I believe you are operating under the same principles of censorship AND punishment for ideas you do not agree with.
I'm sure you you strongly believe his are "obviously bad". But that's how people in the places above think too.
Now, it would have been very different if his political views were a topic of conversation at the conference but to the best of my knowledge aren't. So how do both of them tie up.
I do not know what your religion or denomination is (or if you have one) but I know a lot of people who will not let you work for them (say develop a website) if you do not in private believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and savior.
You are acting alike sir.
PS:
1. Would you act the same if it was a black dude that wrote the same thing/has the same ideas he has?
2. To what extent should he be ostracized? Can he get investment in your VC firm for a photo app? Get a job at your company managing servers? Open a bank account?
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
PPS: What he wrote is very very insulting and reprehensible to me and I'm sure many others.
I decline to answer your questions about hypotheticals (a black person who says the same thing, or a hypothetical VC firm, etc.). I believe these are interesting questions, but I do not believe that anyone can come up with a set of rules or laws that captures precisely the outcomes we wish to see; as a result, I retreat to a far less ambitious perspective, where I intend to deal with things like this on a case-by-case basis using empathy and common sense, taking the unique circumstances into account.
I hope that this helps, and I recognize that you may not agree with the choice that I made. But I did my best.
(I find slavery and support for such reprehensible. Such ideas should be openly confronted and countered directly by expressing superior ideas. For example, the idea that all human beings have inherent value and should not be subject to the use of force inherent in slavery.)
(While I'm criticizing ideas, I'll criticize a couple more: 1. It is deceptive to imply there is was some threat to the safety of attendees. (The linguistic sleight of hand of "physical and emotional safety" is the giveaway. It combines and attempts to equate two unlike things.) 2. The repeated references to "solidarity" are a dressed up form of tribalism, placing loyalty to "us" or "our team" over clear thinking. (It's the left's equivalent to how some on the right use "patriotism".))
The article in question mentions agreeing to willing slavery, i.e. without the use of force:
> Once we get this far, we are almost all the way to Carlyle on slavery. We have not agreed that a man can be born a slave, but we agree that he can sell himself into slavery. That is: he can sign a contract with a master in which the slave agrees unconditionally to obey and work for the master, and the master agrees unconditionally to protect and support the slave.
"My belief is that the nature of Sterling's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I do not believe someone can leave something like: "then you will enjoy hard labor in the North, after we send all the counterrevolutionaries there!" [1] at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do anything for our speakers and attendees who are not comfortable sharing a stage or a room with him. The job of an event organizer is to make sure that conditions are comfortable for the people who have entrusted the organizer with their safety."
The presence at a tech conference of an overt, unrepentant promoter and apologist for the brutality of Communism, is offensive, demeaning, and endangering to:
- Victims, and descendants of the victims, of Stalin's "Great Purge" [2]
- Victims, and descendants of the victims, of Mao's "Cultural Revolution" [3]
- All other victims of the failed experiments in Communism; which is to say: all experiments in Communism.
- All "counterrevolutionaries" who oppose further experiments with this irreparably broken ideology.
[1] http://imgur.com/rlqa73W [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
On HN you're more likely to get told that choosing to make your group more inclusive and accessible to people of color is tantamount to supporting blacklists and suppression, but rest assured that there are a lot of people who appreciate this kind of thing.
We have to get past this notion that there's something virtuous and inclusionary about protecting bigots by giving them the ability to benefit from your platform. This perpetuates the culture of disinclusion we're already saddled with... it shows that more people are willing to speak up for those beliefs than of any person of color who might feel uncomfortable with the presence of a person who thinks they are biologically inferior and entitled to less status as a human being.
And speaking up about that doesn't make you in support of doxing, quote decontextualizing, online harassment, threatening the employment of others, blacklists, criminalization of expression, pogroms, etc. The irony of the slippery slope argument is how often its wielded to make the community less friendly to real diversity.
There's a time and a place for that discussion, if you seriously want to spend time making sense of Yarvis' views in the first place. However, evaluating his proposal for a technical conference is not an adequate venue for reviewing and passing judgement on someone's broader world views.
I'm also not comfortable attempting to define exactly what degree of "unacceptable" Yarvis inhabits, or what line(s) exist that justify exclusion from professional conferences, but that's exactly what you're asking us to do.
Furthermore, you're asking us to accept a precedent of excluding those that hold views that the majority finds unsavory, as if there's not significant consistently negative historical precedent demonstrating the volatility and danger of doing exactly that.
From reading the link, I would assume that no "racist and fascist views" will be aired or otherwise expressed at the conference: it's a technical conference, it's against the pledge of conduct, and in addition the organizers sought out a public statement from the speaker "clearly stating the speaker’s views on violence," which they duly got. Do you not believe them?
One of the results of holding and espousing deeply racist views should be exclusion from society.
The argument was that the speaker's presence would threaten the "physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers." This appears to be completely unsupported by the facts.
Thanks for nothing
for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...
USSR:
"[We call for] painless but full liquidation of the monasteries, as chief centers of the influence of the churchmen, as nurseries of parasitism, as powerful screws in the exploiting machine of the old ruling classes."
USA:
"We will not knowingly employ a Communist ... In pursuing this policy, we are not going to be swayed by hysteria or intimidation from any source. We are frank to recognize that such a policy involves danger and risks. There is the danger of hurting innocent people. There is the risk of creating an atmosphere of fear. Creative work at its best cannot be carried on in an atmosphere of fear. We will guard against this danger, this risk, this fear."
"... We request Congress to enact legislation to assist American industry to rid itself of subversive, disloyal elements."
China:
"Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds, and stage a comeback."
"[Our] objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic “authorities” and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes"
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.
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."
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.
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.
[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...