Really surprised this hasn't gotten more traction here, as it seems to be right in HN's wheelhouse.
I hadn't heard of Curtis Yarvin or his online nom de plume until yesterday, but this statement is completely unconvincing on why someone whose presentation passed a pretty thorough review process should be disinvited for essentially unrelated political writings.
As Alex Payne (@al3x) helpfully explains [1], those calling for Yarvin's talk invitation to be rescinded didn't do so because of politics—oh, no—but because of hate. You see, it's important to be inclusive, even of "far-right" views, but we should draw the line at hate. "Hate has no place in the Strange Loop community, nor in any community with a future." And who gets to determine which beliefs cross the line from merely "uncomfortable," or even "fascistic," to truly hateful? Why, Alex Payne! And the rest of the Thought Police.
Virtually every tech conference operating today is a vehicle for progressive ideology. But since virtually everyone is a progressive, attendees hardly notice, like a fish not noticing water. Consider, for example, this egregious talk, which can reasonably be summarized as "the liberal arts have done a good job at decreasing the relative proportion of white men, and we in technology should learn from their example":
When "tech" conferences include talks like "Empathy & Gender Diversity: AMA," I'm afraid the pattern is clear.
We in tech are going to have to make a decision about whether we want this process to continue. It's already rather badly violating some cherished liberal principles, such as the policy of offering need-based scholarships to worthy recipients, but only to members of favored underrepresented groups. In other words, poor white and Asian men are out of luck. This policy is being pursued by organizations such as the Y Combinator–backed Recurse Center [1] and by the Strange Loop conference itself [2]. Perhaps we need a fork: in addition to the current events, with their trigger warnings and diversity agendas, maybe we need events that say, "This event is open to anyone. We are all adults here, so if you hear something that upsets you, leave the room or take it in stride. And this is a tech event, so please leave your politics at the door."
I have a friend who is a level-headed critical thinker that reads a lot more than I do, who did read Moldbug when he was publishing, and he still hates Moldbug and I can hear the blood start boiling when I ask him to explain why. I won't ask again.
One of the sad facts of the internet is, whether you are the one saying "[X person] is a racist" or "[X person] is not a bigot", to the casual observer all they see is (conversation) "[X person] blah blah racist bigot."
I can understand why this decision was made, even if I don't agree with it. The people calling out Yarvin would have made it uncomfortable for everyone. So, go ahead and get on with your conference then.
I hadn't heard of Curtis Yarvin or his online nom de plume until yesterday, but this statement is completely unconvincing on why someone whose presentation passed a pretty thorough review process should be disinvited for essentially unrelated political writings.