[danharaj]

That wasn't the point of protesting his presence at LambdaConf. The point was so that people who want to go to LambdaConf and feel threatened and humiliated by someone's enthusiastic support of racism and slavery don't have to associate with such a person.

It is so exasperating that so many people who aren't denigrated and targeted by his hateful politics think this is a matter of abstract principle. Somehow, letting my and others' humanity be a matter of political opinion is the mature, apolitical position. Utterly frustrating attitude. It's perfectly fine to be tolerant of Yarvin's views, it is completely unreasonable to ask others to associate with a person who envisions a world where their humanity is forfeit.

[Aqueous]

In public life we have to - and should - encounter and tolerate people whose opinions we find abhorrent. I would much prefer a world where I feel emotional discomfort being in the presence of someone I loathe than a world where such a person is prohibited from ever being near me, because of social ostracism. It provides for a much richer marketplace of ideas.

If you don't like him, protest him. Disturb him with your words as much as he disturbs you with his.

[Moshe_Silnorin]

>If you don't like him, protest him.

How about just ignore him.

[Aqueous]

...or that

[danharaj]

Free speech is such a pretty principal when you can always foist its costs on other people. You can keep your marketplace.

I'm going to be emphatic, because i am emphatic about this position:

Free speech is a powerful principle because speech has power. Because speech can hurt people, because speech can change the world. If speech did not matter, free speech would not matter.

If speech matters, and speech has power, then its effects must be considered. To do anything less is irrational. The idea that rejecting Yarvin's ideas so emphatically that we would deny him platform would lead to unjust suppression of speech is a fallacy. It is a slippery slope. So many people who strive to be rational individuals and avoid cognitive biases, and yet balk at treating speech for what it is instead of a sacred object that should be worshipped.

By saying Yarvin should be allowed to speak, you are merely saying that protecting his speech is more important than the emotional and professional cost it exacts on the people he targets. And yes, he targets people. Through all his extremely verbose, meandering writings, a clear thread of contempt for certain others' runs.

"The relationship of master and slave is a natural human relationship: that of patron and client." - Curtis Yarvin

You can react to speech the way you want. But you're not taking any moral high ground with your approach when you explicitly deny the impact of speech on others and how they react to it. Association is a form of speech. Petitioning others to stand with you is a form of speech. Protecting Yarvin's speech on the grounds of principle, which is rejecting others' speech out of hand in contradiction of the same principles is inconsistent. All speech has consequences, and there is no neutral advocacy of "free speech" because truly free speech is a realm of conflict and inconsistency.

[Aqueous]

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. Just like everyone else in the world, people have said things that have hurt me, too. But I can recognize that the temporary emotional injury I experience is not a good reason to overturn the entire foundation of liberal society. Free speech is a pretty principle because if, god forbid, the tables were ever turned, I would enjoy its protections as much as Curtis Yarvin does now. It has nothing to do with whether he is wrong and I am right, or whether the things he believes have any special power to injure me.

Inclusivity, egalitarianism, and protecting the views of the minority are in direct contradiction to Curtis Yarvin's thought. So ironically, Curtis Yarvin's mere presence at such a conference would be a direct contradiction of his views. In other words, they're arguing against him by inviting him.

[barsonme]

It should be noted 'free speech' is the reason you can have this conversation in the first place.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. That is, if you wish to not have your opinions censored you cannot ask for the censorship of other opinions you feel offensive.

I wish bigots and other prejudiced people would spare us, but I value my freedom to speak my mind more than I dislike hearing hateful speech.

[sclv]

There's no free speech on hackernews. People get moderated all the time! If hackernews can moderate its comments, then can't a conference moderate its speakers?

[barsonme]

Big distinction -- people are moderated for their content on Hacker News, not off.

If this speaker makes a racial slur he'll likely be removed from the conference. Inside the conference (much like HN) they're free to limit his speech. However, as was mentioned in the article, the conference does not and will not judge speech outside the conference, much like HN does not (to my knowledge) ban users for offensive speech outside HN.

[jessaustin]

You can keep your marketplace.

May we assume you'll be moving somewhere without such, rather than trying to tear ours down?

[dmix]

This anti-free speech and being against keeping politics out of technology/business conferences is as radical and distasteful as anything I've read about neoreactionary.

[Turing_Machine]

What about someone who grew up in a communist state, with friends and relatives being hauled off by the secret police on a regular basis?

Those people might feel threatened by communist speakers. Do they then have the right to "no platform" those speakers?

[danharaj]

Rights apply to government interactions with its subjects. Lambdaconf isn't a government, none of us are. And really? Being disinvited is the same as secret police renditions?

But let's take your absurd comparison in good faith: I don't care whether they have the "right" or not, I would oppose retaliation by a state on the merits of the situation. Again I will repeat my exasperation at the idea that one must have a rule that applies to all conflicts of speech uniformly without consideration of context or details of the conflict. No one here wants to grapple with the effects of hate speech on others, they simply want to ignore them, and that is completely irrational. Free speech absolutism is irrational and behaves like dogmatic religion.

[Turing_Machine]

You are missing the point.

Yarvin was disinvited because his political beliefs are threatening (and yes, several people used the word "threatened").

Therefore, communists should also be disinvited if anyone feels threatened.

Yes or no?

I mentioned nothing about "the state", by the way. Clearly Lambaconf is a private organization that can invite (or disinvite) anyone it wants.

I am asking why "feeling threatened" by Yarvin (who, as near as I can figure out --- there's no way I'm going to plow through all that turgid prose) is a political party of one, and who (again, as far as I know) has never actually harmed anyone, is a valid reason for disinvitation while feeling threatened by communists (who most assuredly have actually murdered millions of people) is not.

Do you have an answer to that or not?

I strongly suspect that you do not.

[thescribe]

Free speech that doesn't protect what you find loathsome is ineffective to the point of being worthless.

[danharaj]

Am I being unclear here? I don't believe in free speech. It's an inconsistent, dogmatic belief except as a legal principle, and governments purporting to honor that legal principle almost never respect it when they feel threatened by speech. I'm not claiming a moral high ground here. I'm exercising my speech, and I fully accept the consequences of my speech. It is precisely that my speech has consequences that makes it worth exercising.

[Turing_Machine]

Am I being unclear here? I don't believe in free speech.

No, I think you're being perfectly clear.

I, and many others, find your disbelief in free speech threatening (frankly, this attitude scares the hell out of me).

That would make it okay for us to prevent you from speaking in public or holding gainful employment? Yes? No? If not, why not?

[saryant]

His attitude frightens me too. Can we get him banned from conferences now?

/s

See the problem?