Hacker News Reader

Comment by iandanforth | Hacker News Reader

A reminder to anyone who finds themselves in this kind of situation, do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules. So here, where they question whether or not they were "protesting" distracts from the reality of a censorious organization that will weaponize regulations it controls without good faith. Instead you need a simple, memorable statement of condemnation which is repeated consistently and a clear action which those who hear it can take in response.

"This organization is controlled by Trump loyalists. They are not scientists. You do not owe them respect. Speak over them. Let no manipulation go unchallenged or derided."

View on HN

> do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules

Strongly disagree. If they went straight up partisan at the conference, I’d be sympathetic to the notion of throwing them out. Not every space needs to be a protest venue.

They didn’t do that. They distributed an article published in the organization’s own journal. They argue why what they did cannot reasonably be considered “protest” under the organisation’s rules, given it’s literally what the conference is for. Challenging the notion that their ejection was the ADA following its own rules is the difference between them breaking the rules and the ADA breaking its own rules to censor their speech. (To cut off an aside, no the ADA isn’t bound by the First Amendment. Yes, the government is, and if they’re corruptly influencing to yank these researchers from the conference, that’s a legal issue. But more broadly, the concept of free speech is broader than the First Amendment.)

The point being that we're beyond where that's a responsible choice. Empathy for an organization enforcing its rules above the actions of those protesting them means either an ideological alignment with the censorship or an ignorance/disbelief of the severity of the harm the organization is causing. The former audience will never be persuaded. The latter require education and persuasion, and while its useful to create a sense of martyrdom via forcing the enemy to act in an obviously unreasonable fashion, it's a waste of time to argue with their definitions of rules. If the rule were "you are not allowed to say the governing body is corrupt" and they say its corrupt, that exposes clearly and plainly the problem, and enforcement of the rule provides no authority because the rule itself is obviously designed to quash dissent. If the listener is so blithely oblivious to how the intent of a rule has been manipulated to quash dissent, as it has here, then there is no loss in squarely addressing that. "We are protesting your abandonment of scientific principles" is both what they were doing and should be doing.

> means either an ideological alignment with the censorship

Yes. I’m saying I would be ideologically aligned with censoring disruptive protest at a conference. The fact that they didn’t do that is why this is getting attention and sympathy.

> The former audience will never be persuaded

Literally me. I’m being persuaded.

> while its useful to create a sense of martyrdom

Usually only within the group. Exhibit A is all the employee protests at tech companies. Entirely useless and generally unsympathetic to anyone not already in the choir.

> "We are protesting your abandonment of scientific principles" is both what they were doing and should be doing

Sure. Not at the conference. (Like, I’m sure being ejected for traditionally protesting would rank well on BlueSky and sympathetic parts of X. But it wouldn’t be on HN. And I wouldn’t have bothered reading their article if I figure I already know what will be in it.)

Ah, ok. There's a whole body of literature here that I think divides our opinions. I would recommend "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (Columbia Studies in Terrorism and Irregular Warfare)" to start. The history of effective change in the face of organizations acting in bad faith may not be what you think it is.

Hasn’t the author of that study called out falling success rates for those tactics in recent years? (The N% rule researcher.)

Everything is a partisan space now.

Because the fascists made it so.

Anywhere you try to declare an apolitical space is just a place where silence is serving the oppressor.

Right. This is sort of what I would be sympathetic with a diabetes-conference organizer drawing the line on, and why I suspect they’ve had a no-protest code of conduct for years.

Do you support engaging in straw mans? And if the rhetoric of the enemy is a straw man? You seem to be saying you encourage engaging with a straw man.

I’d disagree with trying to make it political. If it’s just about funding, plenty of people are happy the grant spigot is being turned off.

Something that may resonate with a broader spectrum is how science requires debate and polite disagreement. Good ideas can survive being pressure tested. Compelling consensus has terrible long-term outcomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com