Poll: Should conferences allow talks by those whose politics they don't support? | Hacker News Reader

Poll: Should conferences allow talks by those whose politics they don't support?

60 pointsnkurz60 comments

The conference Strangeloop recently rescinded their acceptance of a talk by Curtis Yarvin, who previously published a "neoreactionary" blog under the pseudonym "Mencius Moldbug": http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/

Without (particularly) disputing the technical merit of this talk, some attendees and concerned onlookers objected to his participation in the conference because of the personal and political beliefs expressed on Yarvin's blog, in particular accusing him of promoting racist theories.

Was this a good decision? Should conferences have "standards of acceptable behavior" whereby speakers are not allowed to speak if they have previously violated these standards?

It appears to me that most of the discussion on HN so far has generally been in support of Strangeloop's decision. But given that public support of an accused racist might lead to career or social repercussions (or at least the lack of invitations to speak at similar conferences) it seems possible that the sampling is significantly biased.

While some bias is inevitable, I wonder if a more anonymous poll would show the same result. Please presume for the sake of this poll that the speaker will focus the talk on the technical topic to the extent possible. Also presume that the question is what the conference "should" do, and not what is legally required of them.

View on HN

I am highly opposed to this kind of screening, mainly because there's no objective measure of what "decent" speech is. There are highly politicized topics - think abortion rights - where the "common sense, decent" opinions on either side seem like radical extremism to the other.

There is literally not an opinion you can hold that won't offend a significant portion of attendees. Do you believe in global warming? You might seem to be an environmentalist whacko to the conservatives in the audience. Vocally support second amendment rights on Twitter? Some liberals might think you're a dangerous gun nut. Believe that misandry and reverse racism are real? A good chunk of the crowd will believe you're sexist and racist. Don't believe that they're real? Another group will think you're a hardline SJW weirdo.

I have no idea about the political opinions of most of the people I've seen speak. Maybe they'd be my best friend in real life, or maybe they're despicable. I don't know; I don't care. I'm not endorsing or condoning their personal opinions by listening to and benefitting from their technical experience in the subjects I'm interested in.

there are no objective measures for what a good topic for a talk would be either. why should a measure necessarily be objective?

"Is this talk on-topic and appropriate to the target technical level" is much more well-defined than whether unrelated political views are "good".

Should a tech conference in San Francisco eschew Republicans? Would it be OK if a con in Topeka shunned Democrats? And would either serve the greater public good of mixing people with different beliefs together so they can find common ground and open communication channels?

As it has been pointed out my many comedians, they intolerance of college campuses has become too burdensome to even bother with. Even some college professors and adjuncts have posted similar problems.

We have entered an era of selfishness. Where nothing is permitted to annoy the individual. We have moved beyond groups taking to shouting down they oppose; they still do; to where now the "feelings" of individuals are enough to silence speech. In groups defined as liberal it has to be the about as opposite as you can get from the definition.

Yes there are people who say stupid things, but that does not remove value from all their thoughts. Who needs the government thought police when the current generation wants that role?

In the same vein, if you as a conference organizer don't want to deal with the drama that an attendee might bring, you should have every right to exercise your freedom to deny speakers. The same people who would criticize you for being racist will criticize you for screening racists from speaking. There is no winning in these situations.

I personally value individual freedom over anything else. If you want to be a bigot and make people uncomfortable, or run around naked and make people uncomfortable, you should have every right to. Just as people have the right to not like you because you are doing things that make them uncomfortable.

> to where now the "feelings" of individuals are enough to silence speech

This is a straw man. People protest against hate speech not because of feelings, but because hate speech is believed to cause harm.

Either it is the case that hate speech is harmful (e.g. contributes to hateful actions, contributes to subconscious prejudice, etc) or hate speech is harmless (only feelings are hurt, but there are no other negative consequences).

So we're dealing with an empirical claim about the world. Social science departments can -- and do -- research this. Dismissing an entire field of research as "feelings" is unhelpful.

> This is a straw man. People protest against hate speech not because of feelings, but because hate speech is believed to cause harm.

I think the point was that my hate speech is often your rational, logical opinion (and vice versa). There's a lot of stuff that almost everyone can agree is horrible - when you get into extremes like burning crosses, not many people will argue for it - but the concept of hate speech is often diluted to the point of absurdity in common speech. I've personally all too frequently heard and read people define "hate speech" as "speech disapproving of my behavior or political views". I mean, I've heard sincere rants that supporting gay marriage is anti-religious hate speech. No one but the ranter was likely to agree with him, but there you have it.

It's true that many things are considered hate speech today, that weren't considered hate speech 20 years ago. Gay slurs, misogynistic slurs, ableist slurs, and so on. I absolutely don't consider this dilution to the point of absurdity, though.

Yes, the gay marriage example is silly. It's just a classic swicheroo: "They say WE practice hate speech, therefore we'll argue THEY practice hate speech. We're so clever!". It's asinine, because you can apply this kind of inversion to anything.

It's not like society is in any way suffering because people are becoming less tolerant of hate speech. The government doesn't jail people for saying politically incorrect things (that would be terrible). It's just that politically incorrect speech gets stigmatized. That's progress.

What constitutes "hate speech"? I understand and agree with your point regarding speech that is literally advocating violent action against an individual or group, but what about speech that e.g. claims that there is no sexism in tech, or that the evidence a university student committed a rape is not so good, or that such-and-such culture does not promote personal achievement, and so on? You may disagree with these claims, but do they qualify as "hate speech"?

In other words:

> contributes to hateful actions, contributes to subconscious prejudice, etc

How much does the speech have to contribute to these, before it's declared out of bounds? Does even the first paragraph of this post qualify? Is any amount intolerable (ignoring for a moment that "contributes to subconscious prejudice" seems to apply to literally any statement with a truth value at all)? What if the amount it contributes is so small, the speech so nearly benign, that any harm it might do is almost certainly outdone by the harm done by censoring it in the first place?

It seems very difficult to get precise, actionable answers to these questions out of anybody. And precise, actionable answers are what's needed, because while nebulous reasoning is probably sufficient for an individual to decide "this person is an asshole and I don't like him and don't want to interact with him", it's generally a bad idea for large groups (conference organizers, university administrations, legislatures) to do the same, because there is a big difference between having an opinion about a person and making rules for people.

We probably don't want to find ourselves in a situation where nobody wants to give their personal opinion about anything controversial at all.

Where the boundaries are drawn is a matter of linguistics. That's not all that interesting to me. I think the important question is the extent to which marginalized groups are marginalized, and the extent to which the public discourse contributes to that marginalization.

I think the evidence is fairly one-sided, so I treat claims about certain cultures not promoting personal achievement with as much disdain as phrenology.

Issues like sexism in tech, campus rape, etc are covered extensively in social science departments everywhere. Stricter enforcement of political correctness should not impede these discussions. And it doesn't, mostly. Of course, internet discussions often turn into shouting matches, and then political correctness can be used as a club. That's not good, but unproductive internet debates aren't a new thing.

it is the rare human indeed who doesn't seen the evidence leading to their opinions as one-sided. it's probably more common to find people who are willing to silence opposition so they can find the evidence even more so.

I'm sorry to hear that the boundaries themselves are not interesting to you, since you seem to have some opinions about policy itself, which ought to be informed as much as possible by actual facts. If a governing or organizing body at any level hopes to address these issues, I would hope they are very interested in where the boundaries should be drawn, and why they should be drawn there.

My bad, I think I misunderstood your previous post.

It doesn't matter to me whether certain behavior is called "hate speech" or something else. I also don't mind that the meaning of words changes over time. That's mere linguistics.

I do care about the the trade-off between preventing harm and stifling expression. However, I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where social science is hampered because certain ideas can no longer be expressed without any consequence. If there's harm being done, then where is the evidence of that harm? And if we're not close to crossing that line yet, what's the big deal?

There have always been rules about what you can and cannot say on TV, in newspapers, and on college campuses. Cliquish, cultish and insular behavior is the default. You don't get fired for recommending IBM and you don't get in hot water for agreement with the status quo. This has always been the case, and stricter PC rules won't really make an impact here. But PC rules help clamp down on casual racism/sexism/etc, and so contribute to a more inclusive environment.

Besides, who's more likely to get in trouble? The employee who claims political correctness is overblown nonsense, or the employee who keeps complaining about sexual harassment/racist jokes? The latter is career suicide. So who's fighting for their right to free speech? They're just addressing blatantly illegal behavior, after all. And yet the silence is deafening. Because apparently people should be able to say that sexism in tech isn't real without consequence, but complaints about sexism in tech get you shunned like you wouldn't believe, and nobody cares.

You're effectively arguing that's it's all relative, therefore any political opinion is tolerable. Even though this has never been the case.

There would be so much outrage if vindictive prosecutors (like Carmen Ortiz) or patent trolls would get to speak at Strange Loop. Think about it for a second. It's utterly inconceivable they would be allowed in, no matter the technical merit of their hypothetical talk.

Shunning people like Moldbug is really no different. People with such abhorrent views shouldn't get a platform or the effective endorsement from the tech community.

I think that political opinions not related to the conference are irrelevant. I'd draw the distinction that Ortiz's and Darl McBride's actions actively oppose the thing that the conference is about: technology and innovation.

It's reasonable not to invite a hog farmer to a vegan conference, but I don't think it would be right to kick him out of a hog farming convention because he also happens to be pro-choice.

I agree with the general sentiment that someone's technical experience should in almost all cases be able to be presented independent of their political views but I would append to that the following: "but conferences can do whatever they like providing it is lawful".

Conferences are not public services. They're private endeavours; they should be able to pick and choose who they want to speak. If the speakers have a background they disagree with, or disagree with values they promote, so be it. The idea that a talk is only seen in light of the technical merits is utter nonsense, particularly for politically volatile talks. I've seen any number of good talks by no-names that get ignored, and more than a few by famous figures that were mundane yet accoladed, for example, before we even get to volatility.

Ultimately, if a speaker feels unfairly done by, they can always organise their own conferences (this can and does happen). It turns out that organising a conference is quite difficult, and it's demoralising to have all your hard work trumped by some grandstanding idiot, so it's also understandable that organisers don't want to deal with political sideshows.

The issue is moreso in how the conference itself is perceived. By taking a line like this, it becomes perceived not just as a technical conference, but one that's aligned for/against a particular external agenda.

I don't think it's a good idea for conferences which are normally a discussion ground for some particular topic to grow tendrils outside that topic. (Note that 'not a good idea' means it's still ultimately up to them)

> The idea that a talk is only seen in light of the technical merits is utter nonsense

If it's a technical conference, then a talk should be seen only in the light of its technical merits. A technical conference that allows political agendas unrelated to the technical issues to determine what gets talked about is a useless technical conference.

> particularly for politically volatile talks

If it's a technical conference, the talks shouldn't be politically volatile, because they shouldn't be about political issues. A technical conference that's full of talks that are politically volatile is a useless technical conference.

You simply can't separate out politics like this. Wherever humans interact, you have politics. Human interaction does not exist without politics. It's chasing a pipe dream to say that a talk can be given free of politics. Often everyone shares the same politics, so it's not a problem, but politics simply can't be hived off like that. This isn't to say that everything needs to be political; it's just that you can't eliminate politics by decree.

A technical conference that's full of talks that are politically volatile is a useless technical conference.

... I don't think you understand what I was getting at. I was defending the rights of conference organisers to stop that from happening. One way to do this is by not signing on controversial technical figures.

I really don't understand what you're trying to get across to me - that somehow you will have a politics-free technical conference by ignoring the political environment surrounding your speakers? Humans just don't work that way... as is evident by what happens when technical conferences ignore the political environment surrounding their speakers.

> You simply can't separate out politics like this.

Wrong pronoun, you mean "I." Most people have no problem interacting with people having terrible political beliefs.

No, I meant the rhetorical 'you', and now I mean 'you, SamReidHughes', because it's clear that you don't understand human politicking.

Did you notice that I did not say "terrible political beliefs", I just said 'politics', making no value judgement? You're putting words in my mouth to put me in my place, but I'm not accepting it. You're not attacking the merits of what I said, but distorting it into something that's easy to attack. Right here, this is politics in action.

So yes, you personally, SamReidHughs, demonstrably have trouble separating politics from technical merit.

If you want other examples, just have a look at any time an article about technical abilities comes up here on HN when the person is Jobs or Stallman or Torvalds. Most of the discussion goes political, with little in the way of technical comment on what they might be talking about.

> Wherever humans interact, you have politics.

> This isn't to say that everything needs to be political

So which is it? Either humans can talk about technical issues without getting bogged down in irrelevancies like the speaker's political views on topics unrelated to the technical issue, or they can't. If they can't, then technical issues will not get solved. I don't dispute that this can happen; I just dispute that it has to happen. Technical issues have gotten solved, which means humans are capable of putting aside irrelevant political differences. But apparently not all the time.

> I was defending the rights of conference organisers to stop that from happening.

No, you were defending the rights of conference organizers to not allow someone to speak on a technical issue that has nothing to do with whatever political views they have espoused in other venues. The speaker that was prohibited was not proposing to speak about his political views; he was proposing to speak about a technical issue that has nothing to do with his political views. So whatever the conference organizers thought they were doing, they were not preventing a politically volatile talk from happening.

> Humans just don't work that way... as is evident by what happens when technical conferences ignore the political environment surrounding their speakers.

Examples, please?

You're presenting a false dichotomy, being either 'political maelstrom' or 'zero politics'. Politics is not binary like that; it's not a "which is it" situation. Likewise, being able to deal with an issue isn't a binary either, as there are many levels of dealing with something. You're misreading me totally if you think I'm saying it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility (and frankly, putting words in my mouth).

> No, you were defending the rights of conference organizers...

Once again, for the cheap seats: there's no such thing as a talk free of politics. Just because the seminar content itself is not political doesn't mean that there's no politics involved. If the conference organisers don't want to be associated with a technically proficient but politically bigoted speaker, why should they be shamed into accepting the speaker? Why does the freedom of expression of the speaker trump the freedom of expression of the conference organisers? As I said, conferences are not public services.

Put another way: If I was to organise a conference (and all the work that entails), it'd be a cold fucking day in hell before I would be shamed by stealth bigots who try to cow me into taking a speaker who I found repulsive, personally or politically. It's my damn conference, and I'm trying to present a certain theme in a certain context. Random speakers don't have the right to have their freedom of expression exerted over my freedom of expression - at my conference, I am the big dog. Other people are free to hold their own conferences. If potential speakers want to be bigot in a way I have a problem with, well, that's one of the social costs they pay for having those opinions. Diddums.

Inviting speakers also carries a professional association with that speaker - again, the idea that politics doesn't matter for a seminar is false. There are a ton of speakers out there; who you choose does have an affect on your own reputation.

And keep in mind that most conference talks are not locked-in when the speaker is invited. The organisers frequently don't even have a title for a speaker's talk when the invites go out, let alone the content. How, then, are organisers meant to invite on seminar-merit-free-of-reputation?

> Examples, please?

You've been on HN for four years now, surely you can remember some. Given that I've now had to re-explain my position three times, I'll leave this history search to you.

> You're presenting a false dichotomy, being either 'political maelstrom' or 'zero politics'.

No, I'm presenting a distinction between a technical talk and a political talk.

> You're misreading me totally if you think I'm saying it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility

But you apparently think that it's impossible to have a seminar without political volatility if Curtis Yarvin gives a technical talk and never mentions his political views once. That seems both unreasonable and stupid to me.

> If the conference organisers don't want to be associated with a technically proficient but politically bigoted speaker, why should they be shamed into accepting the speaker?

Because they're stupid to exclude him based on his political views when he has something technically valuable to contribute and isn't going to talk about his political views, only about the technical issues. Sure, it's their conference, so they get to decide who speaks; but that doesn't mean their decision about who gets to speak is automatically a smart one. The conference is supposed to be about technical issues; if you exclude people with technically valuable contributions based on their political views, when they don't even intend to talk about those views, you're reducing the technical value of the conference. What kind of sense does that make? And why shouldn't people who are interested in the technical value of the conference express their opinion that the conference organizers are making a stupid decision that reduces that technical value?

> How, then, are organisers meant to invite on seminar-merit-free-of-reputation?

By asking the speakers in general terms what they propose to talk about. You don't need a word by word transcript of a speaker's talk to know whether he's going to talk about a technical subject or about his political views.

No choice satisfies me. I believe conferences are free to disallow any speaker for any reason. I also believe that bowing to such light pressure from non-involved people is, in a word, disgusting. If Alex Miller disinvited Curtis for personal reasons I would be vastly more accepting than I am of this spineless backfiring debacle.

Edit: missing words

The rising contradiction of our times is that those that would tolerate dissent allow those that will not tolerate dissent to suppress the dissent that the tolerant would allow.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity."

Ah, the Paradox of Tolerance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I think the question can be generally answered from a legal and absolute morale standpoint, if you believe in such:

1.) Is the thing the person wants a general right?

2.) Is the organization important enough, that discriminating would mean, the person would not be able to adequately exercise his or her right?

In this case: While freedom of speech is, attending a conference is not a right and he could always attend another conference. Conferences should be able to have an agenda (for example empowering minorities in tech) and that agenda could very well conflict with the believe of a this person.

My conclusion: While different opinions are great, a conference can do whatever it wants unless it is the only (maybe state regulated) in a certain field.

I have a similar view on hiring regulations for companies.

> I have a similar view on hiring regulations for companies.

Please explain what you mean by that, because on first reading it sounds like you're advocating something that is explicitly illegal under employment law.

I think the smallest companies should be able to hire basically anyone they want by measures they determine solely on their own. The bigger the company gets the more it can be told who to hire.

I would even argue, that smaller companies should be able to hire based on gender/sex if they wanted to. I am for diversity and would personally hire diverse if I had the chance to, but if a woman decides to hire 5 other women to start her small business, even though 5 better male candidates exists, I am fine with that. There is no right to get a job at a particular company. Not hiring these 5 men does only marginally discriminate them and lower their chances to get a job, because she could only hire 5 of them anyway. In this case I would value the right of the woman to choose who she wants to pay for work higher than the rights of the men.

What you should not be able to do is hire 100 female workers instead of 100 better male workers, because that way you would substantially violate their right to get treated equally and lower their chances to get a job.

I know, that this view conflicts with protecting minorities in some cases. Even though in most cases the right thing to do is the better thing to do anyway. Rules can be bent if you have enough lawyers. In the above example, you do not need one: Just write the requirements for the candidate you want to hire.

It is my opinion that when different rights or interests conflict in human interaction it should only be regulated if 2. from the parent comment applies. I can always make up some weird hypothetical scenario where a regulation could hinder me or someone else, but ultimately, my reason for this is probably just the love for simple systems.

> I would even argue, that smaller companies should be able to hire based on gender/sex if they wanted to.

We had that and it was a terrible weapon against minorities. Fortunately, over 50 years ago we decided that this is a horrible way to treat our brothers and sisters and made it illegal. I, for one, do not want us to return to the Good Old Days where bosses were free to hire and fire based on irrelevant physical and political differences.

If a conference wants to exclude people for expressing political views, written under a pseudonym, in a deliberately obscurant way, that was playing a role of devils advocate and provocateur (which may or may not reflect actual views), then the censor should at least have the decency to define where the line is, and provide a process for recanting views to get back in the good graces of society. Every sane inquisition operates under such a principle. Otherwise, you just end up making everyone scared and uncertain because they don't know what the rules are.

and provide a process for recanting views to get back in the good graces of society

The conference isn't the actor here, rather the sans-culottes who, among other things, have the power to damage or destroy the conference and the careers of those organizing it.

Otherwise, you just end up making everyone scared and uncertain because they don't know what the rules are.

Which is explicitly a goal of a lot of those sans-culottes (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9696162), so that's not a bug, its a feature.

By inviting people like Yarvin to speak a clear signal is sent: people with bigoted beliefs are welcome in the conference. This makes the minorities Yarvin rails against feel unwelcome.

There is no opting out of this kind of signaling. Either the conference is welcoming to marginalized groups in tech (and therefore shuns people who are intolerant), or the inverse.

So the best option is to tell neoreactionaries to get lost. This means we lose out on a potentially meritorious technical talk, but finding a replacement speaker isn't that difficult.

Absolutely.

More than one out of eight Americans is black. So if you look at Strange Loop's dozens of speakers for 2015, you'd expect on the basis of random statistics that at least one of eight was black. Of course, this is not the case.

With regards to Strange Loop, blacks are already marginalized. The organizers could have done one better and invited prolifically racist speakers to speak at this Cisco-sponsored event. They thankfully chose not to.

Strange Loop is already a conference which marginalizes blacks. Inviting openly racist speakers would just underline that.

I agree about your point about black people being very marginalized, but Strange Loop is -- as far as I can tell -- making a serious effort to have a diverse group of speakers: http://www.thestrangeloop.com/2015/sessions.html

I don't buy this. I think it's entirely possible to give someone a platform to express their views on a specific topic without implying that you endorse their views on all other matters.

For example, the NYT invited Putin to write an Op-Ed column on Syria:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau...

Does that mean they tacitly endorse Putin's past statements on LGBT rights? Of course not.

This makes the minorities Yarvin rails against feel unwelcome.

According to Urban Dictionary, "to rail" means in this context means: "To irrationally attack someone verbally, with intent to destroy their reputation, belief, persona, or work."

Moldbug does not does not irrationally want to attack/destroy minorities in general. Heck, he is more for affirmative action than many mainstream conservatives are. His philosophy of passivism is less likely to cause intolerance than many other political writings. He explicitly says there is no reason to judge a specific person by race.

But that is all beside the point. There are always some views in society which are so vile that we ostracize those who hold them. But can we agree that there should be a process by which these specific unacceptable views are defined, and offenders have the ability to recant and edit or censor his blog to get back in the good graces of society? Every sane society will have such a process.

Really that's the business of the conference organizers since it's their conference isn't it? It seems clear to me that it's between the organizers, the speakers and any customers who would like a refund or will decide against attending.

It strikes me as odd that there would be so much support for the last option when HN is typically very supportive of a business's autonomy and so many users here have an obvious libertarian stance on politics. I'm tentatively suspicious that this is just a means to bring up a toxic debate but I'll withhold a conclusive judgement for the time being since I don't know nkurz from Adam.

I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that the government should force Strange Loop to allow Yarvin to speak.

Then the whole point of the thread is kind of moot right? At this point what are we debating, what we would do if we organized conferences? If we're talking about what should be done or what's right it seems pointless given that we have no standing to enforce that. It would have made more sense to ask HN if we would boycott a conference or not.

If you don't like conferences that evaluate a person's politics or beliefs voting with your wallet, attendance and in some cases speaking commitments seems like the best course of action.

Given the votes here your contention that "HN so far has generally been in support of Strangeloop's decision" shows evident bias.

Who the blazes cares if he believes in the tooth fairy as long as the technique is correct? Will the next move be throwing out all the theists because they aren't in fashion? Or anyone not wearing brown shirts?

See also relevant post of David Auerbach's article in Slate that didn't make it to the front page for some reason:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9693772 / http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur...

I hadn't read about this case before, and after some quick reading I frankly find myself disagreeing with most if not all of Yarvin's political views and perhaps even doubting that I would like to hear him speak.

But in my opinion, personal convictions are irrelevant in technical talks, and any presenter with any modicum of professionalism would do well to keep the two as separated as possible, especially in this type of setting.

In the case of an expert presenting research or some such in their capacity as an expert, I don't care (nor should I know) what their personal politics are (as long as they don't overlap with the topic at hand) - precisely because there is a danger of biases running amok.

In addition, as others have already mentioned: whatever the organizers should do depends on their motivations and goals.

Work and worker are not inextricably linked, nor do they necessarily reflect upon each other. There are plenty of examples of people that have accomplished major achievements in some fields while being perfectly irrational and/or plainly mean in others.

Examples include:

-John Lennon (wife-beater)

-Tim Hunt (sexist)

-James Watson (racist)

-Luc Montagnier (anti-vaccer)

-Knut Hamsun and Martin Heidegger (known and argued nazi sympathizers, respectively)

-Steve Jobs (asshole), arguably

Some of these are Nobel laureates. Their work isn't any less great because it was performed by jerks.

There are, of course, cases to be made for boycotting certain products and presentations (by certain people with certain attitudes, performing certain actions or with certain ties), but if the conference's ultimate goal is to disseminate knowledge I think the choice should be left up to the audience.

I guess you could try to weigh how much damage the rescinding of his invitation does to his (unrelated) cause vs. how much damage is done to the community by denying him to spread his knowledge through this arena, though this would likely depend on a host of personal variables.

At the risk of drawing ire by hinting at my own political views, I have the utmost confidence that this will work itself out. If one conference upsets and drives away its customers by inviting certain speakers, I'm confident there are plenty of other conferences willing to fill that gap in the market by appealing to those people. Likewise for a conference that drives away its customers by too aggressively rejecting speakers with certain opinions. I imagine it would be prudent for conferences to have their finger on the pulse of the desires of its customer base to avoid such problems.

I find the statements far too vague to vote on. When I vote on conferences should (not) am I voting on what I think conferences ought to be allowed to do, what I expect them to do (lest they be considered substandard), or what they ought to be required to do?

(I would also note that there are many kinds of conferences. It seems that plenty of posters here feel they know exactly what category you are referring to. But I, for one, do not.)

Where's the option for "Conferences should allow whomever they wish to speak, but don't come crying to me when it all ends in tears, as it will if you court controversy by focusing on technical merit over personal behaviour."

Hrm, another point that people are missing is that frequently conference organisers have no idea what the technical talk will be about until the few weeks before the conference. Sometimes those talks even change topics during the conference themselves. It's par for the course for a seminar topic to not be set before the speaker is even invited. How are organisers supposed to sort out the technical merits of a talk where the speaker frequently hasn't written it themselves yet?

You should be able to kick someone out or yank their slot for being an asshole. Yarvin seems like he qualifies here, regardless of political beliefs.

More weirdos with crazy inventions talking at conferences. Urbit and Yarvin fit the bill. I seriously doubt he's going to establish a monarchy during the course of his talk, so grow a backbone. Nobody's scared, and tons of institutions have people in them that they don't endorse all the terrible views of.

Honestly, I'd say, if his talk has technical merits and he's not going to deviate off into the crap from his blog, let him talk.

And for political context, I'm basically a Communist, and I think the blow-up around neoreactionaries is silly. You don't need to be as anti-tech as the Baffler[1] to spot that when you pin neoreactionaries down to claims of fact and concrete values, they're wrong on basically everything. They're wrong the way Creationists are wrong.

And they're popular for the exact same reason Creationists are popular: they've got some very well-spoken, intellectual-sounding people on their side to tell the world that everything we know about history, sociology, and science is all a grand conspiracy to cover up how right they are. That's their much-vaunted "Cathedral", and it's a popular narrative with fringe movements all over the world.

It's just got a three major things wrong with it:

1) It's wrong as a matter of fact. The power establishment of society is arranged differently from how they claim: liberal academics and libertarian financiers don't really get along, oilmen actually run Congress more than silly-hippie street activists, power actually flows from the barrel of a gun rather than a Tumblr post, "Cthulhu" was swimming rightwards from roughly the late 1960s until maybe 2013-2014, etc.

2) Reversing the stupidity of the weirdest, most out-there positions you can find on the internet hinterlands of the Left doesn't give you intelligent politics [2].

3) Meta-contrarianism doesn't make you correct [3].

[1] - http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/mouthbreathing-machiavellis/

[2] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/lw/reversed_stupidity_is_not_intelli...

[3] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco...

> "Cthulhu" was swimming rightwards from roughly the late 1960s until maybe 2013-2014

I have no idea what this means.

It's a reference to the intro post on Mencius Moldbug's blog: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/2009/01/gentle-i...

The original was "Cthulhu swims left": a metaphor of how Western society has inexorably proceeded leftward.

Gotcha, thanks.

It's intended to show that yes, I have actually heard what neoreactionaries say. "Cthulhu only swims left" is Moldbug's way of saying, "Politics only ever moves leftward."

As I noted, there was a substantial rightward sing from roughly the late 1960s until roughly 2013, at least in the West. Certain elements of social liberalism advanced, while most were held back or even undone (abortion, for instance, has become de facto more restricted in many places), racial segregation has re-asserted itself, labor was just plain dead as a political power compared to its former self, Communism fell, etc.

The point being: history does not actually swing, swim, or evolve inevitably towards anyone's political ideology. Where victories are won, they are usually the result of deliberate activism by devoted ideologues, and they are sometimes undone. This applies to both Left and Right.

Yeah, I need some kind up objective function to optimize for before I can answer this poll. What should StrangeLoop do... * to make the most money? * to support the dissemination of information? * to avoid scandal? * to maximize fun for attendees? * to maximize fun for themselves? * to affect the spread of racism? * to get into heaven? * to earn my approval? * to do what I would do?

There is no "should" without imposing some moral framework or other kind of objective function.

So true, but moralism is also out of fashion.

I think that this is really the only valid response to this question. It doesn't make sense to talk about what someone "should" do without first saying what "should" means. Even the original post put the word "should" in quotes, and still didn't qualify it.

"Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." -Neil Gaiman

Free speech is all or nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com