Hacker News Reader

Comment by voxl | Hacker News Reader

If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees.

If someone says they're a race realist and that they're going to make fun of all the black people in tech should they be banned? Not everyone agrees.

If someone analyzes IQ studies about race realism to highlight the flaws in methodology but doesn't outright condemn race realism should they be banned? No, everyone agrees.

To claim that its 1984 because we're trying to work out the fuzziness in the middle is absurd.

View on HN

If in one context someone expresses beliefs I find odious but they do not say odious things or behave improperly in another say tech conferences I think they ought to be able to come to a conference and talk about tech.

I don't say this because I want to help odious people but because I don't want other people judging me.

People have many different beliefs and it ought to be sufficient to respect one another rather than agree on all points.

What if merely not denouncing trumptards with sufficient vigor is sufficient to paint me as undesirable.

That's a fair fear to have and these are difficult questions.

But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities would die of terrible diseases to "cleanse" tech/the country/etc., but without calling for direct violence. It's an opinion. Would you be OK with me speaking at a conference and being given the associated prestige?

I would be totally OK with listening to your technical presentation. I'm not concerned with your other opinions. Or rather, I refuse to be forced by others to be concerned with your other opinions.

I'd listen to quality presentation on a technical subject that interests me even if the presenter was Hitler or Pol Pot.

I don't think I like the opinions of this Sarah Mei on Twitter, but I'd happily listen to her talk on another subject that does interest me.

Exactly this. And Robert Martin has made similar sentiments clear in prior discussions with her.

Would you still be as comfortable listening to a technical presentation by an advocate of violent ethnic cleansing of minorities if you yourself belonged to a targeted ethnic group?

Would you still be ok listening to “a quality presentation by Hitler” if you were Jewish and your grandparents died in the Holocaust?

Not the parent poster, but probably in a similar boat because I would be ok listening to "a quality presentation by Sarah Mei" even though I am considered a member of a group I have a creeping suspicion they would be quite happy to send to the "showers" if only the political climate allowed them to - and I'm very glad it doesn't! - and already had a number of relations get hounded out of society by their associates.

(Yes to the Hitler question too.)

Yes to both questions.

Hitler would have to be presenting something really outstanding to make it worth my while. Hitler and Pol Pot are extreme examples of mass murderers, of course. I'm resorting to such hyperbole to make a point: I'm not going to deny myself access to helpful information just because I can't stand the person offering it, nor do I believe it is reasonable to ask others to do so.

Operation Paperclip is a good example of this principle in practice involving actual Nazis.

Do you think your jewish, black or lgbt peers, for example, would answer the same? Would they also be comfortable with your "resorting to hyperboles to make a point"?

I'm not sure, I'll have ask if they're interested in Mein Fuhrer's Modern client side Javascript tutorial and get back to you.

Allow me to answer this question for you: As a Black man in tech (my skin crawls every time I have to make this clear i n these types of discussions because I absolutely DESPISE identity politics) I would answer the same. There, you have an answer from someone who's opinion carries more weight in this context because of the color of my skin. Also, Canada's great grandparent comment was less hyperbolic than yours.

Do you think Jews want the world to forget Hitler?

I'd wait for Hitler to finish presenting and then get a rope and hang him until dead. How we deal with extremes can be revelatory but often just muddies the water. For example here it introduces multiple novel elements that aren't present in the original example. The need for justice, personal threat, emotional involvement that nearly always destroys any hope of rational argument.

More importantly in America it can't be a moral crime to vote for the wrong side else we can't continue as a republic. Our country requires the ability to have regularly scheduled revolutions without being torn asunder.

The Republic is dead, there is no credible path forward that's going to continue it, in part because one side has stopped accepting the results of our "regularly scheduled revolutions" if they don't win. Which perhaps not counting G. H. W. Bush has been steadily more clear with each Republican Presidential election victory starting with Nixon before Watergate.

Sarah Jeong was actually _hired_ by the New York Times after tweeting the kind of vile language you are mentioning. So clearly it's not a problem for everyone. But I understand it's a whataboutism argument.

So my position is that organizations and individuals should, generally, be free to speak, and free to organize as they see fit (including hiring, or not, someone). Because it's the best way to minimize conflict.

I would agree with you, /except/ that we should also then hold organizations to their own standards, because if they violate them, it indicates that their proclaimed standards are disingenuous, and are covering for some other reason.

> If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees.

What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult.

> If someone analyzes IQ studies... everyone agrees.

Unfortunately, you're wrong again. Some radicals would want you banned for merely using the word "race", regardless of context.

> What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult.

Exactly what I was thinking. And frankly, I'd rather have someone post "Imma shoot up ur confrence" and get arrested because of that post than have them avoid Twitter and instead, yaknow, actually shoot up the conference.

Who needs laws when you can just ban people from using an ATM if they disagree with the values of a bank?

Huh, that's not where I'd have assumed those lines were.

* Yes, everyone agrees

* Almost everyone agrees on this one

* Not everyone agrees, but the public consensus seems like they'd probably be banned.

I guess we just live in different filter bubbles.

Banning 1/3 of the nation who voted for a horrible person from every participating every again in social society in any venue right thinking individuals run doesn't seem like a grey area. Twisting "safe space" to mean a space free of people who hold bad opinions instead of a space in which you can expect to share your thoughts without being treated poorly again doesn't seem very grey.

OK, but to imply that the response to the "fuzziness in the middle" should be the same as the response to an extreme violation is also absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com