It isn't. The manner in which it was evoked in the above comment was rude and dismissive, and that's the problem.
Incidentally, I'm irritated by Klabnik's politics. But I don't find them disqualifying. I am not so sure about Yarvin's. Can I reliably articulate why I think that's fair? No, I don't think so. And I can live with that.
I can live with his discomfort too (tbh), but the fact remains a lot of people are saying "Urbit is finished as a project after this" and they may be right; but even if Yarvin is a huge racist and deserves to be no-platformed (which, at least to my satisfaction, is not established), Urbit is now bigger than him, and it has been for near two years.
There are other contributors and they are tangibly harmed by this action, now and in the future. I think they will get over it. But I would guesstimate that overwhelmingly most of them are not interested in Moldbug or his politics, and they (we?) are also casualties of this shitstorm.
What does "no-platformed" mean? Invitation to a private conference is not like academic tenure. It's done at the pleasure of the conference organizers. This one chose not to open their venue to Yarvin. Even Yarvin doesn't seem too alarmed.
I think a lot of this is just people want their drama fix.
(There's a different pathology that makes me want to write about it. I'm aware, it doesn't need to be pointed out, but thanks in advance.)
I am talking about SK, who has never attended strangeloop and admits he did not have any plans to go this year either, who was literally shouting "no platform for fascists" from his twitter account in the immediate time prior to the publicizing of the news of un-invitation.
That's what it means. Not just him, of course, but por ejemplo, and since you asked. If we ever do see Curtis invited to speak at any more conferences, I think we can also expect a repeat performance from the internet mobs.
The manner that SK evoked CY's politics has not only been rude but literally dismissive - resulting in the cancellation of an interesting technical talk.
This boils down to personal politics - I only see one camp forcibly silencing another.
Klabnik in that post seems to be advocating anarchism, which Marx struggled for decades to expunge from the socialist movement. I'm not that familiar with Klabnik's politics, but having skimmed that piece I would be surprised to learn he was actually Communist.
Incidentally, I'm irritated by Klabnik's politics. But I don't find them disqualifying. I am not so sure about Yarvin's. Can I reliably articulate why I think that's fair? No, I don't think so. And I can live with that.