
A Strange Loop (about Curtis Yarvin Being Kicked Out of Strange Loop) - yummyfajitas
https://improprietaryinfluence.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/a-strange-loop/
======
topynate
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379))
- 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.

~~~
twoodfin
_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.

------
escape_goat
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.

------
gaoshan
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.

------
braythwayt
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

~~~
pygy_
Regarding Adria Richards, if you follow the "fuck them up" link[0], you'll see
that he's not wrong.

————

0\.
[https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/](https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/)

------
api
This is sad to hear, especially with how crazy this same crowd goes over
things like NSA surveillance and Internet censorship. Such hypocrisy.

Yeah I know it's a private conference, but it says something that people can't
tolerate views they disagree with.

~~~
twoodfin
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?

------
rjknight
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.

~~~
13thLetter
"Do we really need this kind of culture war nonsense?"

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.

------
jpt4
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.

------
Q6T46nT668w6i3m
Talk submissions should be blind to maximize inclusiveness and minimize
quackery.

------
jarcane
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.

For a less sensationalized counterpoint, try this:
[https://al3x.net/2015/06/04/wouldn't-censorship-be-
exciting....](https://al3x.net/2015/06/04/wouldn't-censorship-be-
exciting.html)

~~~
Mithaldu
> Strewn throughout the Urbit author’s writings are statements in support of
> racism and slavery.

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.

