Mine has been that contributors (authors, editors, performers, researchers, etc) increase information content, complexity. Kind of a information theoretic metaphor, not that I truly grok that discipline.
1. Please prove he pointed a gun at them.
2. People literally called the cops TO his location in the first place because he was sitting on a park bench eating. What is wrong with this picture?
3. He was shot 40 times. What is wrong with this picture?
4. The cop immediately called his union rep before an ambulance. What is wrong with this picture?
You are right they must be lying, it seems more likely that some random cops heard on radio that a guy was sitting on a bench eating and they just thought "let's go kill some guy eating in a park today".
1. The political compass is oversimplified and not taken seriously by political scientists
2. This has nothing to do with his argument. In the US, surveillance is largely the product of moral panics, primarily 1. The red scare 2. The race scare 3. The drug scare, which itself is really just a synthesis of 1 and 2; the drug war was essentially invented to attack black and Latino communities as well as anti government "subversives." Maybe that's not true in EVERY state that has used mass surveillance, but it is true in the specific case of the US.
You're misunderstanding the Doomsday argument. There is no cap, nor does humanity have to disappear overnight. In fact it makes no claims about how humans will go extinct.
What is the correct interpretation of the "doomsday" but the point at which our population growth becomes statistically likely to stop. If we have any other model for population growth, the ability to finger a likely date for maximum population tends towards zero. What am I misunderstanding?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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."
> 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.
But Marxists, they're cool right? Edgy even! If you want to hold these standards and exclude someone like Moldbug, fine by me. But if you do that there, do it consistently.
Newsflash: Che Guevera executed blacks, gays, nuns, and more in cold blood; his face is now considered a bland apparel decoration. Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and Mengistu and many others killed and caused the deaths of 10s of millions of human beings, far more than Nazis could hope for. Marxism has never gone out of fashion on the left, and prominent tech speakers display their Marxist colors proudly.
Who will boycott them and stand for the memory of the millions killed in Marxist suppression, genocide, and famine?
It is two thousand and sixteen in the year of our Lord. Redbaiting doesn't work any more; McCarthy is death. Screaming "BUT WILL SOMEONE JUST THINK ABOUT THE VILE, VILE COMMUNISTS?" at every turn to suppress dissent no longer works. It is an evasionist tactic.
You've missed the point. Namely: If one person's semi-trollish advocacy of monarchy under a pseudonym several years ago means he's too dangerous to be allowed to speak at a tech conference, then surely other people's absolutely sincere advocacy of Communism under their own names, today, would make them even more dangerous, and they should also be barred from speaking... right?
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.
>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.
