I commented on a flagged post on why this is an issue for me personally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674958
This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. One is allowed to espouse any ideology that you wish. However, other people are allowed to respond with their own speech. They can call the idea racist if they want. They can take away speaking platforms if they want.
Whether a statement is "racist" is a determination made by the current social taboos and mores of a society. I think there are a lot of terrible ideologies out there, and I like that we don't have to give them equal platforms. The free marketplace of ideas means we don't have to "teach the controversy" and give both sides "equal opportunity for debate".
Which is great. There are plenty of people who's methods and ideas I so disagree with that I don't think it's worth my time to listen to them (neo-nazis, members of the Westboro Baptist Church).
Ideally, it operates like the free market of ideas.
In practice, it tends to offer a disproportionate amount of power to those who are most easily offended, and provides them with a de facto "hecklers' veto" over people with views outside the mainstream.
In the Moldbug case, some people wre "so genuinely offended" by the prospect of him speaking (or even being present at the conference) that they were willing to request that his talk offer be revoked. This was the case even when the subject of his talk is completely unrelated to his controversial politics. (Most people would probably agree that a technical conference is the wrong venue for him to speak about his controversial politics.)
Would most people attending the conference have known about his politics if there weren't this outcry to bring publicity? Unlikely. This was a deliberate message to alienate and exclude those with conservative politics from the tech industry.
Let me also emphasize that no one disputes that strangeloop has the legal right to do this. The discussion is simply over whether the strangeloop organizers are a bunch of anti-intellectuals who deserve to be in the spotlight for their decisions.
[1] http://blog.jessitron.com/2015/06/ultratestable-coding-style...
> "wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology"
For me, it comes down to how they express their opinions in the public sphere.
This matters a lot. If someone develops a persona known for lobbing rhetorical grenades, making ad hominem attacks, or is unnecessarily mean or negative, then I don't have a problem holding them out of a conference — even if I agree with their viewpoints.
If they, on the other hand tend to behave in a reasonable way, and are capable of having calm and rational debates, then I would want to see them included in the conference — even if I disagree with their viewpoints.
Specifically, I'm imagining a degenerate case where there's a norm of killing people who do X, as well as people who don't kill people who do X, as well as people who advocate making the anti-X policy more lenient.
My point is that we can end up in a bad situation that nobody is better off trying to fix. We're arguably in this situation right now with excessive punishment of "sex crimes".
> "support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea."
If I had infinite time on this planet, I'd agree with you. However, my time is extremely limited. It's the most precious resource I have, so I have to aggressively consider the opportunity cost of listening to every person.
It's more valuable to me to have a debate with someone I disagree with rather than someone I agree with. However, if someone has reached a conclusion that I find to be shockingly suspect ("all foreigners are terrible people"; "protest the funerals of homosexual service-members"), I am not going to spend time listening to any aspects of that person's reasoning.
So, due to my limited time, I'm now punishing this person for expressing their ideas on a specific topic. How does the game-theory deal with the trade-offs of finite time and the opportunity cost of listening to specific speakers?
In short, I'm encouraging you to ignore the crank, but not censor him from talking about context-relevant topics.
You are quite correct that people can boycott or pressure for no-platform if they want to. Who on earth would benefit from forced contact? What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to do that. Further, that when that does happen, those who disagree speak up about it.
I don't like how this argument generalizes.
For example, I am a strong opponent of the labor situation in Qatar as it relates to the World Cup. I want FIFA to either relocate venues or force Qatar to immediately improve their labor practices. Yet, I have no leverage over FIFA, so instead I decide to boycott FIFA's sponsors (Coke, Nike, and Adidas).
Now I'm actively punishing those companies because of their speech. And I'm doing it purely because it's my only way to attempt to change the behavior of an actor two-steps removed from them.
So, now I'd like one of two things:
- Help me find the lines for legitimate boycotts, or
- Help me determine why my boycott of Coke, Nike, and Adidas is a poor decision
I did tell Coke and Adidas.
I know several people who think they are boycotting Coca-Cola but are extremely ineffective in managing to do so. Although Coke might be disappointed by the damage to their core brand, they might be less than disappointed when you choose their more profitable products as an alternative.
Good luck!
Any group almost by definition has the right to define policies and police its membership, for any cause (including irrational). No group owes you the right of membership.
I think this is Alex Miller’s decision.
Let’s say that people on HN decide that they don’t want to attend any conference that has a Code of Conduct, because that interferes with their “right to free speech.”
If a conference organizer decides that HN is enough of a market that they tear up their CoC, that’s their decision. We don’t say that somehow, they have less free will because of the actions of HN. Their options aren’t limited. They chose to do something that involved HN.
If Alex doesn’t like this kind of controversy, Alex can stop running conferences. Sure there are actions by all sorts of players in a complex world, but the buck for every decision stops somewhere, and in this case, it stops with Alex.
For example, we can praise Obama for listening to scientists on certain matters, than complain he is caving under lobbying pressure on others.
In the end, I prefer to say that it is Alex’s decision. He didn’t crumble, succumb, get browbeaten, or anything else. He decided, and that means you can hang the responsibility around his neck.
People who can’t decide shouldn’t run things, it’s that simple.
How can you possibly know that? People have lost their jobs and have been forced out of their own companies for less than allowing somebody who other people might consider "racist", "sexist" or "homophobic" to talk at their conference. You can't be aware that these things have happened to other people and say that it doesn't influence the decision.
Once it was brought to his attention, the decision Alex faced was either let Curtis go on and eventually be forced out of his own conference or disinvite him and strengthen the atmosphere of political compliance. I think he made the right short term choice for him, which is all you can realistically expect people to do, but in the long term allowing this sort of thing to persist will come and bite him in the ass.
The longer this goes on, the more radical you need to be to not become victim to the political correctness mob. In the end, if you're a straight white male, you will fall prey to it because you're not a protected class. You can see this playing out in video games, movies and SF&F publishing right now. Joss Whedon and Wil Wheaton especially are vocal feminists who have taken a beating by feminists because their views aren't extreme enough.
So I’ll just step off here.