Post 9tmhmlkYdAyPL4h6Ya by strypey@libranet.de
(DIR) More posts by strypey@libranet.de
(DIR) Post #9juNArJHxTi9jbxsw4 by strypey@libranet.de
2019-06-16T11:45:49Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@silverwizard My personal biases say "fuck that guy". But if I was running a conference I would have a responsibility to transcend my personal biases. If someone has a history of harassing women (for example), that might be a reason to bar them from attending the event. But nothing that wouldn't stop them attending at all ought to stop them being a speaker. Evaluating the wisdom of this decision requires considering whether you'd still support the decision if it was the opposite; a tech conference committee with a majority of members who happen to be more conservative delisting a speaker for having a pro-choice voting record. Because this decisions sets a dangerous precedent that creates the potential for exactly that.EDIT: for clarity of intent
(DIR) Post #9juNArWl9OUEPOGdvs by hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com
2019-06-16T12:59:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @silverwizard I don't think that saying you're ready to betray your personal values for any reason sounds as good as you think it does. Actual conservative conferences have a long account on considering speakers only for their views, popularity and optics, not for any expertise whatsoever. There's no "potential for that", it's already happening, which throws the "dangerous precedent" argument out of the window.
(DIR) Post #9juNArgKZo8ut4kHqq by strypey@libranet.de
2019-06-16T13:33:17Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@hypolite @silverwizard My "personal values" are just that; my personal values. I'm vegan and I consider enslaving and killing animals for food to be morally wrong. If I was on the committee of a tech conference and tried to stop someone from being a speaker because they ate meat, I would be quite rightly told to fuck off. If it was an animal rights conference, that might be a different story. But even then, a meat-eating guest speaker who was coming to educate animal rights activists about improving our opsec would probably be tolerated because that's the pragmatic thing to do.Whether or not someone is pro-choice (which I am) or pro-life has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they can present useful information at a security conference. Nothing. When you look into the gory details of cases like this, it generally turns out that the real reason they were barred from speaking has more to do with personal conflicts or faction fights, and the political reason given is just an excuse. One that will create enough arguments over the unrelated issue to distract people from investigating the real reason. The conflict between the founder of the Libreboot project and FSF/GNU Project a wee while back is a textbook case.
(DIR) Post #9juNArsNqzmfUSNudc by hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com
2019-06-16T13:35:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @silverwizard Thank you for clarifying, my opinion doesn't change, saying that a tech conference has nothing to do with any politics is by itself a political stance. And picking speakers only on their perceived technical merits is a form of discrimination that assumes all attendees can and will overlook everything about speakers except the technical content of their presentation.To expand on my earlier comment, a conference is mainly about humans. Technical content can be gathered online, only conferences bring human interactions, through live presentations and networking mixers. If your goal isn't to make all attendees comfortable interacting with each other, it is again a political choice that has nothing to do with tech but has real consequences, like perpetuating the existing domination structures and de facto excluding minorities from your event.
(DIR) Post #9juNAs6Z0H7uCR1Ejw by strypey@libranet.de
2019-06-16T13:57:41Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@hypolite @silverwizard You're talking about this guy like he's a Grand Wizard of the KKK or something. Being pro-life, while on the wrong side of history (IMHO), is just an opinion. Just like being anti-gun-control, or supporting prohibition, or being pro-censorship. All things that go against my personal values, but I wouldn't support barring people from a tech conference, or from speaking, for those reasons either. The whole point of having tech conferences is to talk about tech with people from a wide variety of backgrounds, so that useful information isn't stuck in silos. Anyone who can't handle being around people with different opinions is shit out of luck, because there isn't a single person out there who has exactly the same opinions as anyone else about everything.
(DIR) Post #9juPrj32kg82TFw000 by hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com
2019-06-16T14:57:29Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @silverwizard Except not all opinions are equal, which means the problem isn't "different opinions", but "harmful opinions". Furthermore, they generally don't exist independently of each other, which means that a public admission of a anti-abortion stance may be the tip of an iceberg made of other discriminatory opinions, making the person generally unwelcome in any social situation that doesn't entirely comprise like-minded folks.That you seem to care more about information not being stuck in silos than the well-being of tech conference attendees is unfortunate, but not uncommon in the tech world. I, for one, welcome this decision by the Blackhat Security conference committee to go against this regrettable tendency in tech to completely ignore its social aspect.
(DIR) Post #9jv2eGOHstRY2VRWF6 by silverwizard@friendica.obscuritus.ca
2019-06-16T16:13:39Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
I think, also, that being pro-life has some complications in American culture. It's very hard to be pro-life and not have other issues with women.Tech conference attendees who are men are easy to get. Tech conference attendees who are women are harder to get because of a culture of harassment and violence. The security community is also going through its own major political crisis of harassment (illwill and his harassment lists), so this kind of thing helps people attend.So, disinviting a person who was only invited because he was a political figure (he was a Senator, albiet a computer literate one), to help more technical people come to Black Hat makes sense. More tech people, fewer senators who make tech people uncomfortable.
(DIR) Post #9kmHn838f0llNLKMu8 by strypey@libranet.de
2019-07-12T10:40:29Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@hypolite @silverwizard > Except not all opinions are equal, which means the problem isn't "different opinions", but "harmful opinions". Anyone can designate opinions they disagree with as "harmful opinions". Opinions aren't harmful, only *actions* motivated by those opinions. If it's true that being pro-life extends to a general disrespect for woman (and I don't see why that follows), and he behaves disrespectfully towards women at the conference, then by all means cancel his speech and kick him out for that. But unless and until he does that, I don't see the harm in giving him the benefit of the doubt, that maybe his pro-life views are just uncritically absorbed from the people he generally spends time. In which case being at a tech conference with pro-choice people might actually contribute towards *changing* his views. People do that from time to time, but they can usually only do so when they have an opportunity to be exposed to people with contrasting points of view.> That you seem to care more about information not being stuck in silos than the well-being of tech conference attendeesThis is a totally circular argument, because the very thing I'm disagreeing with here is the proposition that being in proximity with people who have different opinions has any significant effect on anyone's wellbeing. It's also both a strawman and a guilt trip, and your need to resort to this kind of subtle bullying ploy simply underscores how weak your argument is.
(DIR) Post #9kmHn8FBwCPVyixzgu by hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com
2019-07-12T13:54:11Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @silverwizardOpinions aren't harmful, only *actions* motivated by those opinions.This is simply not true. If I say to you "you're a stupid faggot", it's an opinion, and whether it is based on facts or not, neither you nor disabled people nor gay people need to read it, because it is inherently harmful, because it is intended to be so.Granted, "pro-life" opinions are a little more refined than brash insults when it comes to their harmfulness, but the result is the same. At its core it's a blunt refusal to listen to women.the very thing I'm disagreeing with here is the proposition that being in proximity with people who have different opinions has any significant effect on anyone's wellbeing.That's great if your well-being has never been affected by anyone's opinions, but it's a little self-centered to assume that no one ever has. Coincidentally, it's perfectly in line with pro-life opinions that disregard actual experiences in favor of abstract principles.
(DIR) Post #9tmhmkFgCUgCh1Evmy by strypey@libranet.de
2020-03-07T08:41:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hypolite > Granted, "pro-life" opinions are a little more refined than brash insults when it comes to their harmfulness, but the result is the same.Opinions are not in any way the same as insults. As I've already said, if the guy went around saying insulting things to women, that would be ground for kicking him out of the conference even if he was pro-choice.> At its core it's a blunt refusal to listen to women.It would be, if it wasn't for the fact that there are heaps of women who are pro-life. So that makes it a blunt refusal to agree with the opinions of the women whose opinions you (and I) happen to agree with. See how this isn't nearly as black-and-white as you seem to think?> That's great if your well-being has never been affected by anyone's opinions, but it's a little self-centered to assume that no one ever has. Again with the guilt trips. You seem to think this strengthens your argument. Again, it just demonstrates your own lack of confidence in the merits of your arguments.But to address your point, I'll just redirect you back to my earlier comments about veganism. Being around people who are of the opinion that it's OK to murder and eat other creatures is something I struggle with every day. But my feelings are my responsibility. They don't give me the right to get speakers banned from tech conferences for being meat eaters. @silverwizard
(DIR) Post #9tmhmkgcaKEM2ZqRma by hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com
2020-03-07T12:16:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Opinions are not in any way the same as insults.Indeed, but they still can be harmful. If I say "Jews are running the world", it is an opinion that doesn't look like an insult, and yet it motivated people to perform mass murders in synagogues. If I say "I'm a woman-first radical feminist", it is an opinion that doesn't look like an insult, but in practice it rejects the very existence of trans women. Pro-life is in the same vein, it sounds positive like "I'm pro-life", but the underlying idea is that pregnant women should be forced to give birth, regardless of their own will. And the fact that women embrace this opinion doesn't make it any less harmful.If you compare veganism with anti-choice opinion, it's your opinion of course but there will be people like me who will have strong feelings about that. Veganism only affect yourself, while anti-choice is specifically about affecting other people's lives. And like @silverwizard said earlier, "It's very hard to be [anti-choice] and not have other issues with women."Again with the guilt trips. You seem to think this strengthens your argument. Again, it just demonstrates your own lack of confidence in the merits of your arguments.This isn't debate club here, buddy, there's no referee to count points. You pull that shit off again and I'll back the fuck out of this conversation.
(DIR) Post #9tmhmkyhV6gyweIsxk by strypey@libranet.de
2020-03-08T05:58:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hypolite > Veganism only affect yourselfWell, there are the millions of animals murdered every year so people can eat their corpses, after spending their entire lives in concentration camps. But yeah, other than them, veganism only affects me. So, someone having the opinion that eating meat is OK leads to death on a massive scale, but I'm supposed to just be cool with that. Someone having the opinion that abortion is wrong leads to people with the opposing opinion feeling uncomfortable, and that justifies excluding people with that opinion? I'm completely confused by the moral logic here.> You pull that shit off again and I'll back the fuck out of this conversation.No worries. You stop throwing in the guilt trips, and I'll stop pointing them out. Win-win for both of us.@silverwizard
(DIR) Post #9tmhmlEIZ7AXj1bLH6 by hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com
2020-03-08T06:28:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I'm completely confused by the moral logic here.Not surprising given that you give a surprising amount of value to bred animal deaths while caring unsurprisingly less about the comfort and well-being of your fellow humans.I believe we are done here. I can't reach to you and you will definitely not reach to me with tales of bred animal "genocide". It is wrong in its own right, but you simply can't compare with humans harming other humans.
(DIR) Post #9tmhmlkYdAyPL4h6Ya by strypey@libranet.de
2020-04-06T03:49:17Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
The problem is that this whole line of discussion requires you to be able to empathize with my worldview, and accept that my ethical framework is valid for me, even though it differs from yours. As it happens, so does the original discussion (requires you to accept that an anti-abortion's ethical framework is valid for them). It's clear that you're either unwilling to do that, or not (yet) capable of doing so. You seem to think that every ethical question has a black/ white, yes/ no answer, one that's objectively true for everyone. Therefore you think that people whose ethical framework is different from yours are objectively wrong, and it surprises and frustrates you that you can't convince them of anything by arguing from within your own ethical framework, unless they also share it. Good luck with that ;)@hypolite @silverwizard