
Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy - buffyoda
http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-conclusion
======
lukev
Of course, LambdaConf has every right to define its community in the way it
sees fit.

While their explanation does have a lot of logical appeal (see:
[https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-
dive...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/satnam-singh/dr-spock-vs-
diversity/10154092724913630)), it's important to remember that prospective
attendees and speakers _also_ have the right of free association.

The fact is, I _do_ wish to exclude myself from any community that
deliberately includes Yarvin and his ilk. I would encourage others to make the
same decision. I will happily discuss or debate ideas with them on any topic,
in any forum where it makes sense to do so. They are human beings and deserve
all the rights and privileges thereof.

But I'm not obligated to drink beer and break bread with them, pretending
nothing is wrong.

This isn't a free speech issue, this is a "who do you want in your community"
issue. In the light of a community, you can't, and you shouldn't, pull one
aspect of a person's character and isolate it from the rest of their identity.

I hope people give me the same treatment. I am more than the content of my
technical talks, and so is Yarvin.

~~~
mikeash
I've followed this saga with much confusion and I wonder if you could explain
why you'd avoid a conference with a speaker like this.

For me, if I'm evaluating a conference speaker, all I care about is:

1\. Is the topic useful or interesting?

2\. Is the speaker well informed and the content correct?

3\. Does the speaker present the material well?

I couldn't care less about them otherwise, and especially not their political
views. For most conference speakers, I couldn't tell you anything about their
political views, because it's just not relevant.

What's your reasoning for including that aspect of a speaker when evaluating
the conference?

I also wonder, if we take it as a given that political views are important, do
you vet all conference speakers' views before you attend a conference? Or do
you have faith that the community will root out views you find unacceptable?

~~~
calibraxis
Moldbug's political views aren't the issue, it's his political _action_. He
has a record of going to conferences and advocating racism: working to
exclude. And one of Lambdaconf's sponsors is a racist political blog, which
sounds unprecedented. (Evidence in my comment history.)

(The context is a country which kills and incarcerates blacks, post-slavery.
Racism is political action which directly impacts the lives of confgoers and
users. Toxic for education and networking.)

Any conf organizer has heard people say, "It's not the talks, it's the hallway
conversations!" Racist political groups are now desperate enough to nakedly
show their influence out in the open. Harder for them to dominate quietly.

~~~
thescribe
Can you provide an example of any action he has taken that is not merely
expressing a view?

~~~
calibraxis
Do you want evidence of him... shivving someone?

(But then again, how is stabbing someone with a knife relevant to a talk's
quality?)

(But then again, how is a talk's quality relevant to free expression of
views?)

Professional conferences "censor" speakers who don't provide what their
audiences want. And have codes of conduct censoring harassing speech. You too:
does everyone get to deliver speeches in your home? Visit your workplace and
undermine you?

~~~
tomp
> But then again, how is stabbing someone with a knife relevant to a talk's
> quality?

It's not. I find no reason to exclude an ex-convict that has been charged and
served his jail-time. Including them back into the society is the only way we
can at least _hope_ to combat recidivism.

~~~
calibraxis
It'd be great if you have evidence that Moldbug is an ex-con who underwent
rehab for his racism!

If not, would you _really_ invite someone with a record of stabbing people at
conferences? Who writes literature advocating murder, etc?

(In the real world, Moldbug leverages society's obvious violence against
African-Americans. He's therefore complicit in that systematic violence.
That's why Lambdaconf's racist supporters are so desperate to support him, no
matter how clumsily. That's why all these people were targeted on sjwlist.com
for speaking out against violence: [http://statement-on-
lambdaconf.github.io/](http://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/) )

~~~
tomp
> It'd be great if you have evidence that Moldbug is an ex-con who underwent
> rehab for his racism!

Unlike violent crime, racist speech isn't immediately dangerous. But in any
case, if you believe he's a criminal, rally to have him arrested; him being a
free man means that he has nothing to go in rehab for.

> society's obvious violence against African-Americans

You mean, African-American's obvious violence against African-Americans?

[http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-
race...](http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-
violent-crime/)

~~~
zardgiv
When arguing in favor of a racist speaker on the grounds of free speech, it's
probably not the best idea to go off on a tangent quoting a "race realist"
publication whose founder said:

"Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own
devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears"

[https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-
files/grou...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-
files/group/american-renaissance)

~~~
tomp
Didn't realise that... In any case, I was only quoting it gor the statistics
presented in the table, which seems to have been copied from a DOJ report, and
hopefully not tampered with (although now I'm not so sure any more...).

~~~
zardgiv
What should be suspect now, and something worth reflecting on, is the
narrative being pushed by them since that's usually how "lying with
statistics" works.

~~~
zardgiv
Amazing. I read some more, and Moldbug's posted approvingly about American
Renaissance! It's too perfect.

------
brokentone
This is really a wonderful post. Too many open source projects, conferences,
and the like have turned into witch hunts by, as John mentions, the morality
police. Maintainers are bullied into adopting CoCs even if there have been no
issues at all in their community, and distancing themselves from valued
members of their community for something dumb they may have said or done in
entirely different contexts or years ago.

The whole set of posts John has provided on the matter have been extremely
fair and thoughtful.

------
seibelj
I read an FAQ on neo-reactionism and it's totally insane. But I would be fine
with the guy lecturing about computers if he knew his stuff. Honestly I find
intelligent, rational people who come to radically different conclusions about
society to be fascinating.

On the other hand, if Hitler himself was alive and gave a speech on art, I
wouldn't want to hear it because of his politics and actions. So clearly there
is a spectrum for me, and at some point the politics become so bad I can't
stand the person.

Also, by giving this person a speaking role, he becomes more authoritative in
all subjects, so it probably is better not to help him. In summary, lots to
think about!

~~~
tomp
I would _love_ to hear a speech by Hitler. Regardless of his actions, he was a
_master_ persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade more than
most people couldn't in 1000 years! We could all learn _a lot_ from him -
which of course doesn't mean that we would have to use the skills for the same
means he did.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>he was a master persuader and accomplished (affected the world) in a decade
more than most people couldn't in 1000 years

No. He accomplished what most people _wouldn 't_ and _oughtn 't_ in a thousand
years.

~~~
mikeash
That's not in conflict with what was said in your quote. Hitler changed the
world enormously. It was terrible, but the influence is undeniable. I'm
reminded of all the people I've seen making fun of Time for naming Hitler
their Man of the Year, without realizing that Man/Person of the Year is purely
about the size of impact, not how good it is.

------
ng12
How crazy -- I'm vaguely familiar with Curtis' work, and would have never
known (or cared) about his political views until the people looking to "no
platform" him gave him a platform.

Streisand effect, people.

~~~
Aqueous
When will people learn that you don't fight a view by attempting to suppress
it?

~~~
danharaj
That wasn't the point of protesting his presence at LambdaConf. The point was
so that people who want to go to LambdaConf and feel threatened and humiliated
by someone's enthusiastic support of racism and slavery don't have to
associate with such a person.

It is so exasperating that so many people who _aren 't_ denigrated and
targeted by his hateful politics think this is a matter of _abstract
principle_. Somehow, letting my and others' humanity be a matter of political
_opinion_ is the mature, apolitical position. Utterly frustrating attitude.
It's perfectly fine to be tolerant of Yarvin's views, it is completely
unreasonable to ask others to associate with a person who envisions a world
where their humanity is forfeit.

~~~
Aqueous
In public life we have to - and should - encounter and tolerate people whose
opinions we find abhorrent. I would much prefer a world where I feel emotional
discomfort being in the presence of someone I loathe than a world where such a
person is prohibited from ever being near me, because of social ostracism. It
provides for a much richer marketplace of ideas.

If you don't like him, protest him. Disturb him with your words as much as he
disturbs you with his.

~~~
danharaj
Free speech is such a pretty principal when you can always foist its costs on
other people. You can keep your marketplace.

I'm going to be emphatic, because i am emphatic about this position:

Free speech is a powerful principle because speech has power. Because speech
can hurt people, because speech can change the world. If speech did not
matter, free speech would not matter.

If speech matters, and speech has power, then its effects must be considered.
To do anything less is _irrational_. The idea that rejecting Yarvin's ideas so
emphatically that we would deny him platform would lead to unjust suppression
of speech is a _fallacy_. It is a _slippery slope_. So many people who strive
to be rational individuals and avoid cognitive biases, and yet balk at
treating speech for what it is instead of a sacred object that should be
worshipped.

By saying Yarvin should be allowed to speak, you are merely saying that
protecting his speech is more important than the emotional and professional
cost it exacts on the people he targets. And yes, he targets people. Through
all his extremely verbose, meandering writings, a clear thread of contempt for
certain others' runs.

"The relationship of master and slave is a natural human relationship: that of
patron and client." \- Curtis Yarvin

 _You_ can react to speech the way you want. But you're not taking any moral
high ground with your approach when you explicitly deny the impact of speech
on others and how _they_ react to it. Association is a form of speech.
Petitioning others to stand with you is a form of speech. Protecting Yarvin's
speech on the grounds of principle, which is rejecting others' speech out of
hand in contradiction of the same principles is inconsistent. All speech has
consequences, and there is no neutral advocacy of "free speech" because truly
free speech is a realm of conflict and inconsistency.

~~~
barsonme
It should be noted 'free speech' is the reason you can have this conversation
in the first place.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. That is, if you wish to not have
_your_ opinions censored you cannot ask for the censorship of other opinions
you feel offensive.

I wish bigots and other prejudiced people would spare us, but I value my
freedom to speak my mind more than I dislike hearing hateful speech.

~~~
sclv
There's no free speech on hackernews. People get moderated all the time! If
hackernews can moderate its comments, then can't a conference moderate its
speakers?

~~~
barsonme
Big distinction -- people are moderated for their content _on Hacker News_ ,
not off.

If this speaker makes a racial slur he'll likely be removed from the
conference. Inside the conference (much like HN) they're free to limit his
speech. However, as was mentioned in the article, the conference does not and
will not judge speech _outside_ the conference, much like HN does not (to my
knowledge) ban users for offensive speech _outside_ HN.

------
mintplant
Quoting from a Lobste.rs post [1] on the other side of this issue:

> Here’s a different approach, which explains this quite reasonably:
> LambdaConf made a lot of effort to contact organisations involving PoC,
> introducing diversity scholarships etc. to gain some fame. Then, suddenly,
> out of the blue, they decide to run a person which is clearly incompatible.
> These organisations cut their ties and oppose the project they supported.
> It’s all very unsurprising. You can’t shout “everyone is equal, please
> spread!” and then invite someone on the speakers list who wrote hundreds of
> thousands of words how he thinks people are fundamentally unequal by
> disposition and some should be slaves.

> I’d be far less aggravated if LambdaConf had just been a run-of-the-mill
> conference, but it tried to be _the diverse conference in FP_. Now it shows
> that they actually meant “libertarian”. Appropriating terms like “inclusive”
> or “diverse” for that is just a recipe for disaster...

> LambdaConf chose to be a temporary, short space where anything goes unless
> it’s not physically violent. What they _communicated_ was something
> different though. And that difference is biting them now, making sponsors
> jump off and people protest.

In sum: people are upset because they feel used - that LambdaConf made one set
of promises and advertised in a specific way to gain fame, then flipped on
those values afterward.

[1]
[https://lobste.rs/s/dibl7y/why_we_re_sponsoring_lambdaconf_2...](https://lobste.rs/s/dibl7y/why_we_re_sponsoring_lambdaconf_2016/comments/x7kpvy#c_x7kpvy)

~~~
tomp
Using the words "inclusive" and "diverse" to describe a position which
encourages banning people who think differently than most is highly
problematic and disingenuous.

------
tomp
What an amazing article; cool-headed, rational and very well-argued.
Especially the "Appendix" containing definitions and short
doscussions/arguments is worth reading.

~~~
marshray
Yeah, it's going to drive people nuts.

Edit: (people on both sides)

------
1123581321
I think the policy to ignore social media is a valuable innovation. For a
couple of years, I have hoped to see companies adopt this policy to protect
their employees from being capriciously let go.

------
swampthinker
Sorry, I guess I've been living under a rock. What's the context for this?

~~~
sridca
[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Lambdaconf_incident](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Lambdaconf_incident)

> _In March 2016, the organizers of [LambdaConf] announced that they would
> include neo-reactionary Curtis Yarvin on the program despite widespread
> protest._

\---

[http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/sjws-urge-
programmi...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/sjws-urge-programming-
conference-to-ban-speaker-over-political-views/)

> _LambdaConf, an annual gathering of programmers in Boulder, Colorado, has
> faced calls from social justice warriors to cancel a talk by Curtis Yarvin,
> the developer of the Urbit programming environment, due to his political
> views._

~~~
striking
I appreciate the fact that you posted links to both perspectives on the issue.

------
OoTheNigerian
Exceptionally lucid and captures every this I think of and aligns well with my
position.

It is ironically said that fundamental Christians of today would give Jesus
the hardest time if this was his Era.

Likewise, I have observed that the most "militantly liberal expousers" seem to
be the most intolerant of other views.(I speak as an observer from outside the
western world where this is prevalent)

I hope this is the end of this issue.

This response will serve as template for future moral police people

------
zimbu668
I read Yarvin's response to this whole incident:
[https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-
lam...](https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-
anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d#.6xux1ooek)

Could someone provide a link to his pro-slavery arguments?

~~~
antifasci
Exactly.

------
rtpg
I'm not a part of LambdaConf, nor would I plan to (not because of the
controversy, but just because I don't have the time/money to attend any US-
based conference)...

But these discussions remind me a lot of the "censorship" discussions that
have been had both on places like reddit or twitter.

For the longest time, code of conducts were a thing that were accepted. Don't
be a jerk, don't spout racist stuff at people. Loads of forums had it, and the
places that didn't basically became 4chan (which is interesting in its own
right but filled with pretty rude people).

Sometime between 1995 and 2015, we started thinking that rules that basically
say "don't be a jerk" stopped being the norm.... I really wonder why. Now it
gets classified as "censorship".

That being said, my understanding is that this guy's talk wasn't "How FP
advances the causes of Stormfont", which makes it pretty hard to say outright
"gotta kick him out".

But I wouldn't want Marine Le Pen or Trump at my FP conference, no matter how
subtle and developed their views on FP are. My opinion does not entire
conference submission guidelines make, but I can understand fighting against
that. Social interactions don't work in a vacuum...

Glad I don't have to participate at this

------
eruditely
I have so much respect for the lambdaconf organizers and will remember John A
De Goes as a highly ethical individual. Love what they're doing.

------
gwright
From the article:

> Someone with progressive political views might feel emotionally threatened
> in the presence of rabid and well-known Trump supporters who are openly
> contemptuous of progressives in their personal lives […]

Ugh. I’m not sure how I would have selected examples of potentional emotional
distress but a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious
attitudes wouldn’t have been my first choice.

~~~
mcphage
> a laundry list of caricatures of political, sexual, and religious attitudes

I assume that the bit you quoted was a reference to the recent events at Emory
University.

------
xirdstl
This is a divisive issue, and originally I found myself agreeing with this
post, because, in general, I expect a conference to about mature professionals
focusing on the craft.

That said, LambdaConf advertises itself as a "magical place" with a
"passionate and friendly community of like-minded souls."

Given that, I understand why people are upset. They are trying to have it both
ways.

------
jordigh
> Free speech advocates have gathered on one side, advocates for social
> justice on the other

wtf

Those two are supposed to be the same side. There's some really perverse
twisting of words here to put social justice in opposition to free speech. How
has the debate come to this?

~~~
Kalium
A speaker-blind selection process selected a talk by someone who is considered
by some to be offensive for reasons not directly relevant to the content of
the talk.

~~~
st3v3r
Yet definitely relevant to the people who would choose to attend the
conference. It's definitely going to make some people feel uncomfortable
attending, knowing that they invited someone who believes that you are not
deserving of human rights and dignity to speak.

------
hoodoof
Seems conferences are quite a controversial thing these days.

~~~
marklyon
Agreed. In addition to "codes of conduct" that seem to assume all attendees
are lecherous, racist rapists some conferences step outside their focus and
end up turning away potential attendees. For example, this military member who
really seems to be the target market for DjangoCon but who can't attend due to
past pro-marijuana speakers.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/4dihy4/django_train...](https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/4dihy4/django_trainings/d1yngty)

~~~
chipotle_coyote
While I suppose there may be some codes of conduct out there that truly make
those assumptions, most of the ones I've seen are simply predicated on the
assumption that it's better to proactively make rules outlining acceptable
behavior -- and, ideally, outlining both the ways complaints will be handled,
including enforcement.

We'd all like to believe that "trust everyone to not to be jerks to one
another" is code enough for any convention, and I get that "X, Y and Z will
not be tolerated" can come across like taking sides in a debate. But
establishing a CoC first is the social engineering equivalent of test-driven
development. Handling complaints on an entirely ad hoc, subjective basis works
as long as complaints remain relatively minor, but the failure mode can be
pretty spectacular, and not in a good way.

------
anaphor
About the chart on "moral reasoning", consequentialism, the idea that only the
outcome is what matters, _is_ an ethical system that one can base their morals
off of. I'm not sure where they got the idea that they're two separate things.

Also the whole "xyism" thing seems to be their own made-up terminology for the
idea of an illusory correlation in social psychology. Why not just say
stereotyping groups is a bad idea instead of the weird references to logic and
set theory?

------
bad_user
I do not understand the prevailing opinions in this thread and I must confess
that, even though I disagree respectfully with LambdaConf's choices
(respectfully as in, hey, it's their conference and I can even understand
their reasoning), seeing the uncertainty and the doubt and the bullying and
the lack of empathy for the less fortunate, this is the first time I'm ashamed
of being a software developer.

For those with doubts, here's one of his posts that is racist by definition:
[http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-
carl...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ro/2009/07/why-carlyle-
matters.html?m=1)

And given his now infamous Medium post, given that it can be hard to parse
English, here's a review of the book that he's recommending in support of his
racist views: [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-
report/...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-
report/2014/troublesome-sources)

I personally don't understand how anybody can claim that his views aren't
racist in the most profound hate-inducing ways, and for every such assertion
it feels like a spit in the face at least of those that have had grandfathers
surviving WWII, let alone the minorities amongst us that fear not for their
job, but for their personal safety.

But keep thinking that hate speech is just political opinion that needs to be
protected. And keep demeaning and silencing those that ring alarms, as if
"SJWs" are amongst your biggest problems. Yeah, that worked out well in the
past.

~~~
dmix
Left authoritarianism and right wing authoritarianism are two sides of the
same coin [1]. I couldn't accept one without the other as they operate on the
same principles. Which is why I am willing to go to a tech conference as long
as the subject matter is entirely about technology. If it included political
discourse by said people it would be a different story and I wouldn't attend.
Attendance is voluntary. And as far as I'm concerned people are free to attend
whatever political conference they please. The only time I would support
forcing a speaker not to be able to attend is if he planned to give a speech
specifically involving inciting violence, coercion, or other blatant
_criminal_ acts at that specific venue - and specifically a venue residing
within my local community/country. The internet is a different story.

[1] [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-29/emergence-
orwellian...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-29/emergence-orwellian-
newspeak-and-death-free-speech)

------
mrcsparker
Wonderful graphs at the bottom.

I hope that this passes. It was too bad that an article like this had to be
written.

------
pklausler
I don't recall this kind of brouhaha affecting more "academic" conferences,
e.g. ISCA or Supercomputing, but I can't come up with a decent reason why that
might be the case. Did the LambdaConf organizers just get unlucky?

------
davidgerard
An attempt to derive a concept of “inclusivity” from first principles,
complete with made-up jargon words and _diagrams_.

DeGoes wants to be thought of as “inclusive” but doesn’t understand that the
purpose of inclusivity is to hear from marginalised voices you might be
systemically excluding. He thinks “ah, we’ll achieve ‘inclusivity’ by
including everyone, even the odious!” Thus achieving literally the opposite.
But that’s okay, he can show his working.

His new reactionary fandom (~ 0 of whom give two hoots about functional
programming) are fully onside. Everyone else has left them to it; it’s unclear
if DeGoes understands in any way that this is what has happened.

------
lbarrow
There's no such thing as "not becoming political". Hosting an event is a
political act; so is selling tickets to the event or paying people to help you
run it. These acts might be _normal_ but they're still _political_.

When someone says, "I don't want this to get political", what they're really
saying is "I'm comfortable with the politics of the status quo and I want
things to stay the way they are". Sometimes that's totally fine. In this case
it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery.

De Goes can have his conference, but arguing that this isn't a political
decision is simply incorrect.

~~~
DrJokepu
I'm not really familiar with the details of this whole LambdaConf drama, but
your argument keeps showing up on my Twitter feed regularly and I never found
it very convincing to be honest. I don't see why hosting an event is
necessarily a political act and I don't see why when people say "I don't want
this to get political" it means that they're happy with the status quo. People
keep repeating these arguments online as if they were self-evident truths and
never really explain well (or at all) why these statements are true.

In particular, an argument could be made that someone could find being forced
to be surrounded by politics boring and tedious even if they agree with these
ideas. If you don't believe me, just read the comments in any political HN
post (such as this one); I guarantee you that you will find many of the
comments obnoxious, even some of the ones you agree with in principle.

~~~
lbarrow
That's a totally reasonable question. I typed my initial response on my phone
and was going for brevity.

People live in society together. Broadly speaking, political decisions are
decisions about what the rules for how we should go about living and working
together are. We tend to think of things as _obviously_ political when the
community has a debate about whether or not something is acceptable (like
abortion). But because politics sets the boundaries of social life, it also
defines its interior.

For example, you and I (probably) both agree that it's totally reasonable to
go to Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee. We don't think of this as an action
anywhere near the boundaries of acceptable conduct, and so we both think of it
as not having a whole lot of political meaning. A Marxist, however, would
argue that we're participating in an exploitative system because we're using
private property, shopping at a capitalist-owned business, etc.

We both don't buy their argument, but simply because they've made it, we're
forced to concede that buying coffee is political act. By buying coffee, we're
saying we're comfortable with the structures that created Starbucks, or that
we judge any harmful consequences of buying coffee to be less important than
our day to day convenience. The fact that the action is normal doesn't change
the fact that at some point _we decided it was acceptable_, and that decision
was _definitely_ political.

To give another example, the Free Software Foundation, is explicitly founded
on the idea that everyday acts have political meaning, no matter how normal
they are. Take this passage from their site
([https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-
impor...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-
important.html)):

>>>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other
entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary
program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself,
and tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.

>>>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a program to
carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on your having control
over the program. You deserve to have control over the programs you use, and
all the more so when you use them for something important in your life.

The FSF is arguing that the way you distribute software is a political
decision, not just a matter of technical convenience, and they're totally
right to point this out.

Anyway. To bring it back to LambdaConf, De Goes is clearly wrong to claim that
things have "become" politicized. It's more accurate to say that giving a
speaking slot to racists was political acceptable and has become politically
disputed. De Goes doesn't like that things have gone from acceptable to
disputed, so he claims he doesn't want things to be "political". But things
were always political, it's just that previously they weren't controversial.

This is why people who argue against "politicizing" issues are implicitly
arguing for the politics of the status quo. They're arguing against change.

------
jessaustin
Is it meaningful that there is no _link_ to LambdaConf in TFA? Don't make me
Google...

------
douche
This is probably the most reasonable response to these sorts of pressures I've
ever seen. One can hope that other groups will follow their lead and strive to
act like fully-grown, professional, adults.

I'm sure they'll get eviscerated for it, though.

~~~
McGlockenshire
The attempt to be a neutral platform is laudable, and the wording used to
express the idea seems to be well thought through.

The fact remains that even though that insist that they are not endorsing any
of the speakers' views, the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience
(even if the presentation is entirely topical and non-controversial) acts as
an implicit endorsement. Denying this doesn't change the effective
endorsement.

~~~
mcphage
> the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience acts as an implicit
> endorsement

Giving a speaker a talk acts an implicit endorsement of all of their views?
That doesn't even sound remotely true, yet you state it as if it was
tautological.

~~~
McGlockenshire
The endorsement is implicit, not explicit.

Conf: "We're giving person A a presentation slot because they have a
compelling presentation on topic W."

Possible Attendee: "Are you aware that person A has said things X, Y, and Z,
which taken together can make people reluctant to associate with them?"

Conf: "We are aware of that but do not wish to make our conference about
anything X, Y, or Z. The presentation is topical."

PA: "If you feature this speaker, you will cause some people to be reluctant
to associate with your conference as well."

Conf: "We understand that, but speaker A is discussing topic W, not topics X,
Y, or Z. We choose to feature the speaker because of their presentation on W."

By taking this position, the conference associates itself with the speaker.
Possible attendees will see this association and draw the conclusion that the
conference endorses the speaker, even if that endorsement is only about non-
controversial things that are within the topic of the conference.

Dryly stating that there is no endorsement of any off-topic position does not
remove that association and the implicit endorsement.

Implicit endorsement by association is a real effect. Go talk to any major
politician about how they can't be seen talking to anyone remotely
controversial, because of how associating with that person might be seen as
endorsement.

~~~
Turing_Machine
_The endorsement is implicit, not explicit._

This is totally wrong.

To take a trivial example, criminal defendants (even obviously guilty ones)
are allowed to speak in court.

You're saying that this is an "implicit endorsement" of their crimes by the
court? Are you _really_ claiming that?

~~~
McGlockenshire
False equivalence. A trial isn't a conference.

That said, you should know as well as I do that judges will often restrict
media coverage of hearings and trials in various ways because they know that
the people involved (lawyers & otherwise) can and will attempt to grandstand
and make a show of it, using the media as a platform for their message.

------
wcummings
This is the blog in question: [http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/)

Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of it. There's some racist lingo, but
more than anything _this guy seems unhinged, like the kind of person I wouldn
't want to be in a room with, let alone have a conversation with._

------
FireBeyond
Apropos of anything else, the 'lawyer' example is a bad one, and contrived for
the purpose of example.

If an attorney "knows" that their client is guilty, they are duty-bound as
officers of the court to make that knowledge known.

Obviously that doesn't happen as much as it should...

~~~
russellallen
The general rule in Common Law (English speaking) legal systems is that if the
lawyer knows (as opposed to suspects) that their client is guilty, they cannot
let their client plead not guilty. They can still defend the client by
pleading for a lesser sentence etc, or they can cease acting for the client.
They don't have any obligation to tell the court, just an obligation not to
lie to the court. Of course each jurisdiction will have its own rules about
this.

~~~
powera
Except you don't enter a plea for an action, you enter a plea for a criminal
charge. A murderer can confess a crime to his lawyer (under privilege), and
still honestly plead not-guilty to first-degree murder (for example, it could
be considered manslaughter).

------
danharaj
This is an open letter of people protesting LambdaConf's decision:
[https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/](https://statement-on-
lambdaconf.github.io/)

I invite anyone to peruse that list and tell me these aren't some of the
brightest professionals and integral community members in functional
programming (subtracting me of course). I welcome anyone to make the claim
that these individuals haven't come to their positions through reason and deep
consideration for the ramifications of how this issue is resolved.

~~~
antifasci
The fact that you cite only a single source should stand as simple enough
reason to discredit it.

In response, I offer you a single citation [0].

0 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)

~~~
mmmnop
The fact that you created a new anonymous account to do nothing more than name
call stands as a simple enough way you discredited...you.

McCarthyism was intolerance, not an intolerance of intolerance. It's ironic to
have to explain simple type theory here.

Or maybe not.

~~~
antifasci
And yet, the 'intolerance' that you're so intolerant of goes without citation,
without explanation, without discussion. Strikes me as blatant McCarthyism.

Perhaps my account is anonymous because the comment should stand on its own?
The discussion surrounding this issue shouldn't require personal reputation.
The facts should be sufficient.

~~~
philwelch
I thought the McCarthyists were the ones blacklisting people over their
political beliefs?

------
dham
This may not be a very popular belief but I honestly don't care what other
people believe/think/worship/do as long as it doesn't harm any one else or me.
I have extreme liberals on my Twitter feed as do I have extreme conservatives.
People post stuff every now and again that kind of turns me off, but I still
follow them because they have good stuff to say tech wise. I'm always open
minded to what they post though.

In our profession we can't always work with the most open minded
people(politically) but as long as the work gets done and they are open minded
technically that's all that matters to me. I work with and hang out with
people I don't agree with on certain things, drink beer, go over for dinner.
No issue for me. I'm Libertarian, so politically I have something I can agree
with on both sides usually.

As long as this guy doesn't give any hate speech or harm someone then I
honestly don't see the problem.

