
Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf - vitno
http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion
======
norea-armozel
Personally I believe there's a place for CoCs in any large organization or
group but I think the content of CoCs should never include any political
ideological opinions. If professionalism, respect, and separation of one's
political and/or religious beliefs from a project/event is impossible for some
then they shouldn't be part of it. Honestly, I wouldn't know or care if one
programmer was a devout Mormon that donated to Prop 8 if all my interactions
with said person (obviously mentioning Brenden Eich here) were purely within
the confines of a project or convention regarding programming of some sort.
Nor would that person ever have to know that I'm a Christian Gnostic,
Georgist, bisexual, trans woman (the last part would probably be obvious but
immaterial still) in the same context. We're two programmers coming together
in common cause to produce something cool (I hope).

Yet it seems there are those on the left (and to some extent on the right)
that demand ideological purity in all things. "You must be the right kind of
[ideological stance/trait], lest you offend someone..." Seriously, I've seen
flaps over Laura Jane Grace's book being titled Tranny (she's trans) over the
last week. It's just as bad when you look at how fellow libertarians go at
each other (see Jeffrey Tucker's essay on Libertarian Brutalism and the
resulting fallout).

It's absurd how bad things have gotten in this regard and I honestly am
concerned we'll see ideological puritanism infect various F/LOSS projects and
events. Just keep the CoC to the absolute essentials (don't be a
perv/jerk/stalker/etc and don't have sensitive topics in conversations...).

~~~
KirinDave
> Personally I believe there's a place for CoCs in any large organization or
> group but I think the content of CoCs should never include any political
> ideological opinions.

Which has no bearing on the conversation, as you cannot deny that the person
in question is anything but a vehement and devout racist.

We're not mad he's a christian. I'm not even mad he thinks trans sexuality and
non-binarism is an illness. At least there is some idea I am human there. He
genuinely thinks non-white people are a sub-species.

Please, please, please don't try and equate this to a "political" view. There
is no political view worth entertaining that denies people's essential
humanity.

~~~
chris_wot
I'm late to this conversation, but your CoC is problematic.

To participate in LambdaConf, participants must pledge their allegiance to
your Code of Conduct. That's fine, except for the following part of the CoC
that mandates the following:

 _" That I shall embrace and celebrate the abundant diversity in the human
species, and refuse to feel threatened by those different from me;"_

This is a highly problematic statement. By diversity, you mean diversity in
sexuality, race, religion and politics. Why is this a problem?

Because nobody should be made to "embrace and celebrate" _all_ the diverse
facets of humanity. It's patently absurd: I'm not going to celebrate and
endorse the views of paedophiles, I'm not going to embrace and celebrate the
views of the doomsday Aum Sum cult, nor any of dozens of even more innocuous
views such as open source is a cancer on society. Nor should a gay person have
to celebrate and embrace the views of those who believe marriage should only
be between a man and a woman.

And in fact, you don't. You've excluded a racist, which FWIW I don't have a
problem with. But you are hardly celebrating the diversity of humanity, which
includes those whose views deny people's essential humanity.

There is a big difference from politely and civilly disagreeing with the
opinion of another, and asking someone to embrace and celebrate the fact that
there are views held by others that they find fundamentally objectionable.

All you should be asking for is that you respect their right to hold their
views, but not impose them on others at a conference that is about functional
programming!

This Code of Conduct goes too far. As I've said, if you applied reductio ad
absurdum then it would mean that it celebrates and embraces those who - like
myself and evidently the conference organisers - don't believe that you should
celebrate and embrace all aspects of the abundant diversity of humanity. The
reason this argument reduces to the absurd is that because of my view, I am
specifically excluded from your event, which means that your own CoC doesn't
embrace and celebrate all diversity within humanity.

I'd suggest you dump that clause. It's self-contradictory and a ridiculous
condition you are imposing on participants. In fact, it's a straight-jacket
for conference organisers because when you do exclude someone you can,
unfortunately rightly, be accused of violating your own CoC!

~~~
tomp
I don't think you're reading this correctly. The CoC asks you to celebrate
diversity _itself_ , not any (nor all) particular opinion that is part of this
diversity.

In addition, you do realize that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, right?
Nobody _chooses_ to be attracted to people they can't ever legally have sex
with. And just as there's nothing wrong with being gay, there's nothing wrong
with being a pedophile (keeping in mind that child molestation, i.e. rape,
_is_ wrong, just as all other kinds of rape).

~~~
chris_wot
That's all kinds of wrong. Having sexual feelings for children is a medical
disorder and people who have it are generally urged to get medical help. So
I'm afraid that, yes, there is indeed something wrong with being sexually
attracted to prepubescent children.

Of course, you miss my point on this anyway - there are people out there who
believe that forcing themselves on children is right. There are also those who
believe that rape is justifiable - just ask Daryush Valizadeh.

Furthermore, I am indeed interpreting this correctly. I am saying that if you
want to force those who don't celebrate diversity from joining your
organization, your are rejecting the a part of the diversity that you are
celebrating. Let's restate this: if I say that I say that there are some
things that humans promote and undertake are so horrendous that I cannot
accept them under any circumstances, then I am implicitly rejecting the notion
that diversity is to be celebrated. I am in fact rejecting diversity - as
almost every single human being does to some degree.

What is basically being pushed here is a form of moral relativism, and taken
to it's logical limits it's entirely self-contradictory.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosh_V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosh_V)

~~~
tomp
> Having sexual feelings for children is a medical disorder and people who
> have it are generally urged to get medical help. So I'm afraid that, yes,
> there is indeed something wrong with being sexually attracted to
> prepubescent children.

Obviously. We should chemically castrate them. Like Alan Turing. Being
attracted to anything but adults of the opposite sex is wrong and sick.

/s

------
striking
This just in: preventing people to come to your conferences because of their
beliefs is actually inadvisable and really, really difficult to make good on.

I don't agree with the guy's views either, but I wouldn't disinvite him just
because he thinks that way.

Good on LambdaConf for letting him come anyway. Many of the quotes from this
piece were shockingly powerful. I'm happy I took the time to read it.

~~~
KirinDave
This just in: no one says attendance has to be barred. This is about speaking
roles. It's about tacit endorsement of someone with vile dehumanizing
viewpoints then being put in front of large audiences as an authority figure.

That's VERY easy to make editorial decisions on. The entire purpose of the
conference staff _is_ to editorialize.

~~~
striking
No one's endorsing him by letting him speak to an interested group.

Is Hacker News endorsing you by letting you comment here?

And I'd be concerned too if this conference let him talk about his viewpoints,
but that's not what he's on the stage for. If someone looked into your history
deep enough, wouldn't they be able to find something distasteful too?

Imagine not being able to talk about your software development career just
because something thinks something you did ( _even if entirely unrelated!_ )
was distasteful.

Do you think anyone seriously looks at Moldbug as an authority figure? Come
on, you're blowing this way out of proportion. I think someone should be
allowed to have their fringe views and be a member of the wonderful
programming community. I don't agree with his views, but I'll defend his right
to have them.

If you think it's easy to make editorial decisions on, I think you're missing
some part of this.

~~~
KirinDave
> No one's endorsing him by letting him speak to an interested group.

If that is true, then it's also true that no one is censoring him by declining
to let him speak at a conference.

> Is Hacker News endorsing you by letting you comment here?

No, but Hacker News has and will continue to make editorial decisions about
who is allowed to post here. Race baiting trolls have been called "race
baiting trolls" and kicked out of Hacker News right before my eyes.

> And I'd be concerned too if this conference let him talk about his
> viewpoints, but that's not what he's on the stage for. If someone looked
> into your history deep enough, wouldn't they be able to find something
> distasteful too?

Of course! I was a hyper-right self-denying religious racist as a child. I've
been very open about the environment I was raised into, and done my best to
work through those issues. I no longer endorse those views, and I've paid a
heavy price for them.

But you seem to pretend that just because the subject of his talk is some
technological function, that this means that he will not be interacting
socially or simply _being present_. Isn't the best part of conferences the
"hallway tract?" Do you think his presence will not influence that?

Have you read what this person has wrote? "Racism" is not "distasteful."
Racism is a vile dehumanizing view of our peers.

> Imagine not being able to talk about your software development career just
> because something thinks something you did (even if entirely unrelated!) was
> distasteful.

Racist viewpoints, no matter their origin or justification, _are not
politics_. They're a fundamental denial of other people's humanity. These
views were once common, but now are frowned upon. People who vocally and
publicly espouse them can and should face societal consequences. It is not
like tech conferences are some special place where humans was away the stink
of the outside world and emerge as beings of pure thought.

> I think someone should be allowed to have their fringe views and be a member
> of the wonderful programming community. I don't agree with his views, but
> I'll defend his right to have them.

No one is mad because of a fringe view. They're mad because he vociferously
promotes a view of the world that fundamentally denies the humanity of many
people who are members of the tech community. These targeted members are part
of a community that faces systemic violence and discrimination in many parts
of the United States. We've seen this lame tactic before; people claim that
any mention of feminism and the inherent biases of the programming community
is "politics" and that should "stay out of tech." "Tech is neutral on this
issue! All we care about is making something."

But when you take a neutral stance on someone clearly calling for oppressive
action to be enacted against an entire category of humans, you are not being
neutral. You're inherently supporting them, because inaction on human rights
issues means not protecting human rights.

> If you think it's easy to make editorial decisions on, I think you're
> missing some part of this.

How is saying, "We don't support racism" even remotely difficult in 2016?
Quite the opposite. With the way that sponsors are dropping off of LambdaConf,
they've chosen the expensive road. The major sponsors are pulling out, and I
have backchannel info that another one will on Monday.

~~~
tptacek
I'm not sure why this comment is being downvoted (perhaps because HN is
[thankfully] less and less tolerant of anything it perceives as factional) but
I think I agree with all of it.

The kinds of conferences we're talking about here are private events.
Conferences are free to make decisions about speakers any way they'd like,
just like a magazine can choose to run or not run a story about any given
author.

A lot of people talk about things like StrangeLoop and Lambdaconf as if they
were _academic venues_ , like USENIX. They are not; they are as different from
academic conferences as The National Review is from IEEE Transactions on
Networking.

~~~
tomp
Nobody is denying that conference organizers have a _right_ to censorship.
We're just saying that it's _better_ if they don't exercise it! The reason why
e.g. academic venues don't censor (I'm guessing this, your comment kind-of
implies it) is because they strive to be better, to uphold the right kind of
values!

------
vidarh
One thing that belonging to a political fringe has taught me, is that either
you decide to live your life in constant conflict, or you learn to ignore the
politics of a person when it has no direct impact on a given situation, even
when it to you is utterly distasteful.

The latter leads to a far happier life. And often you'll find even people who
hold views you find offensive can be perfectly nice people most of the time.

~~~
mcantelon
Exactly. Orgs that don't accept "diversity of tactics" lose a lot of time to
infighting.

~~~
seivan
Also know as eating your own. Just wait, there's always someone slipping on
narrative.

------
AKrumbach
If your conference will dis-invite / "de-platform" people based on their
opinion about topic {foo}, _you are in fact hosting a conference about {foo}_
, regardless of what your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say.

Kudos to LambdaConf for actually keeping on focus in the face of dissent.

~~~
TabAtkins
I mean, okay, maybe, but that just means that they'd be hosting a conference
about "nazis suck" and hey, I'm okay with that. That's a message I can get
behind.

~~~
ubertaco
So what you're saying is, you're cool with discrimination, so long as it's not
against you.

So when someone decides to hold a dev conference but chooses to disallow any
gay/lesbian developers, is that also totally okay?

~~~
zahmahkibo
Yes, I am perfectly okay with discriminating against Nazis.

Since when is ALL discrimination bad? I discriminate against shitty people all
the time, and so do you. Don't even pretend you don't, no one will believe
you.

~~~
ubertaco
>and so do you. Don't even pretend you don't, no one will believe you.

You're projecting a bit. I try hard -- consciously -- not to shut down and
shut out people who need grace as much as I do (either more or less
externally-visibly).

Your own code of ethics is not universal. There are people who think and
operate differently from you.

Which is exactly the point of not discriminating whenever it's avoidable.

~~~
zahmahkibo
Your code of grace is also not universal and is almost certainly the minority.

------
lhnz
I think "conduct vs beliefs" is the right metaphor by which to make these
sorts of decisions. After all, we talk about a 'Code of Conduct' and not a
'Code of Belief' (the latter, in my opinion, would edge too close towards
totalitarianism.)

As long as Curtis stays professional and speaks only on Urbit [0] he is doing
the right thing and should be allowed to speak.

[0] [http://urbit.org/](http://urbit.org/)

~~~
zorpner
At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority
and advocation of violence become problematic? Or are we obligated to welcome
these people into our conferences (workplaces? homes?) so long as they confine
their exhortations to speech and only work to encourage others to perform the
actual violence?

The idea of a "Code of Belief" is a strawman -- the issue at hand is the
expectation not of freedom of thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for
speech without consequences (which inevitably requires that the freedom of
speech of others be quashed).

~~~
peteretep

        > At what point does someone's routine vocal
        > endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of
        > violence become problematic?
    

The Americans have a whole load of case law around First Amendment rights, it
would be worth familiarizing yourself with that for a few hundred years worth
of considered thought.

    
    
        > Or are we obligated to welcome these people into
        > our conferences
    

Well in this case, their conferences - he's there under his own technical
merit, isn't he? Do you really get to exclude him because you don't like his
views, even though he may well be more qualified than you to claim a right to
be there?

    
    
        > (workplaces?
    

Conveniently there's case law in employment too.

    
    
        > homes?)
    

Weird strawman.

    
    
        > the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of
        > thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech
        > without consequences
    

I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't
mean speech without consequence. "We're free speech in this country, except
you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing".

~~~
zorpner
You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only
to the _government 's_ response to speech.

 _I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn 't
mean speech without consequence._

You can say anything you want, and the government won't intervene. That's all
free speech means. Other people, groups, and corporations are free to judge
you, criticize you, exclude you from their platforms and private events,
organize boycotts against you, criticize people who agree with you, criticize
people who choose not to exclude you, and so forth. You may _dislike_ that
they do those things, but they are free to do so without government
interference, because of free speech.

You, in turn, are free to criticize and exclude them in a similar manner. This
is dialogue, and a desire to promulgate your opinions but have others not
promulgate their opinions (including when they're about you) is the height of
hypocrisy.

~~~
13thLetter
> You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course,
> only to the government's response to speech.

Darn it, I thought we were going to get all the way through this discussion
without someone wheeling out that old nag.

Once again: Attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their
political views is not against the _letter_ of the First Amendment to do this.
But attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political
views is quite certainly against the _spirit_ of the First Amendment.

~~~
zorpner
What?! That has no support in law, history, or the documents surrounding the
creation of the bill of rights. The idea that private fora would be required
to accommodate all comers is antithetical to the ideas behind the
Enlightenment philosophy which engendered the first amendment.

I honestly can't believe someone could be dumb enough to think that the
founders would want the government to dictate who people were required to
admit to non-public settings. There's no way you're being sincere.

~~~
13thLetter
You think that the fundamental principle behind the First Amendment and
Enlightenment philosophy was that we really needed a natural rights
justification to have people whose politics we disagree with ostracized from
public life and prevented from earning a living?

------
jmspring
The choice quote is here --

"In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should
focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems."

What you believe in, in everyday society, shouldn't matter either. It is how
you treat others and if you do so with politeness and respect, you should
expect the same in return.

~~~
kevinburke
Curtis Yarvin is a professed fascist who has written about his belief that
some races are more suited to slavery than others.

That _does_ matter; it makes large swaths of the potential talk audience (and
other attendees) feel unwelcome. How can you engage in polite, respectful
discussion with someone who believes that you're more suited to be a slave
than a free man?

~~~
xmj
> Curtis Yarvin is a professed fascist who has written about his belief that
> some races are more suited to slavery than others.

Having read a good deal of his unqualified reservations, I wonder if you can
source this quote for me please?

~~~
kevinburke
Search Google, Twitter, or send me an email. I'm not going to link to hate
speech here.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
This entire thread is a pretty depressing indictment of the sorts of people
who hang out on HN. Seriously, nobody should care about offending Curtis
Yarvin or any of his ilk.

~~~
13thLetter
Yarvin and his "ilk" aren't the ones complaining about being offended here.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
The argument of the original post is that we shouldn't exclude Yarvin because
it might make avowed racists feel unwelcome at FP conferences. To which I say:
who cares? I don't want Yarvin at FP conferences, and I suspect none of the
attendees particularly do either.

~~~
13thLetter
> I don't want Yarvin at FP conferences, and I suspect none of the attendees
> particularly do either.

I'd imagine there's a solid overlap between Hacker News posters and people who
might attend a functional programming conference, and judging by this comments
section your position is in a distinct minority. So if it's OK to ostracize
people based on their unpopular political opinions, you may find _yourself_ in
the hot seat you've been preparing for Yarvin.

How about this: perhaps we should instead strive for a system of pluralism and
tolerance where we don't bring our political disputes into the professional
sphere.

------
spriggan3
Well today in "tech", if you openly support a republican candidate, good luck
being invited at tech events or conferences as a speaker.

That's wrong of course and I say that as a non republican. The Tech industry
has become so politicized positions that used to be seen as extreme are
considered "normal". I mean how can an article such as this one can be deemed
acceptable on a tech blog ? :
[https://archive.is/elvvc](https://archive.is/elvvc)

Replace white people by black people and racism, defined as broad
generalizations based on the color of skin, becomes obvious. Yes the article
linked is racist period.

~~~
xmj
> Well today in "tech", if you openly support a republican candidate, good
> luck being invited at tech events or conferences as a speaker.

Don't worry. Tech is currently undergoing yet another tectonic shift, with the
difference that this time it goes into the right direction.

~~~
tomp
Which tectonic shift?

From my point of view, it seems like the previous (pro-feminist, pro-
censhorship) tectonic shift still lasts (Brendan Eich, Gamergate, "Shirtgate",
"discrimination" in tech), and IMO it's definitely going in the wrong
direction (towards lies and censhorship).

------
davidrupp
Well done, John & Co. StrangeLoop caved to the threats of a vocal minority
and, to my lights, made the wrong decision. Not only the wrong decision, but
for the wrong reasons. Good for you for taking this principled -- and
responsible -- stance.

~~~
ignu
so who who cares if minorities are offended?

that's, uh, kind of the point.

------
analognoise
All this childish feelings based barbage has got to stop.

No, really. People have different opinions, and are allowed to have them, even
if they hurt your feelings or you disagree. Since when did this thought crime
bullshit take over? Orwell would never have thought that self policing, not
Big Brother and his armed henchmen, were what would do in individual thought.

~~~
TabAtkins
Saying "People have different opinions" about nazi bullshit is kindergarten-
level analysis.

Nazis are bad. Racists are bad. Claiming these "opinions" are equivalent to
any other is childish and immature. Grow up and realize you live in a society
with other people, and the positions you advocate for (and encourage others to
advocate for) have real consequences.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
Grow up and argue with people's ideas instead of banning them from conferences
unrelated to said ideas. You stop bad ideas from proliferating by showing how
they're wrong, not by acting like children and banning what you don't like.

------
passing-through
For context, the project in question is
[https://github.com/urbit/urbit](https://github.com/urbit/urbit) and the
speaker is
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin).

~~~
specialist
TIL: neoreactionary, anti-democratic blah blah blah

aka libertarian fruitopia

~~~
mcantelon
Pretty much the opposite of libertarian, IIRC.

~~~
greenrd
There's this weird thing where libertarians go so far right they become
neoreactionaries, and vice versa. It's sort of the horseshoe theory for the
authoritarian-libertarian spectrum I guess. I don't really understand it.

~~~
mcantelon
Frustration, I'd guess. They look long and hard at one ultimate solution to
the problem of human governance, finally realize it won't work, then swing to
the opposite conclusion to examine it.

------
jellismymind
"Include all! White supremacists, non-white... If a few people (say non-white)
feel uncomfortable and don't want to come, we're OK with that 100%!

Everyone should feel included! Racists, homophobes... Respect the beliefs of
everyone, like believing there is a god, or that white people are superior, or
believing you are being discriminated, or believing people will insult you or
assault you at a whim for who you are, or believing you belong in a community
full of racist assholes. It's OK 100%, all beliefs are equal, so we shouldn't
discriminate people based on that!

That would be even worse than racism if you think about it."

I'm sad and disgusted.

~~~
mcantelon
Given Yarvin's Jewish, my guess is he's not a white supremacist.

~~~
jellismymind
Who is Yarvin? How is that relevant? I am not talking about a specific person,
I am talking about the argument being made for accepting everyone no matter
their "belief".

~~~
mcantelon
Sorry, misread. Curtis Yarvin's the conference speaker.

------
SEMW
> we read or skimmed nearly everything the speaker has written online (which
> is no small task)

Ouch. Must've been an almost sisyphean task in Moldbug's case. Dude's the most
prolix blogger I've ever come across.

------
frontsideair
If you don't care about political views of presenters, there's no need to
bring inclusion to the table; just consider their technical talents and call
it a day.

If you actually care about inclusion, you need to think about how including
backwards-views that oppose inclusion itself could affect your effort. Banning
only physically violent behavior is behind the times, it's obvious there are
many ways of harming someone without lifting a finger. If you're supporting
inclusion for inclusions's sake, including everyone may make sense. But if you
really care about people who depend on you including them, it's obvious some
measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented.

~~~
white-flame
> some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the
> underrepresented.

Then it comes down to defining what "safe" means. To most people, that does
mean basic physical safety, meaning you won't be physically assaulted or have
your stuff damaged/stolen.

However, once you get into subjectivity of a listener's interpretation of
others' words or social actions (like disinterest in their topics or cultural
mismatch), calling any difference from their beliefs or expectations "unsafe",
all _procedural_ sanity flies out the window. The only types of meetings that
can be _rationally_ and _formally_ capable of running under such specific
clauses would be particularly exclusionary meetings of only certain beliefs.

Inclusivity means exposure to difference, and if exposure to difference means
"unsafe" to someone, then inclusivity itself is unsafe to them. There are
those who also simply equate "socially uncomfortable" with "unsafe", and
social discomfort can come from literally anything.

(Edit: I would strongly prefer responses from the downvoters. Defining some
specific, actionable policy capturing subjective interpretation by attendees
without becoming exclusionary is something I'd be interested in actually
seeing. I'm not talking about subjective application of policy, but actual
full capture within policy.)

------
theorique
Good job LambdaConf.

Disregarding irrelevant political views and focusing on the technical content
is what _every_ conference should do. It's too bad that this is less common
than it should be.

------
mcherm
That was very well done.

If I ever organize a conference (unlikely) I will return here and adopt
LambdaConf's policy along with a link to this very open and thoughtful
consideration as justification.

------
outside1234
What a well reasoned and thought through approach to making this decision and
setting a precedent and standard - nice work.

------
saryant
Good for John and LambdaConf. I attended last year and I'll be hosting a
workshop about Shapeless this year and I still firmly intend to go.

------
programminggeek
I'm pretty sure secret societies and private groups will start forming as a
result of people being pushed out of their right to speak openly about what
they believe for fear it will offend others and ruin their careers.

It's probably already happening.

------
jamesdutc
This is an odd perspective on inclusivity, but I understand where it comes
from.

I would think it would be well within the mandate of the conference organisers
to pick talks that reflect the material they want to see presented and the
conversation they want attendees to be able to participate in. The conference
is a curated collection of talks, and will necessarily reflect an active
political position held by the organising committee and a passive political
position shaped by systemic issues. For almost all tech conferences, even the
very large ones, the politics expressed are so bland and so unfocused that no
one really cares about them. Almost no tech conference has the capability to
seriously address systemic issues of inclusivity.

I imagine LambdaConf's view resonantes with the audience on HackerNews,
because it addresses primarily the former politics. The latter politics aren't
a danger to most of the commentators here.

The inclusivity of attendance seems to be much more defensible. Even under
great pressure, I can see an event being reluctant to bar attendance. I don't
know that any tech conferences ask unpopular people to simply stay away (even
if they promise to be on best behaviour.)

~~~
erikpukinskis
They stated that they accepted the talk on the merits during the anonymous
review phase.

~~~
DrPizza
How anonymous can the reviews be if the subject of the talk betrays the
identity of the presenter?

------
xmj
How many "problematic" views will you "no-platform" until your "safe space" is
a personal hugbox with n=1?

Get over yourself a little and you'll see that the above is the ultimate
consequence of your choices to exclude people.

------
atom-morgan
It's a code of conduct. Not a code of thought.

~~~
spriggan3
> It's a code of conduct. Not a code of thought.

Given how most codes of conduct are written there is virtually no difference
between the two. If a code of conduct in a community applies everywhere its
members might be on the internet or in the real world, then they are not free
to say what they want publicly anymore. If one can be excluded from an
opensoure community because of a totally unrelated comment on some obscure
forum as stated by codes like the "contributor covenant", it's pretty clear
that this kind of code of conduct is a code of thought.

~~~
atom-morgan
Oh absolutely. I was referring to what it _should_ be :)

------
mcantelon
Great to see a conference making the adult choice, rather than accommodating
zealots who feel entitled to limit people's careers for their beliefs.

------
crb002
Embryonic CRISPR is here and humanity is not only hereditary. It's the
genetics debate that needs to happen. Moldbug's racist viewpoint is now
irrelevant.

How much should the State intervene? Wrath of Kahn and GATTACA were both
dystopian. Roe v Wade will reopen soon on CRISPR grounds.

~~~
mcantelon
Genetics are powerful. Twins that grow up apart in different environments
often share traits/tastes to an unnerving degree.

------
fiatmoney
You'd think that someone could just come out and say exactly which of his
views are so terrible, instead of pointing at his entire multiple-book-length
blog and "wow just wow"ing.

~~~
vitno
The character of Moldbug (which I don't even know if it is actually what the
author truly believes, it was always designed as a pen name) is a neo-
reactionary. Ex: He is definitely a racist, with the belief of genetic
differences in attitude that contributed to slavery. [1]

Now, I don't like those beliefs at all. I do think that LC made the right
decision though. Inclusiveness is a good policy, and no matter how certain
more authoritarianly inclined progressives are spinning this, that's what this
is. Assuming no one is threatened, and he isn't promoting his politics, he
should have a chance of going through the (anonymized!) entry process and
talking about the really weird and awesome Urbit.

[1] [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-
carl...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carlyle-
matters.html?m=1)

edit: One of my main philosophical issues with Moldbug (besides the
repugnancy), is that he is internally inconsistent. He might refute that later
on. I dunno, he's spewed out literally tens of thousands of pages of text.

~~~
zenogais
As a note the original article for this thread is about LambdaConf.
StrangeLoop is the conference that chose to ban this particular speaker.

I assume by SL you mean LC?

~~~
vitno
ahh. Now I see where the confusion is. Yes. I do mean LC.

------
tragic
So uh, who was this person?

~~~
passing-through
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin)

~~~
kps
And out of curiosity, who is the firing-squad person?

~~~
erics32
Mostly likely referring to Steve Klabnik
[https://archive.is/BtDaA](https://archive.is/BtDaA)

~~~
mcantelon
Klabnik himself being influenced by Marxism and committed to overthrowing the
democratic state, presumably through armed revolution:

[https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/514125493663436800](https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/514125493663436800)

Communism has killed millions and millions of people yet its advocates don't
get blacklisted for wrongthink.

And despite Klabnik's efforts to police the ideas of tech speakers, his chosen
software licenses don't prohibit use of his software by repressive regimes:

[https://github.com/steveklabnik/request_store/blob/master/LI...](https://github.com/steveklabnik/request_store/blob/master/LICENSE.txt)

~~~
calibraxis
He's an anarchist of some sort, just like many. Anarchists generally want to
replace the violent top down nation-state with bottom-up democratic forms.
Real democracy, not fake doublespeak democracy where no one feels like their
voice matters.

Your post is horrifically misleading.

~~~
hga
He says the single word which best describes him is small c communist, so at
best this sort of anarchism is a violent tactic, and historically a very
unwise one. And would be a quickly lethal one in the well armed US.

~~~
calibraxis
It's good to be cautious when people say they believe in "democracy" or
"communism". (Does democracy mean killing people for billionaires and their
4-year king? Serious democracy proponents must say things like "bottom-up
democracy." Same with communism: does it mean
marxism/maoism/leninism/stalinism?)

Anyway, anarchists generally strive towards communism, if that means an
advanced future society where you're free from boss-subordination, and some
don't have to be "poor" to scare everyone else into obedience.

And anarchists don't bomb people, unlike adherents of every other political
philosophy in the last decades. Certainly the US is always bombing people.
Even Bernie Sanders supports it.

~~~
mcantelon
Anarchists don't generally strive towards communism because they recognize
what history shows: communist states are even less accountable than modern
oligarchal democracy.

~~~
calibraxis
Communist "state" is an oxymoron: _" the communist society, which is a
socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of
production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state."_
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism))

Please google these basic terms before you engage in character assassination.
As you did with Klabnik. (On topics like this, HN comments don't even rise to
the factual rigor of YouTube comments.)

~~~
mcantelon
How does theoretical common ownership of the state mean a state doesn't exist?
Do you have any examples of this theoretical non-state communist society? Has
it ever existed at any scale?

~~~
calibraxis
These are among the most common anarchism 101 questions. FAQs exist; why not
google for yourself? (Or speaking of capitalism, pay someone to educate you
rather than expect uncompensated labor. I've done enough unpaid work resulting
from your character assassination.)

~~~
mcantelon
"Educate yourself" seems to be a fashionable way of dodging difficult
questions.

------
jellismymind
White racists accept to mingle with non-white despite their beliefs, surely
non-white can return the same curtesy?

~~~
xmj
Go to a Trump rally and tell this to a "Black Lives Matter" supporter, I dare
you.

~~~
jellismymind
I'm sorry, did you take that at face value? I thought it was so over the top
and ridiculous that people would get that it was sarcasm, but I guess I still
have a lot to learn. My bad, sometimes someone's satire is just someone else's
actual thoughts...

~~~
xmj
This form of "sarcasm" is best countered with following it through to its
logical conclusion.

------
mvid
Is there a good summary somewhere of this entire situation? Starting with
strange loop?

------
zahmahkibo
There is an extremely simple test for such arguments: would anyone make this
argument if the person in question was Osama bin Laden? Suppose old Osama was
a Haskell wizard. Would anyone argue he should still be at the talk? No.

But Nazis? Who make bin Laden's terrorism look like a rounding error? They're
A-OK!

And people wonder about why there's a diversity problem in tech.

~~~
brighteyes
1\. Bin Laden _actually killed_ thousands of people. If, instead, your example
was a Muslim preacher who advocated controversial views, but was not violent
himself nor the head of a violent organization, then yes - we should accept
such a Muslim preacher, if he has an interesting technical talk to give.

2\. Has Moldbug actually self-identified as a Nazi? He has offensive views to
many, to be sure, but Nazi is much more specific, and to me, a weird way to
interpret what he writes. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that what
you call "Nazi" I would call "disgusting, wrong, and troubling." The fact we
don't agree on what precisely he is - even if we both dislike him - is one
reason why we should not ban him. Especially since on other people we might
not agree on who to ban (e.g. some consider abortion doctors to be literal
murderers; should they ban such doctors from a programming conference?).

3\. About the diversity situation in tech: the article mentions how another
industry, medicine, handles this kind of thing. LambdaConf's decision is the
default in that industry. In fact, in practically all industries. Yes the
gender difference in tech is larger than in medicine. That is inconsistent
with your claim.

~~~
zahmahkibo
1\. Do you think people like Hitler just arise out of the sea one day, like
Aphrodite, completely unbidden? No. Worms like Moldbug lay the path for the
actually physically dangerous people to rise up.

2\. I'm not gonna get bogged down in a nomenclature debate. We both agree he's
a terrible person; that's enough for my argument to work.

3\. This would only be true if this were the ONLY factor for the diversity
problem (there are others)

~~~
brighteyes
1\. Sure, but trying to stamp out every person with opinions you think _might_
lead to something bad someday is, frankly, more frightening to me than
Moldbug. What you advocate threatens our existence as an open society.

For social progress to happen, we need people to tolerate unlikable
minorities. That's how things like gay rights happen, as 30 years ago, your
arguments could have been use to ban a gay activist from a tech conference.

Yes, tolerating unlikable minorities like whatever Moldbug is has risks. But
it's a risk we have to take.

~~~
zahmahkibo
It's not about "might." That's like saying the sun "might" set, or the tide
"might" recede. Worms like Moldbug have a 100% historical record of mutating
into terribly destructive individuals when given even the slightest leeway. On
the other hand, tolerating them has a zero percent success rate. Zero! Never,
not once, in history have Fascists been beaten by anything by the usual
liberal, democratic means of discourse and praxis.

And again, not all opinions are equal. The opinion "we should noplatform gays"
and "we should noplatform Fascists" aren't remotely in the same world just
because they share the same first three words.

Imagine if we applied this argument to other facets of life! Imagine if people
thought doctors were as bad as cancer because they tried to poison cancer
cells. Imagine if people thought the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto and
murdered Nazis were as bad as the Nazis themselves!

Also LMAO it's not a risk for everyone. It isn't a risk at all for the usually
affluent/usually white liberals that usually stand in the way of noplatforming
people like Moldbug. It IS a risk for people of color, women, the
disenfranchised, etc. It is facile for someone to say "well that's a risk we
have to take" when it's hardly a risk to you at all. Of course politicians use
this logic all the time to justify the mass slaughter of civilians abroad.
"Well, it might result in collateral ~~murder~~ damage, but that's just a risk
we'll have to take."

~~~
brighteyes
> Worms like Moldbug have a 100% historical record of mutating into terribly
> destructive individuals when given even the slightest leeway.

You're thinking of all the ones that you know the outcome of, like Hitler. But
there are many, many idiots like Moldbug that simply do not succeed in doing
anything. Many Hitlers go back to painting after failing at politics, some
even after some initial promise.

Statistically, ignoring Moldbug will work. And actually banning him is
counterproductive: I only heard about him through these bans, and it led me to
read a bunch of his work out of curiosity. I wasn't convinced (I'm not exactly
his target audience anyhow for demographic reasons), but others might be.

> not all opinions are equal.

The point is we don't know which are equal. 30 years ago, most people thought
the ethical thing was to ban gay people. And 30 years from now, things you and
I do now will look bad to people.

Given we might be wrong, just like all past and future generations, it's a
good idea to be tolerant.

Of course, we shouldn't tolerate all behavior - if someone sexually harasses
someone, we should ban them and report them to the police. But for just having
a certain belief, or other personal attribute that is not part of a
programming language conference, we should not ban people.

------
zahmahkibo
Not all views are equal. Some views are so horrendous it is our moral duty to
ostracize their believers.

~~~
erics32
How right you are! Let's ostracize and noplatform all the wrongthinkers. How
about we start by banning those horrendous muslims whose beliefs are
homophobic, sexist, calls for the death of apostates and atheists etc. Or
maybe those sexist homophobic christians?

~~~
zahmahkibo
Again, not all views are equal. Stop trying to pretend they are.

------
Animats
From the article: _" Well, I believe in free-market capitalism. A well-known
and popular programmer has tweeted, repeatedly, that he supports violence
(real violence, e.g., the firing squad) for people who believe that."_

Well, that's a political position with sizable historical backing. The people
behind the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and China's revolution
would all have agreed.

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians
have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of
all countries, unite!" \- Marx.

~~~
kazagistar
The KKK is a political position with sizable historical backing. I don't see
how this is relevant to either side of the argument here.

~~~
EdHominem
No, you do. And you failed your godwin.

The relevance is that this guy isn't the only one who believes it, just the
only one we're currently talking about for being honest on social media.

His speech is no more actionable (and thus no more worrying) towards any
individual than "Just bomb Iraq" was in late 2001. Cough.

In lieu of threats you don't get safer for banning him because 1) bans don't
actually work against criminals (not that he is, but if he was) and 2) if
you're really at risk there are billions more who feel the same way he does.
Better to avoid a false sense of security and just be on your toes.

------
seivan
Nothing rattles the "diversity" warriors cages than acceptance of diverse
thoughts. From my experience, all notions of acceptance and diversity goes out
the window when you disagree or have a different political opinion with said
warriors. It's a good way to dehumanize us for having the wrong thought.

"It's okay, you can kick him, he thinks X, Y, Z so he's practically Hitler"

------
calibraxis
From one of Moldbug's many vocal supporters at a "Founders Fund-sponsored
retreat": _" It was really quite lovely. Later that day, in the jeep to the
ranch house where everyone was staying, he started up with the casual racism,
and everyone ignored him."_
([https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/606799534983770112](https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/606799534983770112))

The status quo: highly funded white people in a ranch house, obsessive dreams
of white supremacy floating into the night...

(Unfortunately in the real world, very few "technologists" have any sort of
progressive future vision. Most just chase money and perks, building
bureaucratic tech. Politically regressive.)

> _we wrote the speaker and asked for a public statement clearly stating the
> speaker’s views on violence._

What does "violence" mean here? We're talking about Moldbug's acts of
spreading white supremacy whenever he gets a platform. Including tech
conferences and good ol' boy networking.

> _Social media has muddled this issue so much_

"Social media"... as in this blogpost? Twitter & HN? Techies sound
suspiciously like oppressive governments, blaming "social media" when it
threatens actual disruptive change.

> _Last year, StrangeLoop rescinded an invitation to a speaker because of the
> controversy that erupted (nay, exploded) when his talk was announced._

People pointed out the error, and StrangeLoop promptly fixed it. This is in
keeping with previous actions, like implementing dozens of tips from a highly
respected diversity consultant.

There's a reason StrangeLoop is considered way ahead of the curve. Other confs
aren't willing to do what it takes to be excellent. (And anyway, StrangeLoop
is more than just about a single style of programming, unlike LambdaConf.)

> _Would this be the end of LambdaConf???_

How many tech conferences ended so far because they give high-profile white
supremacists a platform? Just look at the racially-skewed audiences.

> _Feedback Highlights: Below are a few quotes from some of the amazing
> feedback we received:_

7 in favor of giving Moldbug a platform. 1 unclear. That's all he decided to
list.

~~~
maradydd
Hi. That's me you're quoting.

> The status quo: highly funded white people in a ranch house, obsessive
> dreams of white supremacy floating into the night...

Were you there? If not, then you're projecting. As it happens, the
participants were at best plurality white. And no, the PoC weren't all Asians
either.

Also, because Twitter requires short statements, there are multiple readings
of "ignored" there. I see you're taking the least charitable one, i.e.,
"everyone let it slide." That interpretation is incorrect. People _stopped
talking to him_. Isn't shunning what you progs want?

~~~
calibraxis
> _I see you 're taking the least charitable one, i.e., "everyone let it
> slide." That interpretation is incorrect. People stopped talking to him._

Good, because I used your interpretation: silence. You silently enabled a
white supremacy propagandist.

Of course, you're certainly NOT silent when it's time to support him. (Despite
your own evidence of his history of "casual racism" at a professional
networking event.)

So you're oddly quiet with white supremacy: you "stopped talking". But god
forbid you "ignore" when a conference right next to Ferguson (StrangeLoop)
declined to help promote a white supremacist's influence!

(Hell, if I mocked people's favorite programming language or text editor, I'd
almost certainly get a vocal reaction. Mild rebuke at least. Says everything
about techies' priorities.)

> _As it happens, the participants were at best plurality white. And no, the
> PoC weren 't all Asians either._

That's interestingly vague: were these participants to Moldbug's "casual
racism"? I imagined he only did this with obviously sympathetic audiences like
you.

(And what does "the PoC weren't all Asians" exactly mean? For someone berating
others for interpretations you don't like, you leave open a wide range of
interpretations.)

------
EdHominem
> In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should
> focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems.

And that wasn't the starting point? What a joke!

> We would never allow a violent criminal to attend LambdaConf.

Yes, you would. You'd be sued if you didn't. They did their time and
(presumably) got out or the question would be moot. If they (or anyone else)
threatened someone, see the next point.

> There is always a line. There must be one. The question is, where do we draw
> that line?

I've run conferences for years where the only policy of that sort is that we
won't hesitate to call the police.

It's worked perfectly because if someone follows someone else to harass them
that's illegal despite the subject matter. Harassing someone for liking the
wrong pokemon is just as actionable as harassing them because they're the
wrong gender. If the person isn't harassing anyone they're free to their
opinion no matter how odious.

The police are very helpful in explaining "a disturbance" and how someone is
creating one!

And here's the answer to threats, violence, etc. They get arrested. Not
expelled. Not shamed. Arrested. Treat it like you'd treat random street crime
and have them arrested.

~~~
st3v3r
Ok, but that's not everything. What about talks with sexist content? Remember
the "Perform like a porn star" talk
([http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2009/04/25/why-rails-is-
still-a...](http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2009/04/25/why-rails-is-still-a-
ghetto/))? The person giving the talk might not be actively harassing someone,
but they're clearly making the conference a place where women do not feel
welcome.

~~~
EdHominem
That's the content they choose to sponsor (with a soapbox), and which they
should curate.

~~~
greenrd
You need a code of conduct to prevent that if you are not to pre-vet all
slides, which is excessively bureaucratic and creates an implicit code of
conduct anyway.

~~~
EdHominem
No, it's pretty easy. If you have a mandate you ruthlessly cull anything not
on that mandate. You don't need a blacklist of banned topic, you have a
whitelist of worthwhile ones and you ignore anything else.

Lambda is pretty solidly about functional programming. Maybe extending to
programming/admin in general but not to politics.

Speakers should always be tweaking their talk for the audience anyways to
handle different durations, venues, crowds, time of day, etc. If there's
anything you don't want you can fix it here.

~~~
greenrd
You don't understand what a code of conduct is, or what this debate is about.

~~~
EdHominem
Yes, I do. I've run both tech and "fan" conferences.

I'm absolutely within my legal right to call the police on anyone who I kick
out for anything other than a tiny list of protected reasons, and I do so.
(Very rarely, almost everyone leaves immediately when you show that you aren't
playing some rules-lawyering game but simply calling the police.)

Both as someone familiar with human behavior and as someone who's gotten legal
advice, a code of conduct never helps me or the good attendees. It only offers
refuge for the spoilers.

------
f0code
"That I shall not talk or act in ways that could make minority groups feel
bullied, harassed, intimidated, stalked, stereotyped, or belittled; examples
of minority groups include women, people of color, lesbians, gays, and people
who are disabled, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, intersex, transgender, and
gender-variant;"

So as a member of the majority, I'm expressly the only person bound by these
rules of behavior in this pledge. My allowed attendance would be contingent on
remaining silent the entire time on premises.

~~~
sthatipamala
No, one member of such a group is also bound to conduct themselves relative to
members of another such group.

One way that one could attend is to not say offensive things. Yes, anything
_could_ be offensive and you have no way of knowing a priori. But a reasonable
person should be able to sort things out.

~~~
protomyth
"But a reasonable person should be able to sort things out."

We have two articles on the front page condemning a two second soundbite at a
keynote which was vetted by one of the most image conscious companies on the
planet. I don't think your statement is true. If a code of conduct does not
treat everyone as equals then it sets up a dynamic that will cause some group
of people to shutdown and not participate.

