[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?