Thought experiment: is there any extremity of leftist (or progressive if you prefer) thinking (say, on a personal blog) that could conceivably get one disinvited to speak on a technical topic at a conference of this sort?
The more left-wing you are, the more society will reward you. For example, I was never really able to get a good job until after I had spent a bunch of time doing radical left-wing activism. Around age 27, I helped organize thousands of people to stage protests in Manhattan. I ran subversive media campaigns. I openly called for an anarchist-communist revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Regime (which is ironic if you consider that America is already a communist country.)
All these experiences helped me get socially connected with a lot of powerful and important people. They all loved me. I even put the fact that I engaged in this sort of troublemaking on my resume. I'm not kidding. I even talked about it at job interviews. Stuff like this impresses people. There's no doubt in my mind that it led to my current level of success, writing code for a living.
It depends on what you call left. I bet someone that seriously proposed violence against some institutions or industries would get disinvited. Animal rights extremists or eco-terrorist organizations might fit that bill too.
As a counterexample? Does he fit here? Does he speak mostly on politics rather than other topics? Then again, his political beliefs/actions are so polarizing that maybe it's hard to separate them from his work in other areas (somewhat akin to what the organizers of Strangeloop claim in their case.)
Does Noam Chomsky get heat for his political views? I was amused when I realized the Chomsky I'd heard about in CS classes was the same person I'd read about in political news. I guess his views are more palatable to the people criticizing Mr. Yarvin.
I would say that if being part of a bombing campaign isn't an impediment to becoming a Distinguished Professor at UIC, then being part of a bombing campaign isn't enough to get him disinvited from StrangeLoop either, however many astonished tweets might have greeted his appearance on the program: becuase, in that case, it would have been easy for the organizers to separate his political thought from his educational thought. Of course that's speculation on my part.
Just playing devils advocate, he had renounced violence by the time he joined academia hadn't he? He wasn't Carlos the Jackal. Honestly, I can't remember the whole weathermen story.
This whole episode does make you wonder where the line would be drawn in the future.
Indeed, but I believe the unfortunate timing makes the lack of reaction to this article even more of interest. Juxtapose that with the leaders of our ruling class singing the very militant Battle Hymn of the Republic in the National Cathedral five days later (http://www.mrrhoads.com/national-cathedral-dc-battle-hymn-of...)....
I think in Chomsky's case his work in linguistics actually overshadows his political work because he is so foundational.
I wonder how popular Chomsky's radical left views actually are among techies...assuming what I hear about libertarian views being prevalent...its not necessarily a natural fit.
And somewhat discredited at this point? I don't care to write up a bunch, but his ideas about universal grammar built on genetic properties have not fared well over the years. I know he's done other stuff, but that seems his main claim to fame, excluding the political stuff.
It is absolutely unimaginable that Chomsky might be uninvited from any conference for anything he has ever said (one piquant example: defense of the Khmer Rouge).
Let's face it: the window of conference political acceptability covers the point -infinity. We know the upper bound is finite, and shrinking.
