
Is LambdaConf for Conservative Christians, Too? - mrstorm
http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-conservative-christianity
======
vowelless
I wonder if the original email was more about this point in the "Pledge":

> 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;

It specifically talks about "minority groups". Presumably, the person who
emailed John felt himself part of the "majority", or at least not covered in
the "minority" groups.

I wonder why the pledge explicitly talks about minority groups? Why not just
say that there should be no bullying, harassment, etc. period.

FWIW, I am a "person of color" (I do dislike using that phrase).

~~~
smt88
> _I wonder why the pledge explicitly talks about minority groups? Why not
> just say that there should be no bullying, harassment, etc. period._

I think those groups are explicitly listed because not everyone believes all
of those groups really exist. Similarly, some people believe that belonging to
some of those groups is a choice.

Further, I'd imagine that all of those groups will be minorities at
LambdaConf, but not all of them are minorities everywhere (women, people "of
color", etc.)

I, too, am "of color" and dislike that phrase because A) it means nothing, B)
it implies that being "of color" is abnormal and requires someone to quality
the word "person", and C) there are way more of us than of non-colored people
(whatever that means).

~~~
sheepdestroyer
I really do think that there is a very important distinction to be made
between what intrinsically makes people who they are and what is just their
opinion, a matter of choice.

I may not be very articulate but
race/ethnicity/origin/gender/nationality/sex/sexual-orientation/ice-cream-
flavor-preferences (I do not list everything and may even be confused myself
for some of them, hope I can get explained which and why if I am wrong) are
fundamentally part of yourself as a human being. I mean that being challenged
to change them is obviously not a process prone to success (if even
technically possible for some).

However, I cringe a lot when religion is packed in the same bag. That's a
matter of opinion and all opinions are in my book welcome to be challenged.
You can be wrong about ideas/opinions. Being religious only means that, right
now, you believe something. And people have shown again and again that they
can change their mind, be converted to a new one or even just reject the
current one without choosing an other one.

Protecting religions as being a defining part of the human being is not only
wrong but so dangerous too for freedom of though. I dislike that so much when
their are put on the same plan as really person(human-being?)-defining things
that people have fought for in order to be acknowledged as equal-rights
humans. Especially when so many religious systems refuse to recognize those
equal rights.

P.S. : I also do think that political affiliation is exactly on the same level
as religion. They are just a choice and it's problematic (even damageable)
equating them with the rest in CoCs.

~~~
humanrebar
> [Religion is] a matter of opinion and all opinions are in my book welcome to
> be challenged.

Religion is a strange word that means different things to different people.
It's worth mentioning that whether God actually exists is not a matter of
opinion. If everyone was omniscient, agnosticism would be moot. We'd all be
atheists or deists.

With that in mind, the religious don't see God's existence as a matter of
choice any more than someone's ethnicity is a matter of choice. In fact, many
sooner believe they'd change their ethnicity before their relationship with
their God (Galatians 3:28).

That being said, healthy challenge and discussion are good things.

~~~
sheepdestroyer
If you were right, apostasy would not be a thing. Obviously it is always
possible, and it does happen, for religious people to stop being so.

Because of this, equating religion and ethnicity is can of wrong and (dare I
say) "bigoted". You should think of people who are attacked because of their
ethnicity (say) and as such touched in their inner human nature. That is the
worse attack one could have to sustain.

Now, show me someone technically changing his ethnicity to keep its
relationship to god, and I would admit that we live in a different reality
than I thought. Of course they may not want to, but the possibility, therefore
the choice, of apostasy, is _always_ present. For anyone.

~~~
humanrebar
You're still not seeing reality as a believer would. It's not a matter of
choice whether God exists any more than it's a matter of choice whether
gravity exists. And, in fact, gravity could cease to exist before God could.

> ...it is always possible, and it does happen, for religious people to stop
> being so.

But it's not possible for people to wish God in or out of existence. It's
easier to wish yourself into being a parent. Or married. Or disabled. But we
protect those classes. And rightly so.

You mention inner human nature, but in Judeo-Christian teaching, humanity was
created in the image of God (imago dei). To deny that _everyone_ was not
created in the image of God actually does attack their nature. Though
Christians are taught not to retaliate in kind, it is reasonable for them to
insist that others are treated with dignity and respect.

So there's a lot there, some of it subtle at first glance:

1\. believers don't believe God's existence is a choice 2\. God created us in
His image so it is a question of identity and human nature 3\. mature
Christians aren't supposed to be offended if they are mistreated for their
beliefs 4\. ...and they certainly don't _need_ codes of conduct since God will
enforce justice at the end of time 5\. though it's also good for Christians to
make sure people are not mistreated because of their beliefs

------
davidbhayes
CONTEXT: Linked post is from Feb 29, 2016. Before the recent tumult about
LamdaConf announcing their intention to host a speaker who is also a
"fascist", and "slavery apologist." (Post explaining their logic there is:
[http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-
inclusion](http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion) .)

Not sure why it's being posted now.

------
andrewflnr
Speaking as a conservative Christian, that's a pretty tame pledge of conduct.
The only thing that bothers me about it is that it demands that you go
straight to a staff member if you see a violation, rather than try to resolve
it peacefully. I certainly wouldn't feel like I was going to be asked to
compromise my beliefs. Maybe the one who asked the question was extrapolating
or asking based on other sources?

------
sanxiyn
I applaud LambdaConf's decision, compared to Strange Loop which caved to
bullying.

Neoreaction is not a powerful movement. Attacking neoreaction is not punching
up.

~~~
dominotw
All their sponsors are pulling out, it remains to be seen if conf is still
going to happen.

~~~
wtbob
Sounds like the definition of bravery to me: doing the right thing even when
it hurts one.

------
lhnz
He seems like a nice, reasonable guy. I actually think that he's more tolerant
than most people, and that the radical left could learn something from him.

~~~
pklausler
As opposed to the radical right, you mean?

~~~
lhnz
In this particular case it's the radical left that is irate, so yes.

Also, in general the radical right (when this is used to refer to neoreaction)
tends to just opine with long blog posts where they capitalise words like
Tradition, Civilization and Enlightenment. They don't like to angrily point
fingers as they feel this is unbecoming of gentlemen/women. (I'm being honest
about their pretensions here.)

~~~
pklausler
Attendees at Trump rallies are not exactly known for writing long blog posts,
suggestively capitalized or not.

~~~
lhnz
...? You are aware that all of this drama relates to the creator of
Neoreaction, right?

That vein of the Right has little to do with Trump rallies. It's this kind of
stuff: [http://thefutureprimaeval.net/](http://thefutureprimaeval.net/) (and
more generally: [http://www.socialmatter.net](http://www.socialmatter.net))

My description is apt.

~~~
pklausler
Thanks for the link and the clarification!

------
Renaud
I am always amazed at how religion is such a hot and polarizing topic in the
US. Political debates in the US presidential election are baffling at best and
often utterly cringe-worthy.

I don't even understand why someone would ask if a tech conference, a topic
that has zero to do with religion, is 'for them too' because they're
Christian? Is proselytizing part of the conference's aim? no? Then why even
ask? Is it non-obvious enough that you would need to ask?

This is really weird.

~~~
thescribe
Contex wise: This is because some many US events now have codes of conduct
that play into identity politics.

~~~
sheepdestroyer
Religion is not part of your identity, it's at best an opinion that you are
(potentially temporary) holding now. And this is wrong for CoCs to include
religions, or political views, on the same level as identity defining traits
like gender and race.

~~~
humanrebar
Many people feel like religion is _more_ of a defining characteristic than
politics, country of origin, marital status, and even ethnicity.

[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/22/1473694/-Ted-
Cruz-I-...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/22/1473694/-Ted-Cruz-I-m-a-
Christian-first-American-second-Imagine-if-Muslim-or-Jewish-politician-said-
that)

~~~
sheepdestroyer
And that may be one of the big cultural difference between the US and my
country. Here the generally shared idea is that people are citizens of the
republic first, before anything else. Such a comment from a politician would
elicit a terrible uproar.

That being said, anything can be part of your identity, you can define
yourself as punk rock if you want. What I mean and thought you understood is
the difference between what is intrinsically you and not. Yes of course, to
many, religion _is_ important like veganism can be. But it remain a mere
choice to keep it that way.

Apostasy is always a possibility and that makes it different in a way that
equating both kinds of identities is lessening the damages one sustains when
attacked on a fundamental part of its person-hood. If your race is criticized,
that's an attack on your humanity. If someone criticize your belief system :
meh none is challenged otherwise than on a thought level.

------
emkk
We've had a week that went from a fascist AI bot that was taken down
immediately to a real fascist who is being tolerated. This person thinks the
"weak" should be enslaved by "strong", nonsensical and subjective
categorizations where no doubt "strong" probably includes him and means people
like him in this view.

There is definetly a camp of developers (not outsiders) who have denigrated
StrongLoops decision and praised LambdaConf. These are engineers who may work
with members of groups targeted by this fascists' views, engineers who may
review a Black / Latino applicant for a job, contribute to the overall work
environment for them.

To my point, what I see is a co-optation of the meaning of the world
tolerance. When there is an fascist antagonist on minority groups, it is
easier for these "tolerant" everyday individuals to say hey fascists should
matter too at tech conferences. Because thats what tolerant means, even the
fascists and racists matter, no? Things that appear logically equivalent are
not always the best things to do. Part of me thinks this is part of antebellum
United States' original sin; the wealthy white class using race and slavery to
spur hate-mongering from working-middle class whites, who saw Black people as
their problem and not class inequity. This is the "vicious lie" that MLK
talked about and continues to manifest today as Tim Wise deals with:
www.timwise.org/2015/04/how-racism-explains-americas-class-divide-and-culture-
of-economic-cruelty-an-excerpt-from-under-the-affluence/

~~~
tzs
> This person thinks the "weak" should be enslaved by "strong", nonsensical
> and subjective categorizations where no doubt "strong" probably includes him
> and means people like him in this view.

Citation needed. Based on this conversation in his recent AMA that does not
seem like his position:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/d1da212)

He seems to believe that some groups are better (from the slaver's point of
view) at being slaves than others are. Namely, when enslaved to do
agricultural work those from agricultural societies are better slaves than
those from hunter-gatherer societies.

That's quite different from saying that anyone _should_ be enslaved.

~~~
tptacek
Careful. Yarvin takes pains to be cryptic about his beliefs in his writing on
line, but people who have spent time with him in the real world report that
he's much more up front about it in person.

The popular interpretation of Yarvin's UR posts is probably not incorrect.

------
carsongross
My God.

An adult.

------
dogecoinbase
_I believe that “good” can only, ever mean, “I like it,” and bad can only,
ever mean, “I don’t like it.” Morality, in my view, is just how we try to
objectify what are inherently subjective personal preferences._

This is... a ridiculously oversimplified caricature of atheistic philosophy,
presumably now posted (as the original post predates the current
controversy[0]) to imply the obviously incorrect syllogism that if we accept
people who are privately religious we're somehow obligated to not only accept
outspoken racists, but put them on a stage.

[0] The idea that it should be controversial to deny a platform to someone
who's chosen to become a public figure by promoting racist violence is absurd,
regardless of any technical accomplishments (which would be a pretty strong
characterization of the pointless Turing trap that is urbit). I've already
canceled my flight for LambdaConf and in the future I will happily decline to
work with people who failed to do so.

~~~
smt88
> _a ridiculously oversimplified caricature of atheistic philosophy_

It seemed to me that the author was offering an explanation of _amoral_
atheism, which he explicitly mentioned several times.

~~~
dllthomas
Wouldn't that apply just as well to an amoral theism?

------
gedy
Do tech conferences honestly need codes of conduct? Feels a bit like living in
a home - some folks hate the idea of Home Owner Associations with their
explicit rules, others can't imagine living next to people without everything
spelled out.

~~~
smt88
> _Do tech conferences honestly need codes of conduct?_

Yes. "Common sense" and "common decency" aren't universal, even in situations
that seem to fall under obvious and well-established social norms.

It's better to have these things written out so that no one can claim they
didn't know any better. No one is asking the attendees to take this conduct
into the rest of their lives -- it's just a way to behave that everyone can
agree upon ahead of time to keep things civil.

~~~
someguydave
> It's better to have these things written out so that no one can claim they
> didn't know any better.

No, it's not better. One cannot substitute common decency with a document, and
it's a fool's errand to try.

~~~
smt88
You're right. We should have no laws. /s

------
rboyd
Why not just reject a speaker if you think it will hurt ticket sales? You
don't have a duty to stand up for free speech, or whatever. You host a
conference, you protect your brand, and if people don't like it they can start
their own.

~~~
sanxiyn
This is the same principle that restaurants probably shouldn't reject
homosexual people even if it may hurt sales.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
"Leaders of the dark enlightment" is not a protected class.

