Hacker News Reader

Comment by FeepingCreature | Hacker News Reader

> These "internet activists" you spend so much effort maligning are simply reminding you that there is a human being on the other side of that screen.

Actually, primarily they're reminding me that there's a human being on the other side of the screen watching everything I do in case I fuck up. How this is supposed to make anyone want to participate is a mystery to me.

edit: The weird thing to me is that these people are so hyper-vigilant to the damage bad behavior can do, and utterly blind to the idea that their own behavior can also be damaging. If I ever read a sentence like "we know that overmoderation and tone-policing can create toxic communities, and we're watching out for that" from a moderation team, I will know that this is a community that I can trust to be administered in an even-handed and fair manner. So far I have seen this once.

View on HN

What is a "fuck up" to you?

Well, the question is rather- what is a "fuck up" to them?

And to that- who knows? Certainly the point of a CoC is supposed to be to codify this, but I believe experience shows that its interpretation tends to be expansive, when the wording is not already expansive to begin with.

At the end of the day, events like Curtis Yarvin, a person who has never harmed a fly, almost getting banned from Lambdaconf over "safety" concerns, demonstrate that the fuck-up may just be having a political difference of opinion with the group in question.

(Analogously, and I say this as somebody who would vote Dems every time if they lived in the US, a moderation team that included at least one Trump voter would also assuage such concerns. Consider it a commitment to diversity.)

edit: To be clear, I am not asking for anything resembling quotas; just any demonstration of the ability of the team to coexist with a person they have serious ideological disagreements with.

I wasn't familiar with Curtis Yarvin, but in looking him up, you can't be serious, right?

>Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, convey blatantly racist views. He expresses the belief that white people are genetically endowed with higher IQs than black people. He has suggested race may determine whether individuals are better suited for slavery, and his writing has been interpreted as supportive of the institution of slavery.

https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obs...

You're upset that a Eugenics-lite writer was almost banned from a conference?

I just disagree that standing in his presence is a matter of safety for anyone. It's possible to hold abhorrent views and still be a useful contributor.

It is hyperbole

Not evil, an exaggeration but still: would you want to be in the presence of some body so bigoted? Who thought you inferior because because because?

Yes? They might have other useful ideas or opinions that I may benefit from being exposed to. People are multidimensional.

If there is a conference being organized about some technology, I'd like to see speakers who have the most to contribute, on that merit only. I couldn't care less if they march around with armbands on in their spare time. I'm suggesting that more people learn to compartmentalize.

To me, if they can keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. Up to and including that I shouldn't have been born, though I may draw a line at believing I should be killed, depending on how mentally stable I believe them to be.

I am completely serious.

Curtis Yarvin is a bellwether - the sort of person that any group that starts excluding people for ideological disagreements, would probably exclude first precisely because his position is so problematic. So any group that accepts his technical contribution can obviously be trusted to tolerate any less-severe ideological disagreement. Conversely, any group that doesn't, especially when they have to make up nonexistent concerns to do it because their rules didn't cover this "obvious" reason to kick someone out and couldn't be hastily adjusted, must be viewed with caution.

I personally don't hold any beliefs nearly as objectionable as that. But I do hold objectionable beliefs - as I believe any halfway interesting person does. And those who don't, probably will eventually. Just stand by your convictions and give it time.

See also LambdaConf's conclusion on why they should allow him to participate anyway: https://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion I agree with this article fully.

>I am not asking for anything resembling quotas; just any demonstration of the ability of the team to coexist with a person they have serious ideological disagreements with.

That would be nice... unfortunately, filter bubbles are such that it's hard for most people just to locate a reasonable person who has serious ideological disagreements with them. The current polarisation didn't happen in a vacuum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com