those who are intolerant of others having a different opinion are engaging in a form of selfish intolerance. They are like free speech advocates who suppress their opponents gatherings or religious people who think freedom of religion only applies to their own religion. Somehow such people only need to obey the letter of the law, and the spirit of their principle only needs to apply to those they like.

(EDIT: How can we measure the sincerity of someone's tolerance? Are they ready to tolerate someone who is presently behaving in a tolerant fashion? Or are they champing at the bit to be "righteously intolerant" because someone was intolerant in the distant past or in an entirely different context? I would say the former is sincere tolerance and the latter is a short-sighted and selectively applied "tolerance.")

[phillmv]

We're not discussing social media. We're discussing whether to extend the graces of polite society to people with abhorrent views.

It's not clear to me whether you understand the spirit of the Popper quote.

As I interpret it, it can be boiled down to: it's OK to not tolerate those whose unimpeded actions would to destroy your tolerant society.

I'm afraid that in that context I don't understand the rest of your comment about sincere tolerance.

[greenrd]

>If that's to apply, then the people who are using it first need to have convinced society at large.

Just FYI, the controversial speaker at issue here quotes Carlyle - a man who advocated slavery, and using lethal force to put down a rebellion of disenfranchised former slaves in Jamaica - approvingly.

[sparky_z]

As long as they don't act on their views (except to write essays explaining and discussing them), then no.

If they were rude to me or to others (in a personal way), then I would not want to associate with them, but that's true of anybody regardless of their views.

[phillmv]

You're not OP but I can't dignify an asinine Yudkowsky quote with a reply, so you get one instead.

Why are essays non-actions in your view? Suppose someone had a lengthly career writing $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW essays and promoting them on the internet. Indeed, was famous for it.

Is there no $MAXIMALLY_REPUGNANT_VIEW that would cause you to feel awkward about being known to associate with this person?

[sparky_z]

I never said essays are non-actions. In fact, I used them as an example of them a type of action: one which would not cause me to disassociate myself from someone else.

I might feel a little awkward about it, mostly because I'm sure there would be several people like you doing their damnedest to make me feel that way. I'm not a robot, and I'm subject to all the same sorts of social pressure as everybody else. But if essay writing was their only "crime", I like to think that I would resist that pressure. I believe strongly in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas (not just in the "constitutional law" sense, but in the "how we should act as individuals in a free liberal society" sense). It's the only antidote to groupthink.

Imagine how much sooner public attitudes to homosexuality might have shifted if people had always felt free to discuss alternatives to the status quo without being ostracized.

Not that I don't think we should hold people to certain standards. I just think those standards should be behavior-based, not opinion-based. In another reply, you mentioned Karl Popper's quote about not tolerating intolerance, which I fully agree with. But intolerance is a behavior, not an opinion. People have called this guy a racist (and maybe he is; I haven't read his writing), but it's the people who refuse to be in the same room as him who are acting intolerantly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy seems happy to share the conference with anyone who wants to attend, regardless of their race. That's tolerance, no matter what he thinks in his secret heart of hearts, or even what he has written about on the internet.

[phillmv]

I suppose I just don't understand why you'd consider proselytizing abhorrent views to be an insufficient cause or behaviour. They occupy space, and are capable of terrorizing others just all the same.

To extend my other comment, which you've read:

Suppose you and I were friends. Suppose further that I discover that you routinely have over Mr Qux, who has an extensive archive of Medium posts suggesting that society would be better off if my ethnic group were to be exterminated.

Mr Qux doesn't say it needs to happen. He spends a lot of time recommending that people not act on his words. But there it is, essay after essay carefully explaining how all of society's ills would be solved if my ethnic group were to just disappear overnight.

Why, you reply, we only ever discuss software architecture. He's charming and effusive, and exceedingly polite whenever in the presence of others of your ethnic group. His medium posts never come up for discussion!

He's a brilliant software engineer, you go on. In fact, I'm sure he'd be a great hire at my company and have forwarded his resume.

It'd be irrelevant to me how pleasant this person is. He considers me unworthy of breathing the same air. Should he ever be in a position of power over me, how could I possibly trust him to be impartial? How am I supposed to believe that his impressively well articulated views on my inferiority would never impinge on his ability to produce an objective assessment of my abilities?

It'd be hard for me not to interpret your behaviour as implicitly condoning that man's views.

--

Nobody's ever threatened to extinguish my ethnic group, tho there are some negative stereotypes. But it's rather easy for me to empathize with the above scenario.

[ankushnarula]

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." (John Rawls from the same link in the other thread)

So some people sincerely believe Yarvin's very presence is a threat while others find his online philosophical rants to be little more than meanderings.

With that said here's my answer to your thought experiment:

Yarvin would be uninvited if he had been proven (not alleged) to have:

* harmed or advocated harm to anyone * rallied for pro-discriminatory policies * lobbied for pro-discriminatory policies * addressed someone with discriminatory slurs

If he were to deny the evidence then it would be a done deal and he would be banned.

However, everyone gets a chance to repent in my book. So if he had been proven to do these things and he came clean (or eventually came clean) then he would get a chance to publicly apologize online for wide distribution - and again live at the conference at the start of his talk.

---

The real answer to your question is that I would not associate with anyone proven to have done abhorrent things. But I regularly associate with people who have all kinds of abhorrent thoughts.

[Turing_Machine]

How about communism? Communists have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people in the last century.

If some guy with idiosyncratic political views and a blog qualifies, surely communists must?

[tatterdemalion]

This factually false. Preventable deaths as the result of government policy are atrocious, but they are not murder. "Capitalists" would not come out looking good either if the deaths that resulted from government policy in capitalist countries were called "capitalist murders."

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying the gulags weren't murder, or that the Holodomor wasn't murder. I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.

[Turing_Machine]

I'm saying the only way you get to canards like "communists murdered 100 million people" (100 million is a lot of people) is including people who died as the result of poor central planning in situations where there is no evidence for genocidal or repressive intent.

If you lock someone in a room, prevent him from leaving, and don't give him food, he will die, and you will be (correctly) charged with murder.

Can you name the capitalist countries that have murdered millions of their own citizens for us? Or even one such country? Nazi Germany was an authoritarian socialist regime, so don't even try going there.

Thanks.

[tatterdemalion]

You are deeply ignorant about modern history and your posts are thinly veiled ideological statements. It would be better for everyone if you didn't post.

[richmarr]

Surely this is about as rationally meaningful as counting the number of deaths caused by people who nominally identify as Christian and basing your opinion of all Christians on that.

[mikeash]

I've followed this saga with much confusion and I wonder if you could explain why you'd avoid a conference with a speaker like this.

For me, if I'm evaluating a conference speaker, all I care about is:

1. Is the topic useful or interesting?

2. Is the speaker well informed and the content correct?

3. Does the speaker present the material well?

I couldn't care less about them otherwise, and especially not their political views. For most conference speakers, I couldn't tell you anything about their political views, because it's just not relevant.

What's your reasoning for including that aspect of a speaker when evaluating the conference?

I also wonder, if we take it as a given that political views are important, do you vet all conference speakers' views before you attend a conference? Or do you have faith that the community will root out views you find unacceptable?

[dmix]

Indeed, nowhere in a tech conference have I ever been forced to drink beer or converse with anyone I didn't want to.

These communities are large enough where you don't have to directly engage with all people or even attend every single talk. Find your own subgroups within the larger community who you want to spend time with, avoid the rest. Pretty easy. I do this with at tech meetups all the time by avoiding business/PR people. And I probably disagree with the politics of at least 90% of people at any of these conferences to varying degrees.

What matters is there are people there you want to learn from (about the topic at hand) and spend time with.

[lukev]

I do not vet the politics of all my co-speakers. That said, if my black friends are dropping out of a conference because they feel deeply uncomfortable even being near someone, that's as clear a signal as I'm likely to get that something isn't right.

[mikeash]

Why not? For all you know, you might be attending talks from raging Nazis or hardcore Stalinists or people who think government-mandated key escrow is a decent idea. Is it only a problem if you know about it?

[tatterdemalion]

There is a big difference between someone who secretly or privately holds an offensive belief, and someone who publicly advocates an offensive belief. This is not about Yarvin's "beliefs," this is about what Yarvin has done and is doing, including using this controversy as an opportunity to again expound offensive and fallacious claims about race. This post goes into a lot of detail:

https://medium.com/@codepaintsleep/lambdaconf-2016-controver...

[zardgiv]

For me, pretty much. If those shitty ideas are important enough to the speaker that they've bubbled into my direct knowledge, then I'm forced to make a decision. Like, every talk I've been to could have been a speaker that thinks that I personally am the next Hitler and they're seething with hatred for me the whole time, but until I'm aware of it it's not really a problem.

This was not as clever a question as you thought you were posing.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

That's great for you, but you don't dictate whether people who see things differently have valid views or not.

Consider that what is "relevant" in your experience depends heavily on what kind of bullshit society throws your direction on a daily basis. It's easy to not see a problem here if you're not the group Yarvin advocates subjugating. If you are part of that group or empathize with it, things obviously looks a bit different.

[mikeash]

> That's great for you, but you don't dictate whether people who see things differently have valid views or not.

Why do you say this? Did I say something that indicated otherwise?

I'm just here asking why a person thinks the way they do, and giving my own thoughts so they have something to compare with. To come in and act like I'm trying to impose my views, and imply that my views are invalid because I'm not the target of oppression in this instance, is pretty bizarre.

[calibraxis]

Moldbug's political views aren't the issue, it's his political action. He has a record of going to conferences and advocating racism: working to exclude. And one of Lambdaconf's sponsors is a racist political blog, which sounds unprecedented. (Evidence in my comment history.)

(The context is a country which kills and incarcerates blacks, post-slavery. Racism is political action which directly impacts the lives of confgoers and users. Toxic for education and networking.)

Any conf organizer has heard people say, "It's not the talks, it's the hallway conversations!" Racist political groups are now desperate enough to nakedly show their influence out in the open. Harder for them to dominate quietly.

[mikeash]

That's the first I've heard of it if so. For example, this statement which appears to have a lot of supporters in the community says nothing about hallway conversations, and merely objects to him being chosen as a speaker:

https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io

If it was, "this guy keeps harassing conference goers and holding unofficial mini sessions on how awesome racism is" then I might reconsider my position, but that's not what I've seen anybody (besides you, here, anyeay) say.

[thescribe]

Can you provide an example of any action he has taken that is not merely expressing a view?

[calibraxis]

Do you want evidence of him... shivving someone?

(But then again, how is stabbing someone with a knife relevant to a talk's quality?)

(But then again, how is a talk's quality relevant to free expression of views?)

Professional conferences "censor" speakers who don't provide what their audiences want. And have codes of conduct censoring harassing speech. You too: does everyone get to deliver speeches in your home? Visit your workplace and undermine you?

[tomp]

> But then again, how is stabbing someone with a knife relevant to a talk's quality?

It's not. I find no reason to exclude an ex-convict that has been charged and served his jail-time. Including them back into the society is the only way we can at least hope to combat recidivism.

[calibraxis]

It'd be great if you have evidence that Moldbug is an ex-con who underwent rehab for his racism!

If not, would you really invite someone with a record of stabbing people at conferences? Who writes literature advocating murder, etc?

(In the real world, Moldbug leverages society's obvious violence against African-Americans. He's therefore complicit in that systematic violence. That's why Lambdaconf's racist supporters are so desperate to support him, no matter how clumsily. That's why all these people were targeted on sjwlist.com for speaking out against violence: http://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ )

[AnimalMuppet]

> > Can you provide an example of any action he has taken that is not merely expressing a view?

Apparently, the answer is: No.

[HCIdivision17]

I respectfully note that their conclusion is the opposite: that you can separate the person from the talk. That an informative talk well spoken by an asshole is still informative. And, well, the speaker may still be a jerk. But the conference wants to have an air of professionalism, and therefore you should go to be informed, not as a vote in a popularity contest of any kind.

They also seem to have a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery. So should anyone overstep, it sure seems like retribution will be swift. So if people behave, then there should be no worry: people are expected to behave. And if anyone bullies - in any way - expect moderation with extreme predjudice (that is a great phrase in English).

There may be many closet assholes out there, but we don't bar them, since we expect people to behave by default. Expect the best of people and prepare to be temporarily impressed or disappointed.

[d_t_w]

"But the conference wants to have an air of professionalism"

There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any client I can think of, are there professional environments you can think of where his reputation wouldn't cause significant difficulties to participation?

I'm not sure an argument from professionalism is the appropriate one. More if you have a club you can invite whoever you like, and if others are not comfortable with the members they can choose not to attend.

I'm sure John De Goes is earnest, the risk is that his conference may be attended solely by similarly earnest people who look precisely like John De Goes, and for whom emotional assault is unverifiable and incomparable, hypothetical.

[tomp]

> There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any client I can think of

I really don't understand how personal opinions aren't protected in the same way as religion (i.e. that they can't be a reason not to hire someone). Religion is just as much a choice as any other personal belief/opinion, and it has caused at least as much, if not much more, harm as e.g. racism and sexism. In addition, it's a signal that the person is fundamentally irrational or immature (cf. an adult that believes Santa or unicorns exist).

[tjic]

> There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any

I think this is an intended as an attack on Yarvin, but it makes much more sense to me as an attack on HR departments.

If HR departments are filtering out tech ically astute candidates bc of what they do out of the office , they are harming the corporation.

[greenrd]

It depends. I wouldn't hire Yarvin, because his record of alleged racist writing and speech suggest he would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. But Lambdaconf appear to have decided that explicitly muzzling his alleged racist and political views for the duration of the conference is likely to work, or at least it makes sense to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I agree on that. Also, similarly, my standards on who I would wish to work with are stricter than who would deter me from attending a technical conference. Calling supporters of Nelson Mandela mother f*ers is not a good culture fit.

[d_t_w]

It's a statement of fact, not a judgement.

You're welcome to your opinions of HR departments, and of Yarvin.

[lukev]

Yep. I certainly disagree with that conclusion. There are a wealth of awesome talks by awesome people out there. If Yarvin was excluded, his slot would have been filled by an equally interesting, equally informative talk not by a racist.

[st3v3r]

One could say that, by letting a known asshole speak, they are not showing a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery.

[stcredzero]

not showing a strong intolerance

So everyone needs to show the proper intolerance towards the prescribed things? I'm glad you are coming out and saying that you are engaging in what you think is righteous intolerance.

However, I think taking such a stance misses the point.

[Frondo]

Well, pretty much, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[thescribe]

This is exactly why tolerance as called for in this thread is not a virtue.

The only people I see being tolerant in any of these threads are the ones saying "I find his views disgusting but I think he should speak".

[stcredzero]

Doing unto others how they would have done to you, had your side not won -- how is that a virtue? That's like taking prisoners and violating the Geneva Convention, because they would have behaved that way to you. Unfortunately, this is the kind of nation the United States has become. (Really, nations, plural, because we've forgotten how to be a loyal opposition and hang together.)

Everyone thinks their side is just. The lesson of history is that one can recognize the truly just and enlightened through their magnanimity. Those who did wrong should be punished. Sure, but going around bullying those who thought wrong? There's something really shortsighted and twisted about that. How isn't that simply McCarthyism through legal socially-enforced means?

[mcphage]

Well, if he can't tolerate you either, then you'll both be fully tolerant!

[st3v3r]

Why should I be tolerant of people who clearly are not tolerant of others? I mean, we're not talking about some benign disagreement, like whether you like PHP or Ruby. We're talking about someone who has flat out said that slavery should return, and certain classes of people are not deserving of basic human dignity.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong with not being tolerant of those views. Tolerating them sends the message that they are acceptable views that have merit.

[HCIdivision17]

In a similar way, letting a known something person speak means they're not intolerant of something. I mean, yeah, you could make that argument, but it sure doesn't seem substantial or useful. That's the point of Xyism at the end: it doesn't have much to do with functional programming , and functional programming is what the conference is explicitly about.

And there is an explicit threat against assholery: perform it and you'll be excluded. Don't and you'll have the same protection any other person has.

It is implicitly not about a very large range of things, namely mostly stuff that isn't functional programming.

[st3v3r]

"And there is an explicit threat against assholery: perform it and you'll be excluded"

Yet, this guy has performed it. And he's not being excluded.

[tomp]

> In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity.

Isn't this exactly what you're doing?

[lukev]

Not at all! I can disassociate myself from Yarvin, and even "no-platform" him while fully acknowledging that he's a legit functional programmer with interesting technical ideas.

But I can't engage with him as a peer, in community, without denying or ignoring (or accepting) that he's a racist.

[antifasci]

It seems to me that a truly 'healthy' community would not draw it's boundaries so tightly.

If I were building a community I'd want it to be one that welcomed even those with views I found despicable so long as they could engage in thoughtful, reasonable discourse. A community should allow for people to be wrong, and still be welcome.

Having near zero interest in Curtis' political writing his recent AMA [0] and Medium post [1] come off as earnest and harmless.

0 - https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...

1 - https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam...

[exolymph]

I think the parent comment is referring to how people have tried to argue that Yarvin will be able to sequester one part of his personality and creative output, and that the rest of us should pretend his Moldbug persona doesn't affect the rest of him.

[e12e]

After some quick speed-reading on Yarvin's blog, I came across this tasteless drivel on terrorism: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.no/2011/07/right-wi...

Even if one takes it to be "just" trolling, I find it in bad taste -- and if one takes it at face value, it's the sort of statements that would make it hard for me to attend an event with him in attendance. I consider myself to have a thick skin, and I generally don't care if nutjobs moan on about violence etc - except for the fact that ABB posted this kind of drivel himself, and based a lot of his mindset around it. So blogs of this kind is part of creating the nutjobs that go out and kill people. Any amount of smug moral relativism isn't going to make me say that I think stuff like this is ok.

All that said, I do support LamdaConf's decision in this case: They set out to do blind submissions, and stayed with that. They've now realized that the idea of a pure meritocracy is indeed a parody, not a real thing -- so they'll end up with a speaker selection process that is "overtly" political (even if they claim the opposite). This is of course inevitable, as no-one gets to "opt out" of politics: the "none statement" is a statement in itself (although not always a statement for the status quo).

I agree that there seems to be areas where "political correctness" has become a form of normative straight-jacket -- the same kind of conservative tendency that fuels bigotry. And I say that as a feminist and a communist/anarchist, and someone that is a strong believer in affirmative action.

Ironically perhaps, I think this is a decision Yarvin would agree on.

[wtbob]

> I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk.

> I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so.

> But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending nothing is wrong.

Is a conference 'drinking beer and breaking bread,' or is it an appropriate forum to 'discuss or debate ideas'?

[st3v3r]

I would posit that it is "drinking beer and breaking bread", or otherwise spending time with, and getting to know others in the profession. I would also argue that a programming conference is not the appropriate forum to discuss or debate ideas related to racism, sexism, etc.

[douche]

That's sort of the question of whether conferences are training and professional development, or thinly veiled junkets...

[SolarNet]

I think it's (intended to be) closer to the first, basically like an academic forum.

[mcphage]

> The fact is, I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk. I would encourage others to make the same decision. I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic, in any forum where it makes sense to do so. They are human beings and deserve all the rights and privileges thereof.

That's fine. If they left it at, "I don't want to go to this conference anymore", then fewer people would have an issue here. I certainly wouldn't care enough to get involved either way. It's the next step of, "...and therefore the conference should be killed off" that I have a problem with.

[skybrian]

There's obviously a continuum here based on community size.

On one end, there are large communities. He has accounts on Twitter and Hacker News. Are you going to stop visiting? Would you avoid a shopping mall if he's there? Avoid sitting in the same movie theater?

On the other end, it's certainly reasonable to decline a dinner invitation if you don't like one of the other guests.

A conference seems like a larger and more impersonal gathering. You don't have to go to the talk, but you could go to other talks.

[platz]

> I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them

Degoes is not making an argument that you are obligated to attend.

[forrestthewoods]

Listening to a technical talk at a technical conference qualifies as drinking beer and breaking bread? I dunno about that.

I've always felt that professional adults should be able to work with people who think different things that them. If you work in an office with 50+ people I guarantee you have coworkers who think horrible terrible things that you passionately disagree with. But that's ok. Because we're all professionals and those naughty thoughts aren't relevant and aren't brought up.

[Swizec]

Exactly this.

In 2012 there were 747,408 sex offenders in the US. The population was 314,100,000. This means 0.2% of the population are sex offenders.

So, ignoring clustering, if you work for a company with 500 people, then 1 of your coworkers is a sex offender.

For instance if you work for Facebook, 25 of your coworkers are sex offenders. How can you live with that? Should you quit on moral grounds because you can't work with sex offenders?

For a less extreme example. 44% of americans are "pro-life". How big of a company do you need to overcome clustering effects and have a coworker that believes the opposite of what you do? 10? 50?

[tomp]

> I do wish to exclude myself from any community that deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk.

They didn't deliberately include him. They just didn't exclude him. They actually deserve the adjective "inclusive".

Personally, I too would encourage as many people as possible to exclude themselves, in particular due to their intolerance.

[base698]

I know this isn't the popular opinion in the modern world, but originally free speech was argued to be better than censorship, because even though negative or false ideas are present, these bad ideas can illuminate the truth.

Free speech creates a sort of natural selection of ideas--keeping the herd of ideas stronger.

[fao_]

But in no case was the right of speech lost, merely the right of audience, or rather, of publicity.

[base698]

"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."