Free expression is a cultural value. The value is way more important than the Constitution and laws that embody it.
Funny way for this to finally make the front page. I'm not sure I buy that this is the work of Marxists or the connection to Donglegate. But very curious to hear how HN sees the situation.
Unfortunately, one side effect of this kind of "no platforming" is that it legitimately leads to concern about whether people feel free to openly assert their opinions.
EDIT: Well, I guess I won't be able to hear about it, since this post has been flag-killed. Really strange that HN seems determined not to discuss this. As I said in an earlier post that got buried, this should be in our wheelhouse. urbit has been actively and approvingly discussed here previously, with Yarvin's participation. Should those posts have been flag-killed?
Apparently someone at YC un-killed it. I'm new here, but I had posted replies to some of the comments on the blog attached to the post here, and now I've duplicated them here.
Huh, strange that the article to get traction on HN should be written by a neoreactionary. I'm not one, but the author isn't wrong: the people who got Yarvin kicked are hard-Left. Which is significant to me personally, because of the following:
I'm a Zionist. That is to say, I'm a Jewish nationalist, who immigrated to Israel about four years ago from personal conviction. As many will be aware, there is a strong current of Left thought that calls Zionism a racist ideology. This led to U.N. resolution 3379 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly...) - later revoked as a condition of Israel agreeing to a crucial stage of the peace process.
But I would be very surprised if at least some of those who demanded that Yarvin be kicked for racism, did not also think that I was a racist on account of my Zionist beliefs; the phrase "progressive except Palestine" exists for a reason.
Now yes, Miller has every right to choose who comes to his conference, and the attendees have every right to ask that he kick people out for any reason they deem sufficient. But it seems to me that if there is a social norm of letting people veto speakers on grounds unconnected to the subject of their talks, then we're in a very parlous state - even if those grounds are things like racism.
Miller can't be blamed for uninviting Yarvin, there's too much money hanging on it. But this should not be something that passes without concerned comment.
Miller can't be blamed for uninviting Yarvin, there's too much money hanging on it.
Agree with everything in your comment except this. I think he must take responsibility / blame for his decision. And the money's not all on one side. I've wanted to attend Strange Loop for a couple of years but certainly won't, now.
I wondered when this nonsense would show up here, and indeed am utterly unsurprised to see an article spinning conspiracy out of the disinvitation of a virulent racist and fascist popping up at #1.
Quite sober-minded and unpolemically written, in contrast to the many non-passivistic articles produced in response to this case of politics eating the world. The clear acknowledgement of the independence of tactics from ideology is refreshing - the weapons of rhetoric and other forms of social technology are as innocent of harm as more corporeal arms.
Do we really need this kind of culture war nonsense? I don't agree with anyone being barred from speaking at technical conferences for their political views, but then bringing Steve Klabnik's politics into it doesn't feel like a classy move either (and I say that as someone who does not share his politics). It seems that posts like this are designed to get people more riled up and create another round of polarising outrage, rather than encourage the people who mobilised to bar Yarvin from the event to consider the possibility that they might have been wrong to do so.
I think you don’t need it. But now you’ve got it, and the point of the article was to explain how and why. Since Steve Klabnik put pressure on Miller to bring Yarvin’s politics into the conference, bringing in his has to be relevant.
This is a surprisingly low-quality essay for the front page of Hacker News. Accusing everyone of communism? Claiming that Adria Richards’s job was to go to conferences and “fuck them up?”
And that comparison is extremely suspect regardless of the hyperbolic ad hominems. That issue was around what is and isn’t a violation of a conference’s explicit or implicit code of conduct, and what is or isn’t an appropriate response with respect to the persons involved and those that report them.
Whereas, this issue is around a person who has not violated a code of conduct. Massive difference. A far better comparison might be to the fate of Brendan Eich, who did not publicly espouse views about same-sex marriage on or off the job.
There’s an excellent essay to be written about the dividing line between someone’s personal views and their professional conduct, but this isn’t it
The tone of this post is strange to me. The author says things like, "To them, it is an absolute requirement that anyone who utters opinions they consider unacceptable must be excluded from their society." and "They “would not feel comfortable” being forced to treat him as a respectable human being. As a matter of tactics, this is perfectly reasonable. ...the people we are talking about are communists." and "...the ideas that almost everyone in communion with Harvard University believes are communist ideas" and on and on in this vein.
The author clearly has a curiously well defined political ax to grind but to conflate the issue of this speaker being banned with what looks like a 1950's style anti-communist fetish is bizarre. There are so many assumptions and leaps of extremist faith in the post that I'm surprised something like this would get so highly ranked on Hacker News.
As someone who has attended the conference in the past and who is diametrically opposed with the political views of the extreme right (being a moderate, normal, person), I don't have a problem with someone like Yarvin speaking about tech at the conference. What's more, we can discuss his banning without the issue turning into a ridiculous red baiting diatribe framed in terms more suited to the crazy wing of the extreme American Right.
p.s. look at the comments on that post! It's just ridiculous that such insane extremism (of any sort) should elbow its way into such a topic.
You don’t have a problem hearing about Urbit, but various other people, some of whom identify themselves as socialists or Marxists, such as Klabnik or Payne, have a great problem. If it’s not because of their left-wing politics, then why do they not agree with “a moderate, normal person” like you? If it is because of their left-wing politics, isn’t that an interesting fact?
The tone is a bit strange, and there's a reason for that.
I'm avoiding the question of whether Yarvin _deserves_ to be excluded. There are three answers to that:
a) Nobody deserves to be punished for expressing a political opinion
b) Some political opinions people should be punished for, but not his
c) Some political opinions people should be punished for, including his.
(a) is quite a popular view, and many people hold it, and some people claim to hold it but act otherwise, but I do not actually hold it myself, so I can't advance it in good faith.
Given (b) or (c), the set of opinions that a person does deserve to be punished for expressing is unavoidably a matter of opinion. Given that I share Moldbug's views, my opinion on whether they should be punishable is both inevitable and uninteresting.
Therefore I was carefully avoiding the "justice" argument, and instead making a very limited practical argument. If you care about technology working well, it is better not to exclude people, and in particular better not to let political partisans decide who is and is not excluded. That is true irrespective of what I or Curtis Yarvin or anyone else "deserve".
Now, if you dig into theories of where justice comes from, you can develop that argument into a grounds for a "right to free speech", as an instrumental rather than axiomatic good. But I've already gone way over what is reasonable in a HN comment.
A good reminder of the 2013 PyCon fiasco encrusted within some of the most polite extremely extreme reactionary conservatism that I have read in recent times. Harks back to the good old days of William F. Buckley and the old days of the National Review.
Unfortunately, the author is more interested in the manifestation/justification of his own values (arch politeness; nihilistic stoicism; the existence of a strictly bipolar culture war between noble, truthful conservatives and misguided communists who are living a lie) than the topic at hand, so we don't get to hear as much of his thinking on the matter as we might like to.
He points out that there are tactical and strategic dimensions to this sort of incident, and that there there are individuals and groups who actively pursue this kind of power; he correctly, I think, identifies this as a general problem that needs to be dealt with more determinedly and in a more professional manner than "now look, we don't want no trouble, here..."
However, he gets bogged down in a threat analysis that really only needed to go as far as the word "careers." There are indeed individuals for whom this sort of disputation is a career, or at least vocation, regardless of how cynical or innocent their intentions may be. One needs to fear professional revolutionaries; an inquiry into the nature of the revolution misses the point.
I vaguely recall the name Mencius Moldbug as being that of an absolute loon; he may well believe a great many things that are directly or by consequence very ugly. The author is likewise someone I would (having read a few of his essays) personally describe as deluded. However, I think that someone needs to make the argument that this sort of influence-leveraging is ethically wrong. It is disappointing that the author explicitly shrugs off the notion... the truth, or ethics, or whatever is just and good in his mind: these are matters internal to conservatism, it would seem.
I am not sure that it is, in fact ethically wrong. I don't know. But I think it needs explicit, public justification on the part of at least a few of those "large number of current and former speakers" who allegedly put such widespread pressure on the conference organizers. Such a thing requires justification in every case, as does all public censure, for the same reasons that (for instance) a system of laws ought require justification for a penalty: otherwise, the ability to coordinate and provoke censure becomes a means to power and an end in itself.
22 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 64.9 ms ] threadYeah I know it's a private conference, but it says something that people can't tolerate views they disagree with.
Funny way for this to finally make the front page. I'm not sure I buy that this is the work of Marxists or the connection to Donglegate. But very curious to hear how HN sees the situation.
Unfortunately, one side effect of this kind of "no platforming" is that it legitimately leads to concern about whether people feel free to openly assert their opinions.
EDIT: Well, I guess I won't be able to hear about it, since this post has been flag-killed. Really strange that HN seems determined not to discuss this. As I said in an earlier post that got buried, this should be in our wheelhouse. urbit has been actively and approvingly discussed here previously, with Yarvin's participation. Should those posts have been flag-killed?
I'm a Zionist. That is to say, I'm a Jewish nationalist, who immigrated to Israel about four years ago from personal conviction. As many will be aware, there is a strong current of Left thought that calls Zionism a racist ideology. This led to U.N. resolution 3379 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly...) - later revoked as a condition of Israel agreeing to a crucial stage of the peace process.
But I would be very surprised if at least some of those who demanded that Yarvin be kicked for racism, did not also think that I was a racist on account of my Zionist beliefs; the phrase "progressive except Palestine" exists for a reason.
Now yes, Miller has every right to choose who comes to his conference, and the attendees have every right to ask that he kick people out for any reason they deem sufficient. But it seems to me that if there is a social norm of letting people veto speakers on grounds unconnected to the subject of their talks, then we're in a very parlous state - even if those grounds are things like racism.
Miller can't be blamed for uninviting Yarvin, there's too much money hanging on it. But this should not be something that passes without concerned comment.
Agree with everything in your comment except this. I think he must take responsibility / blame for his decision. And the money's not all on one side. I've wanted to attend Strange Loop for a couple of years but certainly won't, now.
For a less sensationalized counterpoint, try this: https://al3x.net/2015/06/04/wouldn't-censorship-be-exciting....
Can you link to or quote any such statements?
As an east-german i'm looking upon this with bewilderment and bemusement as "left politics" are decried.
"After several years as an enthusiastic reader and supporter, it’s my pleasure to announce that I’m joining the Jacobin advisory board."
Jacobin describes itself as “a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.”
Regardless of the merits of socialism or neoreaction, even bringing him into the discussion does nothing but strengthen my argument.
Perhaps you should ask Strangeloop that. They're the ones who threw the first punch when they decided to boot people based on their political views.
And that comparison is extremely suspect regardless of the hyperbolic ad hominems. That issue was around what is and isn’t a violation of a conference’s explicit or implicit code of conduct, and what is or isn’t an appropriate response with respect to the persons involved and those that report them.
Whereas, this issue is around a person who has not violated a code of conduct. Massive difference. A far better comparison might be to the fate of Brendan Eich, who did not publicly espouse views about same-sex marriage on or off the job.
There’s an excellent essay to be written about the dividing line between someone’s personal views and their professional conduct, but this isn’t it
————
0. https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/
Yes, and what happened to him was also wrong.
The author clearly has a curiously well defined political ax to grind but to conflate the issue of this speaker being banned with what looks like a 1950's style anti-communist fetish is bizarre. There are so many assumptions and leaps of extremist faith in the post that I'm surprised something like this would get so highly ranked on Hacker News.
As someone who has attended the conference in the past and who is diametrically opposed with the political views of the extreme right (being a moderate, normal, person), I don't have a problem with someone like Yarvin speaking about tech at the conference. What's more, we can discuss his banning without the issue turning into a ridiculous red baiting diatribe framed in terms more suited to the crazy wing of the extreme American Right.
p.s. look at the comments on that post! It's just ridiculous that such insane extremism (of any sort) should elbow its way into such a topic.
You don’t have a problem hearing about Urbit, but various other people, some of whom identify themselves as socialists or Marxists, such as Klabnik or Payne, have a great problem. If it’s not because of their left-wing politics, then why do they not agree with “a moderate, normal person” like you? If it is because of their left-wing politics, isn’t that an interesting fact?
I'm avoiding the question of whether Yarvin _deserves_ to be excluded. There are three answers to that:
a) Nobody deserves to be punished for expressing a political opinion
b) Some political opinions people should be punished for, but not his
c) Some political opinions people should be punished for, including his.
(a) is quite a popular view, and many people hold it, and some people claim to hold it but act otherwise, but I do not actually hold it myself, so I can't advance it in good faith.
Given (b) or (c), the set of opinions that a person does deserve to be punished for expressing is unavoidably a matter of opinion. Given that I share Moldbug's views, my opinion on whether they should be punishable is both inevitable and uninteresting.
Therefore I was carefully avoiding the "justice" argument, and instead making a very limited practical argument. If you care about technology working well, it is better not to exclude people, and in particular better not to let political partisans decide who is and is not excluded. That is true irrespective of what I or Curtis Yarvin or anyone else "deserve".
Now, if you dig into theories of where justice comes from, you can develop that argument into a grounds for a "right to free speech", as an instrumental rather than axiomatic good. But I've already gone way over what is reasonable in a HN comment.
Unfortunately, the author is more interested in the manifestation/justification of his own values (arch politeness; nihilistic stoicism; the existence of a strictly bipolar culture war between noble, truthful conservatives and misguided communists who are living a lie) than the topic at hand, so we don't get to hear as much of his thinking on the matter as we might like to.
He points out that there are tactical and strategic dimensions to this sort of incident, and that there there are individuals and groups who actively pursue this kind of power; he correctly, I think, identifies this as a general problem that needs to be dealt with more determinedly and in a more professional manner than "now look, we don't want no trouble, here..."
However, he gets bogged down in a threat analysis that really only needed to go as far as the word "careers." There are indeed individuals for whom this sort of disputation is a career, or at least vocation, regardless of how cynical or innocent their intentions may be. One needs to fear professional revolutionaries; an inquiry into the nature of the revolution misses the point.
I vaguely recall the name Mencius Moldbug as being that of an absolute loon; he may well believe a great many things that are directly or by consequence very ugly. The author is likewise someone I would (having read a few of his essays) personally describe as deluded. However, I think that someone needs to make the argument that this sort of influence-leveraging is ethically wrong. It is disappointing that the author explicitly shrugs off the notion... the truth, or ethics, or whatever is just and good in his mind: these are matters internal to conservatism, it would seem.
I am not sure that it is, in fact ethically wrong. I don't know. But I think it needs explicit, public justification on the part of at least a few of those "large number of current and former speakers" who allegedly put such widespread pressure on the conference organizers. Such a thing requires justification in every case, as does all public censure, for the same reasons that (for instance) a system of laws ought require justification for a penalty: otherwise, the ability to coordinate and provoke censure becomes a means to power and an end in itself.