In other words… There was a brouhaha here a couple years ago, about building a US radar base on some hill here. The opinions ran high and hot, both for and against, spinning the opposition of the base as traitors and exposing the state to Russian attack.
I wrote an article about it. It should be somewhere online, though not in English.
Should the opinion shown there - a grave matter of national security that inflamed many emotions - have any impact on my ability to give a presentation on e.g. machining or semiconductors?
Before the Revolution, if you spoke wrong about the Party, you could easily lose your job. Gods forbid if you’d write and publish something considered “wrong”. Your career could be easily ruined. Do I want to live in such world again? In a world where displeasing somebody - whether a local regime rat (before) or some guardian of ideological purity (now) - triggers complaints to employers, to conference organizers, to publishers?
Of course, this whole “let him speak” argument would be so much more compelling if Curtis Yarvin was some sort of Haskell superstar. But is he really notable in the field?
Of course not. And we totes agree on that. This dude ain’t speaking out against a party, but classes of people.
The bigotry you pointed out is the same bigotry this clown espouses. And to be as clear as my dumb mouth will let me, the state doesn’t get to allow me to say or not say something. But my peers, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances do.
The peer pressure to maintain conformity in opinions can be more oppressive than the state one.
The Chinese are now even attempting to gamify it.
And the principle is the same - should something you say in a field A influence your career in an unrelated field B? I say firmly not and I stay behind it. Whether the enforcers of the “right and proper” come from the top or the bottom, whether they are a state bureaucracy or a noisy mob.
You know, I believe that there is. I hope that there is. I really want everyone on our side in issues like this. I do believe that the only way out is through, and the only way through is together. I want us all on the right side of history here. It sucks when someone who is otherwise a valuable person isn’t.
I’m not saying that at all. Nowhere in my posts will you see me opine that the participants feelings don’t matter. I happen to think that they matter a great deal, if you must know.
(As I pointed out to the other poster, you’re kind of straw-manning me. Considering I never once said it was appropriate to invite the speaker, I don’t know where you get your "it’s all good, right?"s.)
Then again, I never said that is was inappropriate to invite him either. I guess the point I was trying to make is just a little too subtle for the group think that is boingboing.
If you really want to know, read my initial post. You’re smart enough to understand the point, as it’s not that complicated.
Apparently I’m now living in some kind of bizzarro world, where what one actually says is not nearly as important as what others wish you would have said so that they can demonstrate themselves sufficiently enlightened.
